Unbroken

It always proves a challenge to critique a true story. The writers for such movies often choose to stay truthful at the cost of “creative liberties” that might work better cinematically. How can I hold such honestly against those writers?

Unbroken covers the horrific, real life horrors that befell an American POW (Louis Zamperini, played by Jack O’Connell), while imprisoned in a Japanese camp.

This movie also concerns itself with the religious faith that delivered Zamperini through the ordeal.

How do I write about which of those horrors worked or didn’t onscreen?

However, I sit before my MacBook today as a critic of stories, not a professor of history. I must set aside these concerns. So I ask you, dear readers, to indulge a stipulation for this movie review:

We must pretend that Unbroken does not serve as a true story, that the actors who suffer in it do not represent real people. Otherwise, I cannot force myself to objectively view this movie’s merits and mistakes. Deal?

Fortunately, few mistakes exist. Let’s get those out of the way first.

This movie’s dialogue, for the first thirty minutes or so, seemed far too “on the nose.” Painfully so, at some points.

Worse, none of that dialogue proved necessary. The first thirty minutes of this movie would’ve worked just fine without a single word spoken. Watch those minutes on mute. See for yourself.

A stricter pace could’ve coaxed a better movie from this story. While this movie didn’t drag its feet (looking at you, Exodus), the movie would’ve moved a lot faster if the writers trimmed a little fat here and there. The fat never bored me, but it caused redundancies.

Every scene of our protagonist adrift on a raft; or in a tiny, prison cell; or in a larger prison cell; or in a coal mine-slash-prison cell effectively commanded an emotional response from its audience.

However, several of those scenes failed to offer anything different from their predecessors. The scenes worked, but they worked the first time. Trim out those redundancies (we’re talking maybe sixty seconds per series of related scenes), and you create a movie that runs smoother and perhaps twenty minutes quicker.

The writers should’ve spread out the flashback scenes, rather than toss them all at the audience at once and so early on.

And (deep breath) here I arrive where I really hate to go with a true story. Again, I choose to examine this movie’s cinematic qualities.

SPOILER ALERT! Skip the entire, next six paragraphs if you wish to avoid this movie’s conclusion, which I shall now share.

1) The American military arrives, at the end of this story, to rescue our hero and his fellow prisoners from their Japanese captors. Our hero does nothing to save himself.

2) I hate this sort of ending. We didn’t want to see the authorities discover that Andy, from The Shawshank Redemption, didn’t kill his wife and afterwards set him free from prison. We wanted Andy to either prove it, himself, or escape.

3) Likewise, I didn’t want to see our hero rescued. Yes, you can argue that the Zamperini saved himself spiritually and mentally, but that only goes so far.

4) I understand that our hero didn’t escape from the prison in real life. I understand (or at least reasonably suspect) that the writers wanted to stay true to the actual story. I respect that, but I can’t deny that this sort of ending leaves me unsatisfied.

5) I know how cold I sound when I express disappointment with Zamerini’s onscreen rescue. I wouldn’t prefer that the military never rescued Zamperini. I’m happy for the real person, but disappointed with the character on the screen.

6) "Martha wants a new car. Someone buys her one." A nice event for real life, but it serves as a poor story.

Now, we move to the good news.

Jack O’Connell performance amazed me.

Takamasa Ishihara seems born for his role of the Japanese soldier who terrorizes Zamerini.

The hair and make up departments ought to expect an Oscar for their part in this picture.

Did Connell actually lose all that weight to appear starved? If so, wow! My hat goes off to him. If the special effect people managed to make him look that skeletal . . . also wow.

The opening scene instantly sucks the audience into the movie.

Angelina Jolie makes countless, clever moves. A lot of consideration went into every shot, the position of every camera.

This movie says a lot about racism, and I feel pleased to report that it reached deeper than the usual, “Racism is ignorant." This movie allows its audience to view racists as victims of their environment.

An early scene shows Olympic athletes from different parts of the world while they treat each other with mutual respect. We also see American children split hairs amongst themselves as to who stands a “real” American and who “needs to go back home.”

Unbroken proves a fascinating, emotional story. It’s worth your time, but the director and writers could’ve made more efficient choices.

I would recommend it under normal circumstances, but in light of how many promising movies hit theaters this Christmas . . . I doubt Unbroken will stand at the top of the heap.

I publish my blogs as follows:

Mondays and Thursdays: Short stories at martinwolt.blogspot.com

Tuesdays: A look at the politics of the entertainment world at EntertainmentMicroscope.blogspot.com.

Wednesdays: An inside look at my novels (such as Daughters of Darkwana, which you can now find on Kindle) at Darkwana.blogspot.com

Fridays: Tips to improve your fiction at FictionFormula.blogspot.com

Sundays: Movie reviews at moviesmartinwolt.blogspot.com

The Hobbit: The Five Armies

I imagine that most of you arrived here only to compare notes with me and see how your opinion of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies differed from mine.

I don’t figure you came here to determine whether or not you should see the movie.

You either saw the first five Lord of the Ring movies (in which case you would almost certainly close the deal with the sixth and final chapter), or you did not see the other movies (in which case you wouldn’t likely start at the end).

I would first address the issue that most Lord of the Rings fans mention, that the movies added many new scenes and deleted several others in between the novel and films.

There exists little reason to tell the same story twice. Furthermore, what worked in the novel won’t necessarily work on screen. I consider it a safe bet, given his record, that Peter Jackson understands his craft, and that he added (or omitted) each applicable scene for respectable reasons.

People often suggest that Jackson added so much to his movies in an effort to draw three movies out of one book (The Hobbit), much as filmmakers did with the recently released Mockingjay: Part One (and shame on those filmmakers for it) just to squeeze more money from the franchise.

This suggestion proves ridiculous in regards to the Hobbit movies. Not a single scene in them comes across as quick, cheap, unnecessary, or lazy: a cash-grab's four symptoms.

(Some would argue the necessity of every scene in Five Armies, but I felt far removed from filler scenes).

Consider the lengths of the three Hobbit movies. If money motivated Jackson’s desire to stretch this story into three movies, why would he make each so damn long?

I hope that puts this issue to bed. Whether or not those extra scenes did anything to you as an individual viewer remains a debatable subject, but you can’t sensibly argue that the filmmakers only sought more money.

The plot of Five Armies surrounds a massive cluster-fu . . . um, cluster-mess that results when several nations decide they want access to the same mountain-perched city.

The dwarves want the city because it serves as the homeland from which they once faced eviction via a dragon.

The elves want it because some of the vast treasure inside the city belonged to them prior to the dragon’s thefts.

The humans need the shelter and treasure to survive and rebuild their lives after the dragon destroyed their village.

The orcs want it because the mountain offers a strategic position for the war they plan against everyone else.

The fifth army . . . you know, I stand uncertain who serves as the fifth army.

The shape-shifter and his eagles that eventually show up? The goblins who eventually show up? The orcs’ air force of giant bats that eventually shows up? The dwarves and hobbit hidden inside the mountain, who watch the war rage outside before they decide to show up?

These armies make and break alliances at the drop of a hat. Everyone turns on everyone else to get what he or she wants, though most of them can walk away with exactly what they want, given a little cooperation.

That sounds like a war to me. Chaos controlled by a select few who squabble and act in jealous haste, their citizenry forced to butcher each other until someone realizes the needlessness of it.

The dwarves don’t want the elves’ jewels. The elves don’t want the dwarves’ home. The mountain city and its treasures prove large enough to satisfy the needs (and wants) of the dwarves and humans.

The dragon represents a power vacuum. The beast spent years in its duties to terrorizes everyone around him and guard the mountain and its stolen treasures.

The dragon dies, and all that land and gold grow ripe for the taking. This could serve as a time of prosperity and healing for all parties—if they work together. Greed rears its ugly head, and the armies profitlessly clash.

Those who love war for the stench of blood (represented by the orcs) always exist. However, those people can only thrive in a divided world.

Once the other armies of Middle Earth (the movie’s setting) join forces, they quickly chase away those orcs.

I suppose one grievance remains noteworthy. I found—as I often do with fantasy—a suspicious lack of female characters. We see a few in the background, but only one, an elf, earns any legitimate screen time.

One man (the eventual leader of the human army) faces multiple dangers with the (unwelcome) aid of his young son. A few daughters belong to this same man. Imagine if one of those daughters took the son’s place in those scenes. I see no reason why not.

I always loved Bilbo Baggins as a character. He stands smaller and physically weaker than those around him, yet he rises to the occasion for all the right reasons. I consider his character arc perfect.

Actor, Martin Freeman plays a wonderful, believable version of Bilbo.

A scene that involves Bilbo, the dwarves’ holy stone, and what one does with the other (I won’t spoil the event here), makes me love Bilbo all the more.

Even if you don’t agree with Bilbo’s actions in the abovementioned scene, you must respect the logic, ethics, and bravery that fueled it.

The movie stays true to the book with regards to Bilbo’s actions (or lack thereof) while the final showdowns (and what magnificent, over-the-top showdowns they prove) occur.

Given my love of this character, though, I wanted to see something more happen with him at that time.

I hope that the orcs merely embody evil and do not serve to suggest that an entire race fits so easily into a single box.

The orcs exist as horrible, ugly, disfigured creatures. Again, I hope that this serves only to illustrate the ugliness of war and greed—not that someone’s looks define her or his character.

I would feel better about the orcs if I had watched the orcs suffer from birth in a world that trains, brainwashes, and abuses them into the killing machines they become, a suggestion that nurture shaped them, not nature.

I want evidence that the orcs’ environment (interchangeable between races), and not their DNA, define them and mold their behavior.

Yes, I split hairs and grasp at straws, but I want to offer more than a simple song of The Five Armies’s praises. I want to dig deeper into the property from a literary and political viewpoint.

Bottom line: Five Armies offers great fun, the product of hard work performed by filmmakers who care desperately about their product.

I approve. I recommend. I stand grateful for the experience.

Next week ought to usher in the return of the usual schedule for my blogs.

Mondays and Thursdays: Short stories at martinwolt.blogspot.com

Tuesdays: A look at the politics of the entertainment world at EntertainmentMicroscope.blogspot.com.

Wednesdays: An inside look at my novels (such as Daughters of Darkwana, which you can now find on Kindle at Darkwana.blogspot.com

Fridays: Tips to improve your fiction at FictionFormula.blogspot.com

Sundays: Movie reviews at moviesmartinwolt.blogspot.com

Thanks for reading! See you next time <wink>.

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Before I begin my review of Exodus: Gods and Kings, I need to explain why the release dates for my blogs turned all topsy-turvy this week.

I spent last weekend at an Army Reserve base in Cape Coral, Florida, and that pretty much smashed my schedule against the wall. This comes as something of an embarrassment, given my recent advice at Darkwana.blogspot.com, where I stressed the importance of a strict schedule for your blogs.

Expect my blogs to suffer, for the remainder of this week, a shuffling of release dates. This movie review, for example, should’ve appeared here yesterday, and a new post ought to have arrived today at martinwolt.blogspot.com.

Everything ought to return to its usual position next week.

Let’s start with the 800-pound gorilla in the living room. Yes, Exodus: Gods and Kings takes place in pharaonic Egypt, yet, if I felt compelled to describe its cast in terms of ice cream flavors, I would describe it as vanilla with vanilla swirl.

I think I spotted three black characters (I won’t call them African-American because . . . well, because they stood in pharaonic Egypt) in the background. I felt as if I had won a game of Where’s Waldo.

I refuse to get hung up this issue, mostly because everyone else feels especially hung up on it, so the subject appears more than covered. You can find a limitless collection of opinions on this subject online. Have at it.

I want to discuss the movie and not the color of the actors and actresses it contained.

Let’s enjoy our dessert first and review the good news.

A lot of creativity went into this film. The filmmakers produced several scenes that didn’t work at all, but they never felt lazy. You can’t create trial without error, and I like it when Hollywood takes chances.

I like that much of this movie remains a mystery. The audience walks away unsure if anything mystical really happened (think Troy). Did the plagues result from divine intervention or just an unlikely series of bizarre events?

Did Moses really talk to God, or did he just suffer delusions born of guilt and released via a head injury?

What difference would it make either way? Exodus stars Moses, not God. Anyone can serve as Moses’s mentor, even a delusion (think Ratatouille).

The movie offers gorgeous scenery, as well.

It’s time for vegetables. Bad news: This movies possesses a serious problem with its pace. It draws out scenes it could otherwise skip, and skips or rushes scenes that would’ve allowed for better character development.

I understand, as a minimalist, the challenge of concise writing and character development. It proved a challenge for the writers of Exodus and resulted in sudden, explosive changes between out two main characters that often jarred its audience.

Moses, for an unacceptably large portion of the movie, secretly trains the Hebrews for a rebellion (that never comes to pass) outside, in broad daylight, at some remote location, which begs questions such as “Couldn’t the Hebrews just walk away at any point? Nobody seems to keep an eye on them, or notice when they leave, or notice that they have weapons, or care what they do with all this free time that feels at odds with their identification as slaves.”

If I compare Exodus to the movie The Ten Commandments, I couldn’t help but notice the difference in the female characters.

The actresses who played the fully developed, female characters in Commandments (Moses’s wife, birthmother, adoptive mother, and Nefertari) gave wonderful performances. Exodus failed in this regard.

The blame shouldn’t rest with the actresses. The filmmakers give them little with which to work. Each actress repeats a couple lines and dose little else.

I discover a challenge in the recommendation of this movie, mostly because I remain uncertain of its audience, the people to whom I ought to recommend it.

Exodus seeks a rare audience, one that enjoys religious stories but won’t protest when such a movie deviates dramatically from its source material.

It often seems an action movie in the making, but never delivers the action.
It offers a Bible story that doesn’t follow the Bible, even portrays God as a childish bully.
The dialogue sounds philosophical, but the premise never reaches deeper than “slavery’s wrong.”
The movie often attempt romance, but fails in this regard, due to a lack of character development in Moses’s wife and the rush between their first meeting and subsequent marriage. Heck, the cartoon movie, The Price of Egypt, managed to rush this successfully with a simple, song-filled montage.

The subject of Moses’s marriage calls attention to yet another issue with this movie. Moses’s wife acts as only a prop (the other female characters serve as mere plot devices) who plays the boring role of the poor wife left at home to worry while her husband goes out and saves the day.

I understand that this acts as a metaphor for the spouses of soldiers sent overseas, and perhaps I would appreciate that more if I discovered myself in the shoes of such a soldier or spouse.
It would seem a nice change if, just once (and I understand this opportunity didn’t arise in the story of Exodus), we saw the husband wait and worry while the wife went off to battle.

I cannot identify which audience Exodus targets and thus cannot place myself in that audience’s shoes to decide whether or not to recommend this movie to them.

I can offer that Exodus proves an interesting movie to study for any inspiring filmmaker.
That said, its pace proves so tone-deaf that the average moviegoer ought to catch it on video, where they can enjoy some distraction where needed.

The Pyramid

<sigh> Next Tuesday’s post at EntertainmentMicroscope.blogspot.com centers around constructive criticism rather than sarcastic rants, so it won’t look good if I can’t practice what I preach with this review of The Pyramid.

However, that proves a challenge. This movie wasted 89 minutes of my life.

I wanted to see the Wild, but theaters in my area decided not to play it. I saw that some movie, about which I knew nothing, called The Pyramid would start within the next twenty minutes, so I made a purchase and a mistake.

Let’s discuss the many things this movie held in common with Prometheus.

Scientists who curiously cannot demonstrate that they possess two brain cells to rub together? Check.

Characters who perform senseless actions for no apparent reason? Check.

Unresolved mysteries? Check.

Women who hyperventilate, panic, stumble, fall, and cry a lot? Check.

Men who must slap said women (at least verbally) until those women discontinue their hysterical behavior? Check.

A pathetic moral premise that science shouldn't intrude in God's territory, because knowledge proves dangerous and we ought to leave some secrets in the dark? Check.

The plot: scientists go somewhere and . . . um, monster? Check.

Grievous injuries that each ought to kill a character in fewer than two seconds but somehow only manage to hurt them and only when structurally convenient? Check (Best example: A monster literally rips out one character’s heart, and that characters lives and even speaks for another fifteen minutes or so).

(I often find myself guilt of this last one in my own writing.)

            A group of characters in The Pyramid: two Egyptologists (who know suspiciously little about Egyptology and love to demonstrate their lack of knowledge via their actions and misinformation) a robot guy, and two reporters (whose shared role in the movie remains to inform the other characters and audience members that the situation feels unpleasant) venture into a never before explored, Egyptian pyramid.

The filmmakers made The Pyramid as a Found Footage movie, though it seems they never informed their script supervisor. Several scenes take place in such a fashion that no explanation exists as to who shot that footage or how.

No reason exists why anyone shot this movie as Found Footage, anyway. It feels like an ill-conceived, last minute gimmick.

Once these characters enter the pyramid, mayhem ensues. Booby-traps and monsters, but no plot beyond, “Boy. We should get out of here.”

Skeletal, cat-sized rats try to eat the characters, but the story offers little explanation for their existence (the rats or their meals).

My own fiction often basks under the glow of its own ridiculousness, so it felt only fair that I played along, but I couldn’t sense the slightest interest on the filmmakers’ parts to actually entertain anyone.

The Pyramid marks time, drags its feet, reiterates the information that its audience already knows. The goal of a 89-minute movie seems the only perceivable motive for this behavior.

The filmmakers realize, towards the end of their disaster, that they need some sort of actual plot, and they propose what follows.

I would offer a spoiler warning, but . . . would I spoil the war for you if I warned you about that landmine in your path?

The “plot” runs as follows—oh, and the characters figure this out because they read the literal writing on the walls and find a Freemason's diary in this pyramid that spent thousands of years sealed away and buried.

Anubis (yes, that Anubis, Egyptian god) demanded too many sacrifices, so everyone in ancient Egypt sealed Him away in a pyramid.

These ancient Egyptians built this pyramid with a trick wall to hide Anubis’s private room from all those people who would never set foot inside the pyramid, and then wrote explanations on the wall because . . . <shrug?>

Anubis exists as nothing more than a werewolf with slightly less body hair than Robin Williams. He spends thousands of years in his prison that contains bobby-traps and monster rat-cats.

Oh, and the secret path out of the pyramid build for the sole purpose of Anubis’s imprisonment?A vertical tunnel, with a rope ladder, that sits right in Anubis’s person chambers. We see Anubis climb it three times. Nice prison.

I suppose Anubis proves a creative choice. A mummy would prove the easiest route.

The Pyramid squeezes together a collection of ideas that fail to further the plot or develop the characters.

The pyramid contains toxic gasses (mold or something), but that adds nothing. Take away the gasses, and the movie remains the same.

I hate to say this (in light of next Tuesday’s post atEntertainmentMicroscope.blogspot.com) but I can’t offer much constructive criticism here. This entire movie stands a terrible mess. Don’t see it. Save your time and money.

Next week, something better (I hope).

 You can catch my novels, such as Daughters of Darkwana, on Kindle.

I publish my blogs as follows:

Short stories on Mondays and Thursdays at martinwolt.blogspot.com

A look at entertainment industries via feminist and queer theory, as well as other political filters on Tuesdays at Entertainmentmicroscope.blogspot.com

An inside look at my novel series, its creation, and the e-publishing process on Wednesdays at Darkwana.blogspot.com

Tips on improving your fiction writing Fridays at FictionFormula.blogspot.com

Movie reviews on Sundays at moviesmartinwolt.blogspot.com