Movie Review: Far from the Madding Crowd – A Choice Between Passion, Contentment and Comfort, Handled Masterfully

This is starting to feel like the year of the overblown movie. From the supercharged cars of Furious 7, to the bubbly animation of Home, all the way to epic superhero movies, every genre seems to be going to the extreme. Even the period romance is getting the steroid treatment. Far From The Madding Crowd is an adaptation of a Thomas Hardy novel, filled with lavish music, beautiful scenery and romantic action.

Far from the Madding Crowd is a romantic period drama that focuses on the young Bathsheba Everdene (Carey Mulligan), who is a woman ahead of her time. The story follows her through three different love interests. A sheep farmer, Gabriel Oaks (Matthias Schoenaerts), a wealthy older man (Michal Sheen) and a lady killing young soldier (Tom Sturridge).

While I like is that the writers stayed true to the story, while not dragging it out too long. Far From the Madding Crowd was made once in the 60’s, and was an hour longer. As far as I’m concerned, that was an hour too much. Despite the action in the story, like most Hardy novels, it’s deeply depressing and dragging it out too long makes it nearly unbearable.

Scaling back on the length of the movie was a wise decision on the part of the film makers, as they were able to put more into the costumes, scenery and settings. Another thing to note is that this is less of a story about love, and more a story on the importance of marrying well in Victorian England.

The 1967 version doesn’t quite seem to get that, as they make it all about a lo

ve affair between a woman and three very different men. This one captures the original intent a bit better. Bathsheba wasn’t just an empty headed flirt. She was an independent woman with money of her own, who wanted to marry for love. However, when she does, it results in disaster, before she finally goes with the guy she should have the entire time.

I didn’t spoiler alert that for a reason, by the way. If you haven’t gotten around to reading a novel that was written in 1895, you don’t deserve a spoiler alert.


Far from the madding crowd movie stills 2 - 14MAY2015

Far from the madding Crowd movie stills - 14MAY2015

Mulligan is a charming flirt, Schoenaerts is a supportive friend, Sheen is a manipulative rich man, and Sturridge is the torn romantic you love to hate. Not one single actor in this film laid down on the job and they all brought their characters to life in an effortless way.

The storyline is one of the most standard tropes in romance. A choice between passion, contentment and comfort, and it was handled masterfully in this edition. The lush landscape, powerful score, and intelligent dialog all serve to underscore one of Thomas Hardy’s most successful books.

This is an epically done period drama that currently only has limited release, which is a shame. If you’re a fan of the period drama, then this is one to see. It was done with intelligence and respect towards the original author’s work.

Official Movie Trailer and Movie Poster Below.

four and a half stars

[youtube id=”8CkLC4Zr2Mw” width=”680″ height=”383″]

Movie Review: Little Boy – The Writers Seemed Afraid to Give The Movie Any Edge

littleboy-mv-10 - 06MAY2015

Little Boy is a limited released faith based film, set in World War II. It’s the war seen though the eyes of a 7-year-old. While the premise has promise, sticky sentimentality and on the nose messages about tolerance turned it into a failed effort.

We start out by meeting Pepper (Jakob Salvati), a wide-eyed 7-year-old boy desperate for his father (Michael Rapaport) to return home from the war in the Pacific. Pepper is the subject of bullying at school and despair at home. This all sets up a pretty bleak picture. Add in an older Japanese man named Hashimoto (Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa), who is treated with suspicion and is shunned by the residents of the small California town this is set in, and you have the perfect recipe for a movie with a message.

Unfortunately, problems abound. The movie seemed to be afraid to ‘go there’ with its overall theme. Instead, it sands away the rough edges in order to give a pat, simplistic view of fear during war time. As a result, it doesn’t come across as realistic. Everyone is one dimensional, from Emily Watson playing Pepper’s saintly mother, to Hashimoto playing the patient, benevolent old man.

Right now is a great time to tackle an issue like this. After all, the fear and racism most Japanese American’s dealt with during World War II is similar to the fear and racism Muslims in America are dealing with now. It’s a complex issue, which has many layers that need to be examined.

Little Boy - 06MAY2015

Little Boy pic (2) - 06MAY2015

This film takes that complex issue and turns in into a simple “everyone should be nice to everyone, all the time.” While a sticky sweet theory, it doesn’t work so well in practice. What about racial profiling? What about sleeper cells, extremism and Guantanamo Bay? After all, there were Guantanamo Bay’s all over America during World War II. They were called Japanese Internment camps. None of this is portrayed in the film. Instead, everyone is one dimensional. No one really has a good motivation. They’re either a tolerant saint or a one dimensional bigot.

The unfortunate part of this is that it could have had a strong story line. One strong part of this film is the Seven Corporal Works of Mercy. I remember those from being brought up Roman Catholic and know they can make a strong storyline in and of themselves. It’s too bad that the writers seemed afraid to give the movie any edge. It sees things in black and white. People are either good or bad. That doesn’t work when you’re tying in a religious lesson. Instead, it just comes off as an overly long Sunday school lesson.

Also, in a movie that seems kind of ‘holier than thou’ the fact that the townspeople rejoice at the bombing of Hiroshima doesn’t ring true as godly. While casualties are a part of war, I think the deaths of 166,000 civilians should be treated with a bit more sensitivity, rather than proof that god exists.

WE GAVE IT: 2.5 Stars

2.5 Stars


[youtube id=”b_BdzqsIX6A” width=”680″ height=”383″]

Little-Boy-movie-poster_1 - 06MAY2015

Movie Review: The Age of Adeline – Harrison Ford’s Talent Not Enough to Overcome the Abysmal Job Done by The Leads


I’m not really a big fan of Blake Lively. With the exception of the crackhead she played in The Town, I find her kind of stone faced and empty. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of her roles could be recreated by a mannequin. Despite an intriguing premise, I find the Age of Adeline is no real exception.

Blake Lively plays the part of our title character, a 29-year-old who needs to pretend she’s sad that she’ll never turn thirty. Her ‘curse’ starts when she plows her car into a tree on a dark and stormy night. For the most part, she lives a happy, normal life, getting married and having a daughter. Then, when she’s supposed to be 45, and looks 25 (poor thing) she’s forced to go on the run. It goes on like this until she takes a job as a librarian and meets a man who pulls some kind of weird Indecent Proposal thing. Then, she has to decide whether to settle down or flee yet again. Add in the complication that she used to date this dude’s dad, and I would have run so fast I would have left my shadow behind.

The first problem with this film, again, is Blake Lively. She’s supposed to represent some kind of timeless glamour, but instead comes across as dead eyed and empty. She might have made a better vampire. At least then the storyline might have been a bit more plausible.



The next problem comes in with the love interest Ellis (Michiel Huisman). While he is a bit of a charmer, there was one major problem and that problem was his accent. Huisman is Dutch but he’s playing an American. And he sounds exactly like a Dutch person playing an American. The accent is not well covered.

Speaking of voices, Hugh Ross does the voiceover for this one, but the narrator’s tone doesn’t fit. It sounds a bit like an episode of Frontline. In a fantasy film, it just doesn’t work and tends to pull you out of the picture.

The one high point in this one was Harrison Ford. He gives off some true star power and despite the fact that he’s a secondary character, plays like a first tier one. He stole every scene that he was in with Lively, but that was hardly difficult. I’m pretty sure she was asleep through the majority of the film.

I think the film might have worked better with better acting. On its face, it’s a unique story with an interesting take. The problem comes in with the abysmal job done by the leads. From a dodgy American accent, to Blake Lively’s less than lively performance, the failure comes from the leads themselves.

This one might be one to skip. The effort made by the writers was not matched by the enthusiasm of the actors. Leads who sleepwalked through the movie made this a movie you want to sleep through. It’s a shame because I had high hopes for The Age of Adeline.

WE GAVE IT : 3 STARS!  Watch the Official Trailer and See the Official Movie Poster below


[youtube id=”clbSd2JzAqc” width=”633″ height=”356″]


Movie Review: True Story – Tailor Made for James Franco; Everyone Else Couldn’t Seem To Pull it Off.


I have a theory that you can’t throw a rock in Hollywood without hitting James Franco. For some reason, it feels like he’s in everything. While Franco is best known for his comedic roles, he’s been known to pull out a bit of drama as well. True Story does show some true talent from him, but not so much from fellow comedic actor Jonah Hill.

The movie is a bit of “In Cold Blood.” We have disgraced journalist Michael Finkel (Johan Hill), a man who has recently been fired from his prestigious job at The New York Times for fabricating details of a major story. In order to get his credibility back, he scores himself an interview with Christian Longo (James Franco) a high profile murderer in jail for killing his wife and children.

First off, True Story is based on a true story. The horrific killings occurred in 2001, when Longo’s wife and children were found murdered and floating in suitcases thrown into the Lint Slough, a waterway in Oregon. Longo fled to avoid prosecution and was eventually located and arrested in Mexico. He was sentenced to death in 2003.

The story occurs while Longo is on trial, and before he took responsibility for the killings. The manipulation between the two characters does bring back In Cold Blood, the major difference in this case being that Longo is a far more intelligent adversary.

What I particularly like about this story is how Finkel is portrayed. The movie was adapted from Michael Finkel’s own book on the subject. In that book, Finkel was particularly brave, portraying himself as arrogant, gullible and completely unethical. That’s not something journalists are really known for.

It doesn’t shine through into the film. While Hill has proven his chops as a dramatic actor, the feel of the character from Finkel’s book isn’t there. He comes across as flat, if a bit prickly and intolerable.



Playing Longo was a breakthrough role for Franco when it comes to dramatic acting. Anyone who knows the story knows that Longo got the press talking to him through manipulation and flattery. This is a skill he used to great effect on Finkel and in that portrayal, Franco becomes a man you love to hate. As the movie goes on, Franco keeps getting shiftier and slowly draws out the suspense. I’m impressed with any movie that can do this when everyone knows what happened anyway.

The shame here is Hill came across as blank and vapid, not playing a believable foil to Longo’s manipulation. The other side characters also seem a bit one note and many times, completely unnecessary.

True Story could have been a very good story. It seemed tailor made for James Franco. Everyone else can’t seem to pull it off. Just because we all know the ending doesn’t mean the story can’t have a great amount of suspense. It seems like Franco was the only one who understood that.

Due to that, this became a bit of a disappointing effort. Two funny men tried to do drama, but only one really pulled it off.

WE GAVE IT: 3.5 Stars – Watch the Official Trailer and Official Movie Poster below!

3.5 stars



[youtube id=”Y_NiP_bqlns” width=”639″ height=”383″]


Movie Review: Black or White (2015) – A realistic portrayal of a custody battle

11FEB2015 - 4

Usually, I’m not a big one for parental custody movies. I might be the one person on the face of the earth that didn’t like War of the Roses or Losing Isaiah. But I think in this case, I’m willing to make an exception, simply due to my deep, abiding love for Kevin Costner.

This is a parental custody movie with a twist. Successful attorney Elliot Anderson (Kevin Costner) is a new widower who has just lost his wife in a car crash. Complicating matters is the fact that he has been raising his bi-racial granddaughter Eloise ever since her mother, his daughter, died in child birth. Conflict abounds when Rowena (Octavia Spencer) insists that custody be granted to Eloise’s father, her drug addicted son Reggie (Andre Holland). Elliot isn’t interested, especially seeing he blames Reggie for the death of his daughter. This starts a family feud that leads to a knock down drag out custody battle.

One thing I really, really like about this movie is no one is an outright villain. Elliot is stubborn and unable to forgive. Rowena wants to be part of her granddaughter’s life, but refuses to see what a mess her son is and how dangerous that could be for Eloise. Reggie is a crack addict that Elliot just can’t forgive, even though he faces his own addiction problems himself. This is a realistic portrayal of a custody battle. Both sides have their strong points and no one person is an evil villain. Despite the title, this argument is not one that is black or white.

11FEB2015 - 5

11FEB2015 - 3

Another thing I liked was that the movie didn’t strictly focus on the racial difference. They weren’t ignored, but they weren’t the central part of the story. Instead, the story was based on each family thinking they could provide a better home for little Eloise. Race was mentioned, but unlike in Losing Isaiah, they didn’t make it the central focus of the argument. Instead, it showed both the good and the bad of each side of the family. Elliot might have been a privileged man, but his home was huge and empty and he used booze to mask his problems. Rowena offered a huge family and community, but she also lived in a rough neighborhood where the pampered Eloise wouldn’t necessarily feel comfortable, and she turned a blind eye to her son’s very serious problems, likely enabling him even more.

Eloise was actually portrayed like a little kid. She didn’t spew ‘wise beyond her years’ wisdom and life lessons at every turn. Instead, she was a happy little girl who was genuinely enjoying the attention she got from all sides of her family. It was easy to see why the families each wanted custody of her.

All in all, I think it was very well done. It was hardly perfect, and some of the additions seemed unnecessary. Like the math tutor who’s some kind of super genius…and also lost his entire family when his village was attacked in his home land. I get that they wanted to put in a positive portrayal of a person who lived in poverty, but the tutor was a bit too on the nose. They might as well have given him wings and a halo.

Costner’s depiction of an alcoholic wasn’t particularly good either. That could have used some work. But in general, this was a good movie and might possibly be the first custody battle movie that I actually liked.

WE GAVE IT: 4 Stars – Watch the Official Trailer and Official Movie Poster below!

4 stars


[youtube id=”yqlE-7PP7Ho” width=”680″ height=”356″]

11FEB2015 - 6

Movie Review: Strange Magic – A confusing score and an even more bewildering plot line.


I’m really looking forward to the day when movies go back to being movies and stop being musicals. I’m not a very big music girl. In fact, despite the fact that I am a fan of Glee, I don’t watch it for the music. I actually fast forward through the music and watch it for the storyline.

Without the music, it’s approximately 7 minutes long.

So generally, I try to avoid movies that feature a lot of singing in them. Heck, I’m the one person left on the planet who hasn’t seen Frozen and never intends to see it. With how much I’ve been forced to listen to the song Let It Go, I already feel like I’ve caught all the high points anyway.

But I decided to give Strange Magic a shot. Not because it’s a musical, but because it’s by George Lucas. This is a mad cap fairytale that is loosely based on Shakespeare’s A Midsummer’s Nights Dream. This is a land divided. On one side, there is the beautiful fairy kingdom, ruled by a King (Alfred Molina) with two daughters. The oldest is Marianne (Evan Rachel Wood), who is still recovering from getting her heart broken by Roland (Sam Palladio), the man she was getting ready to marry. On the flipside, Dawn, the youngest daughter, played by Meredith Anne Bull, is the exact opposite and spends her time flirting with her best friend Sunny (Elijjah Kelley). The other side is made up of the Dark Forest, which is kind of what you’d expect a dark forest to be. The evil Bog King (Alan Cumming) has kidnapped the sugar plum fairy (Kristin Chenoweth), and now the fairies are fighting to get her back.

The movie is a bit convoluted and I had a bit of a hard time seeing any inspiration from A Midsummer’s Nights Dream, with the exception of a fairy who makes love potions. It was a bit confusing, which isn’t really good when your target audience is under 12.

I will say the movie had a few laugh out loud moments. While critics have been panning it widely, I won’t call it terrible. The scenery is beautiful, the animation excellent and the characters are intriguing. The problem comes for the labyrinthine story line and the music, which felt a bit too Moulin Rouge for a kids movie.

Strange-Magic (1)


It’s a bizarre film but again, it’s not terrible. It’s just a bit drawn out. Dare I say it? I think this would have been way better without the music. When watching, you’ll repeatedly wonder why a specific song was chosen at a particular time. It’s like the person who chose the music hadn’t watched the movie.

A Midsummer’s Night Dream is already a convoluted story. Adding even more to it makes it far too messy. I mean, it’s Shakespeare. Why improve on Shakespeare? Just do the movie based on the original plot, without adding in a bunch of stuff or some important life lessons about how beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

A confusing score and an even more bewildering plot line don’t really make this movie the best it could be. I think the creators would have benefited from a ‘less is more’ stance on this one. If it had been simplified, I think the movie would have really shined. As it stands now, it’s a bit of a forgettable effort.

WE GAVE IT: 2.5 Stars

2.5 Stars



[youtube id=”YSrJiaZnPuU” width=”680″ height=”383″]


Movie Review: Mortdecai (2015) – A bit like Austin Powers…only not remotely funny.

31JAN2015 - 3I arrived at the theater knowing that this movie was going to have problems. No matter how good, people don’t tend to go to movies they can’t pronounce. It’s not that they fear said movie might be over their head. It’s just, when they’re talking on the phone to their friends, and telling them they’re going to see a movie, they don’t want to sound like an idiot. For example;

“Hey Essa, what’re you doing tonight?”

“Going to see Motouchy? Mordeashai? I don’t know. It’s that movie where Johnny Depp has another weird mustache.”


“That’s the one.”

Silly name aside, this movie had potential. Who doesn’t love a dashing art dealer and Johnny Depp in full character mode? In fact, this is a role that seamed custom made for Johnny Depp, much like his instant gold hit with Jack Sparrow. But in this case, something doesn’t work.

The premise is this. Mortdecai is in debt and he needs to climb out of it. When a valuable painting is stolen, a security agent agrees to let Mortdecai off the hook if he helps track down the crooks, who also have ties to terrorism. Mortdecai takes the job and wife Johanna (Gwyneth Paltrow) comes along to help. This premise is based on one of the books in the Mortdecai series “Don’t Point That Thing at Me.” I have to say, the books were far better than the movie adaptation.

31JAN2015 - 4

31JAN2015 - 2

For some reason, Mordecai felt really cartoony. That would usually work fine, but for the fact that no one else felt cartoony. It was like Depp was living in his own alternate reality, while everyone else was in real reality. He went too far with the character and turned him into a caricature instead. When you toss in a lot of adult humor, with a main character who feels like a cartoon, things just get uncomfortable. I have to say, it’s a bit like Austin Powers…only not remotely funny.

Also, Gwyneth Paltrow is not designed for comedy. Sure, she might be ok in romantic comedies, but straight comedy is not her forte. I feel like her part would have been better played by an unknown. This is a movie that requires the ability to do gross out humor and Paltrow seemed unwilling to let go.

The cast flopped between trying too hard or not trying hard enough. Nobody hit the nail on the head.

It’s a strange movie to find an audience for. While the characters themselves feel like they were designed for children, the constant sex jokes and curse words give this movie an R Rating. That means that the audience who might have liked it, teens, are left out of the loop, while most adults would just find it stupid.

This might just be the flop of the year. The studio apparently had big dreams for it, indicating that they felt it would become a franchise along the lines of The Pink Panther. But after earning only a paltry $4 million, which isn’t even half of Depp’s fee, this movie is nothing short of a disaster. It’s slowly sinking down at the box office, holding the 9th spot, but it’s probably likely that the movie will disappear entirely after only a few more days.

We Gave it: 1 Star: Official Movie Trailer and Movie Poster Below

1 star

[youtube id=”aW_sfxUnbZA” width=”680″ height=”383″]


Movie Review: American Sniper – Hollywood Propaganda turns a true Tragic story to one of Triumph.

american sniper movie review

American Sniper is seeing completely unprecedented success, earning over $90 million and holding the top box office spot this month. So what’s making it so popular?

U.S. Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) has been shipped off to Iraq with one goal in mind. Protect his fellow soldiers with his handy, dandy sniper rifle. After saving tons of people without being seen, he earns himself the nickname “Legend”. In the sniper world, the last thing you want it to have a reputation of being the best, because it tends to put a big fat bulls-eye on your back. Despite the threat from insurgents behind enemy lines, Chris serves four tours in Iraq. Of course, then he returns home and realizes that he can’t leave behind the war.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why this movie is doing so good. This is not a storyline that hasn’t been done to death. In fact, soldier coming home stories make up about 80% of the action market. Think about it. The hero is almost always a former cop or former soldier, with nothing to lose, who can’t let go of his bloodthirsty days with his license to kill.

American Sniper the butcher

american sniper movie review 2

This is not one of Clint Eastwood’s best films. In fact, it reeks of something I hate; the propaganda machine. Kyle, based on the real Chris Kyle, is a one dimensional machine who views all the residents of the land he comes to conquer as savages. He signed up for the military after being served a heaping portion of patriotism after 9-11. He is the requisite soldier. Just smart enough to kill people, but not smart enough to question those kills.

I really don’t like the way they treated this story. A shallow look at his PTSD at the end does not a redeemable character make. The real Chris Kyle was a story of tragedy, not a story of triumph over adversity. It’s the story of a man who got handed a raw deal and fell apart because of that.

The real Chris Kyle was probably a lot more conflicted than this movie let on. I doubt he thought “Your rifle is only a tool. It is a hard heart that kills,” which was an incredibly unfortunate and insensitive tagline. Yes, the man was a legend, with 160 confirmed kills and the deadliest sniper in American history.

But he was also a man and I don’t think we saw enough of that. This movie was based on Kyle’s best selling book of the same name, and here’s the thing. It didn’t need to be embellished. His story was good in its own right. They didn’t need to create a bad guy so he could have a cat-and-mouse style relationship with him. But they did and the propaganda machine went into full effect.

Kyle’s book was a story of redemption and understanding. It was not an excuse to trick kids into enlisting, which is kind of what I feel like this was. Honestly, I thought Clint Eastwood was supposed to be a Libertarian? I’m questioning that now, because this movie feels like it was written by Dick Cheney.

American Sniper is breaking records everywhere, and it just broke another one. It sent Essa Alroc’s bullshit meter right off the charts.

WE GAVE IT: 3.5 Stars – Watch the Official Trailer and Official Movie Poster below!

3.5 stars


[youtube id=”99k3u9ay1gs” width=”639″ height=”383″]

American Sniper Official Movie Poster

Movie Review: The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death – A movie that feels like it should be scarey. It’s not.


January is kind of the graveyard for new releases. For some reason or another, people don’t tend to head out to the movies a lot in January. Generally, I dread the movies that come out in January for one of two reasons. Either they’re terrible and the studio was trying to hide their release, or they’re wonderful but will never see the audience they deserve. When it comes to The Woman in Black 2, I have to say, the issue is decidedly the first one.

We start out the movie with a group of displaced orphans. The caretakers Eve (Phoebe Fox) and Jean (Helen McCrory) are forced to bring everyone to the desolate and eerie British countryside. Of course, it isn’t long before Eve starts to realize that the house is not as safe as it seems. With the help of a handsome pilot (Jeremy Irvine), Eve begins to investigate. Soon, she learns her reason for being at the house might not entirely be coincidental.

The entire movie drags. It drags in the beginning and it drags during the investigation. By the time the real scares show up, I was already yawning and barely paying attention.

I’m not sure why the phrase “Angel of Death” appears at all. Apparently, the woman in black is the Angel of Death? If so, maybe she should stop creeping around and actually kill some people. Just a thought. After all, the angel of death is kind of supposed to be all business. This lady is too busy stalking people to actually get anything done.



The movie is redundant, dour and drab. While it does have some genuine chills in the first half, it slows down and just delivers a horror atmosphere without actually being a horror. One thing I hate about horror movies is when they rely on jump scares. They’re the movie equivalent of the bad guy coming out and screaming ‘boo.’

To anyone who has ever had an older brother, you will know that only works for so long, until eventually you are completely numb to all surprises. There are other ways to scare people besides jump scares. Heck, the right sentence can give people more chills than a jump scare. In evidence of this, I submit the infamous line “the calls are coming from inside the house.”

They probably could have called this movie ‘generic horror movie’ and lost absolutely none of the effect. That’s what it was. From the creaky Victorian mansion, to the equally creepy little kid, the movie played out exactly as you suspected it would, with no surprises at all.

I will say it’s stylish and the atmosphere was well done. This was clearly an expensive movie to make. But I imagine it would have been a lot better if they’d actually thrown some genuine scares in there.

It’s a shame that the original is so much better than the sequel. The movie started off promising, but fell flat at the halfway mark. It’s a movie that feels like it should be scary, but isn’t.

WE GAVE IT: 2.5 Stars

2.5 Stars


[youtube id=”eYk0slXSY6s” width=”680″ height=”383″]


Movie Review: Unbroken (2014) – You’ll find yourself yawning even as the bullets fly


Christmas week was the week of diverse releases. We had the cute and quirky musical Into the Woods, we had the gross out comedy The Interview, and now we have the epic tale of an Olympic Athlete and former POW, Louis Zamperini, in Unbroken.

Unbroken follows the life of Louis Zamperini (Jack O’Connell), who was taken captive by the Japanese Navy after surviving on a raft at sea for 47 days, following a near fatal plane crash. The former Olympic athlete is sent to a POW camp along with two other airmen. This is an epic story, based on the hugely popular book of the same name, which follows Zamperini from his childhood, all the way to his return from captivity.

I rarely accuse a movie of this, as the case is often the opposite, but this is a movie that tries way too hard. It doesn’t rest on its laurels, i.e. Zamperini’s life story. Instead, it focuses on becoming a story of redemption and triumph over adversity. That’s where the problems come in.


The fact is, this is already a story of redemption and survival. The subject of the film lived a full 97 years and came back alive from the war. That’s why a few scenes (some of which had to be made up) come in over the top. For example, one of the film’s most iconic moments, where the emaciated and fragile star lifts a heavy beam over his head while music swells in the background, is almost worthy of an eye roll.

For a movie with so much content, it’s surprisingly sluggish. A large part of the movie is made up of the time spent on the raft. I hate to say it, but while the idea that these guys survived on a raft so long is interesting, watching them float in the water for what feels like the entire 47 days eventually wears thin. The time at the POW camp is spent mainly over the star’s trials with a seemingly one dimensionally evil guard, while ignoring the suffering and the Zamperini’s own inner thought process.


One thing that makes the movie fail is the heavy reliance on flashbacks. It starts out at full momentum, with the clear intention of focusing on the life raft and time in the POW camp. But then flashback after flashback drags us out of the story and into Zamperini’s troubled childhood. While interesting, I feel like it would have been more interesting if told in a linear manner, rather than as an interruption.

Jolie proves herself to be a competent director, though probably not the best editor. In a 2 hour and 15 minutes run time, this movie drags in a lot of places, though those places are usually the flashback scenes. For the most part, her style of direction really does draw you into the picture. While it’s not genius, it is competent.

It’s a well made movie, based on an interesting story, but the over the top symbolism and focus on the star’s quiet strength rings false on more than one occasion. Adding in the flashbacks, this one is actually an exhausting movie to watch. At two hours, you’ll find yourself yawning even as the bullets fly.

Unbroken could have been broken up a bit, with a bit more linear storytelling and allowing the movie to rest on its own subject matter. While it’s not the best movie I’ve ever seen, I do have to give it an A for effort.

WE GAVE IT : 3 STARS!  Watch the Official Trailer and See the Official Movie Poster below



[youtube id=”_OEyRSoegIc” width=”633″ height=”356″]