What I Watched -- Unbroken

I am one of those annoying people whose response to a question about an adapted screenplay is usually, "the book was better."  But it's usually true, and that's why I say it.  However, if you're in the mood for just turning off your brain for a couple of hours, many of the movie versions are acceptable alternatives.

As it is with Unbroken.  The book was better.  But the movie isn't a bad short version.  I heard a lot of complaining before I saw the film that there was too much torture in it.  Maybe these people didn't read the book, but there's an awful lot of torture in the book too.  That's not the point of the book, exactly, but without it, this amazing tale of survival doesn't exist.  So yes, there's a lot of torture.

Where the movie really succeeds, I think, is in capturing the spirit of the book without the narration that you get in the written version.  With just pictures and gestures and a look in the eyes, the movie has to convey the essence of the person at the center of the story, and it succeeds.  Credit there to Jack O'Connell.

The movie itself is a bit uneven, and I think it may have worked better as a straight story rather than told in flashbacks.  Perhaps that explains its relative lack of Oscar noms.

Bottom line: a tortured but impressive performance (including incredible physical transformation) from the lead, and a story worth knowing.