Jolie’s film not ‘broken’ but not great

Will “Unbroken,” the new movie about the trials and tribulations suffered by American Olympian Louis Zamperini during World War II, be remembered for its story and subject matter, or because it’s the second feature film directed by none other than Angelina Jolie? It is, in fact, a reasonable question, because although the story of Zamperini, who died in July at the age of 97, is a powerful one, the movie itself is strongly representative of its Helmer, who is still finding her way as a filmmaker.

That isn’t to say Zamperini’s story isn’t remarkable; it is, most certainly. But in this case, it’s a story that isn’t consistently well told. It’s at its strongest when it’s unflinching, but it does give in to sentimentality and goes on far too long. It’s the sort of movie that desperately wants to be taken seriously, a film that set out to be important, rather than relying on its strengths to actually be so.

Zamperini, who competed in the 1936 Berlin Olympics, is played here by Jack O’Connell, who suffers mightily for the role. The narrative, based on the book by Laura Hillenbrand, has four screenwriters credited, including Joel and Ethan Coen, and is fairly straightforward, though Louis’ early years, wherein he chose to take on distance running, rather than survive as a screw-up, are told through flashbacks.

As a bombardier during World War II, he saw plenty of action, but it was a mission to find a missing plane that led to his unfortunate fate. After an ocean crash claimed the lives of most of his plane’s crew, Zamperini spent 47 days on a life raft, barely alive, before he was captured by the Japanese along with Phil Phillips (Domhnall Gleeson). (A third survivor of the crash died on day 33.) They were transferred to a prison camp, where Zamperini was singled out and repeatedly tortured by a guard known as The Bird (played by the single-named pop star Miyavi), before the war finally came to an end.

Jolie’s first feature, “In the Land of Blood and Honey,” also touched on themes of war and the horrors that accompany it. “Unbroken” is a far more assured movie, much more solid, but Jolie has a hard time exploring the world of Zamperini’s imprisonment. That in mind, the film’s first sections, that of his background, the crash itself and the extraordinary hardship of staying alive for that length of time on the open ocean, are powerful. They often feel like something Steven Spielberg might have once come up with, strong pieces of storytelling that rarely cross the line into manipulation.

Her cinematographer, Roger Deakins, one of the undisputed best in the business, has a hand in that, to be sure, but once Zamperini is in the talons of The Bird, the movie slows down and often drags. His sufferings and tortures, too, become almost rote, and O’Connell, a talented actor, isn’t given enough ways to express himself, forced instead to remain silent and stoical.

As a director, Jolie has great promise, because she is smart and daring and unafraid to tackle tough subjects, but she still needs to learn the difference between having extreme reverence for her subject matter and simply trying to tell the story she has set out to tell. There is such a thing as too much sincerity, and “Unbroken,” unfortunately, suffers from it.

Additionally, there’s a postscript, an addendum to the movie itself, which is so intriguing and unique that you might well wish you had seen it on screen. In many ways, that information, about Louis’ life after the war, sounds as surprisingly interesting as what he went through during the war itself, and it may be that his postwar life is what truly made Louis Zamperini an extraordinary individual. It’s too bad, then, that “Unbroken,” for all its trying, isn’t an extraordinary film.