Unbroken (2014)

Unbroken is the undeniably incredible true story of Louis Zamperini and also simultaneously the first directorial feature from mega-star Angelina Jolie; together these two aspects have given the film a lot of hype and it’s not hard to see why; both are commanding figures and together they have made for a rather compelling film, but what exactly makes it so intriguing? Make no mistake, there’s an over-abundance of World War 2 films in the film world (although I’m not exactly complaining as it was one of the more interesting times in history), especially here in America where we love to remember the last great ass-kicking we felt good about, but Unbroken isn’t exactly like your average World War 2 film. What sets this film apart, however, isn’t necessarily what is in the movie, but what isn’t.

I won’t waste time telling the story (that’s what watching the movie is for, after all) but suffice it to say Zamperini is the perfect picture of an American and a good Christian, or so he’s portrayed in the movie. He runs fast, he fights hard, and he survives, but if I have one major complaint about Unbroken, it’s that the film never really delves into what motivates the man. Why does Zamperini power on when so many have given up? It’s hard to even fathom the amount of determination that is required to survive what Zamperini went through, and I’m still mystified by it; don’t expect the movie to explain his motives, this is simply a show and tell story, but it is a fairly good one.

The most interesting aspect of this movie by far is the relationship between Zamperini and the POW camp leader, Watanabe; it almost seems as if Watanabe likes Zamperini, as if something attracts him to the young Olympic athlete, but he hates himself for it and he takes it out on Zamperini and the rest of the prisoners. I almost wish the movie had focused more on this dynamic as it is very intriguing, but it seems just a scene or two away from being complete.

As for the performances, both Jack O’connell and Takamasa Ishihara are on top of their game and they largely carry the film, albeit with some more than capable directing from Angelina Jolie. For her first film, this is most certainly an ambitious project and I have to say she mostly pulls it off. Does the film have its faults? Of course, as I mentioned earlier it doesn’t develop the characters as much as I would have liked and it didn’t necessarily excite me as much as it seems to have with others; also, I would have appreciated more of a more humanized look at the other Japanese guards and even some of the American prisoners, but this movie is solely about Zamperini and it does a very serviceable job of telling his story.

In the end, that’s exactly what Unbroken is, very solid and serviceable, but does it really make the audience feel something? I would say that would depend on your views going into the film more than what the movie itself evokes as far as emotions for the characters. Still, this is a great first effort and I’m excited to see Jolie’s next effort. Ultimately, this seems to be a film that will be remembered for launching the careers of Jack O’connel and Takamasa Ishihara respectively as well as Angelina Jolie’s directing career. However, I’m sure Zamperini would appreciate this biopic, it’s just a shame he wasn’t on this Earth quite long enough to see its release. 

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 7.75

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1809398/?ref_=nv_sr_1

The Purge: Anarchy (2014)

Well, it's better than the first one... That's about the best I can say about this film; it wasn't bad, which the first one definitely was, but it's still disappointing, although not as much as the original. Thankfully, we actually get to go outside for a change in this amped up version of the Purge, but in the end when the sirens sound and the bloodshed is over, I still left with a feeling that opportunities had been missed. 

The idea of the Purge is kind of intriguing, and the high-concept idea is the whole reason people flocked to go see the low-budget Ethan Hawke, Lena Heady version, but neither films seem to fully capitalize on this proposed scenario. The first film does a lot of uninteresting world-building (what a relief that we aren't forced to suffer through the same in this sequel) before turning into a run-of-the-mill home invasion flick. In the sequel, the filmmakers decide to toy with the idea of being stuck outside during the Purge, which admittedly makes for a lot more fast-paced, and action-packed film. 

However, the characters are neither likable or smart, rather they are simply annoying, and for the most part, rather useless. This does not include Frank Grillo's role, of course, the bad ass of the movie, who (for some unknown reason) decides to help only these specific four people caught outside on the worst of nights. I'll be honest, I like Frank Grillo (he was great in Captain America 2) but his character's main goal is rather cliche and ends in a confusing climax. That being said, I want to see him in more action roles, maybe not always as the lead, but he looks good kicking major ass on screen, that much I can't deny. 

One part of the movie I did really enjoy has to do with the subtitle "Anarchy." The poor and mistreated people, who are constantly being targeted for these purges by the rich (read: white), rise up and form their own army; the scene where they finally fight back and take revenge on the bureaucrats by beating them at their own game is very satisfying. Sadly, the movie doesn't focus enough on this and the whole political aspect is mostly botched, with people constantly spitting out clearly canned nonsense about the purge being their "American right." This is frustrating, because the whole time I couldn't help but think that in better hands this whole franchise could be so much more, however, at this rate, it's not even on the same level as the Hunger Games, a film that makes a lot of the same points, but in a more sophisticated manner.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 6.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975578/?ref_=nv_sr_1