December 26, 2014, - 3:50 pm

Christmas Box Office: Unbroken, The Imitation Game, Big Eyes, Into the Woods, The Gambler

By Debbie Schlussel

And the end of a bad year in new movies goes out with a whimper. The only one of the movies, new in theaters yesterday, that I liked was the gay WWII hero movie. And even that was all relative in a year of really shabby movies. Oh, and by the way, those who claim “patriotism” got snubbed because neither “Unbroken” nor “American Sniper” got nominated for any awards–well, they are dead wrong. I myself did not vote for either of these in any category, as a member of the Detroit Film Critics Society, and–at least with regard to “Unbroken”–here’s why:

unbrokenimitationgame

bigeyesintothewoods

thegambler

* “Unbroken“: You would think that a movie about an American World War II hero and patriot would be right up my alley (you would be right about that) and that I would love this movie, but you would be wrong. It would be very difficult for any director to screw up a movie about the inspiring, incredible life story of Louis Zamperini. But Angelina Jolie managed to bleep it up. Gone is the amazing, uplifting story depicted in the book of the same name. In its place, Jolie produces a long, boring, formulaic, stilted, distracting mess. I received the DVD screener for this movie a month ago. I was excited to watch it, but it was so slow and herky-jerky that I had to watch it in 15 minute installments, since it didn’t keep my attention.







The most noticeable disservice to the late Zamperini is that Palestina Jolie skips what may be the most interesting part of Zamperini’s life: his second (and third) acts. Maybe that is because she is a godless woman who doesn’t seem to like Christianity (or Judaism) much (but oh does she love Islam!). After he returned home from being tortured in a Japanese prison camp during the war, Zamperini retreated into a life of drunken carousing. But he heard Rev. Billy Graham deliver a sermon in person, and it changed his life. He became a devout Christian and started a camp for wayward boys, changing their lives. NONE of that is in the movie. None. Knowing that story and watching this long, drawn out, formulaic movie end, I thought, “Is that all there is?” I felt like I’d watched only half a movie. The only references to his future life are a brief line in the movie when Zamperini tells G-d he will devote his life to him if he is allowed to survive and in a caption at the end of the movie stating that he did devote his life to G-d. That’s it. The story is much bigger than those brief mentions.

And then there’s what I did watch. Jolie employs the device used by the most incompetent so-called directors. She constantly flashes back and forward and back and forward and back again. It’s dizzying, confusing, and just flat-out annoying. It wasn’t necessary and ruins the movie. The most interesting parts of Zamperini’s life are obfuscated and/or poorly told. Zamperini, after being a bad kid, is convinced by his older brother to become a disciplined runner and track star. When he makes Team USA and goes to compete at the “Hitler Olympics” in 1936, director Jolie shows some silly “We Are the World” scene of Zamperini and a Japanese athlete nodding at each other during the opening ceremony. She completely skips Zamperini’s meeting Hitler, because, hey, that’s not at all a big deal, right? The whole set of Olympic scenes, by the way, are in the endlessly distracting flashbacks.

And since she manages to make one of the potentially most interesting scenes into a bore, she then also makes what should have been one of the most boring things into something interesting, in a survival adventure movie kind of way that reminded me of Tom Hanks in “Castaway” or Robert Redford in “All is Lost” (read my review) or the Indian kid in “Life of Pi” (read my review). Zamperini and two other soldiers are shown adrift on two rafts in the middle of the sea for 45 days, struggling to survive. Compared to the lengthy scenes of Zamperini and two other soldiers in the raft, the scenes of Zamperini in the Japanese POW camp seem rote, like the directrix was bored. The movie was cold and lacks spirit, exactly like the personality of its director.

Jolie said she wanted the message of the movie to be that all people suffer in war, and she shows us scenes of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We are morally equivalent to the enemy. I get that’s the message. How sad that she doesn’t seem to get that it’s just not true. And if she feels that way, she should go live amidst the enemy and stop making bad movies.

Some people have pointed out that Zamperini was taken with Jolie. Well, so what? A 90-something old man is taken with a beautiful and very famous movie star? He wouldn’t be the first to be starstruck and happy just to have her make a movie about his life, no matter how boring and uncomprehensive the movie is. The only touching part of Jolie’s film is the part that she had no part in directing: real-life footage of Zamperini running with the Olympic torch down the streets of Japan.

A couple of weeks ago, in the endless hype for this, Tom Brokaw hosted an hour special on NBC about the life of Zamperini, Palestina Jolie, and the making of this movie. The parts about Zamperini combined were far more touching and infinitely more interesting than this multi-million dollar heap of film.

Like I said, it would be very hard to bleep up the Zamperini story as told in the book, “Unbroken.” But in the movie of the same name, Angie Voight managed to do just that. She says it’s an anti-war movie. And I believe her.

ONE REAGAN
reagancowboy

Watch the trailer . . .

* “The Imitation Game“: While this is, among other things, a gay rights movie clothed in World War II intrigue and mystique, the people who made this know how to make a movie. It’s one of this year’s best. As a conservative, I don’t believe in special rights for gays, but I do believe that what you do in your bedroom is your business (so long as it’s not with kids, incompetents, or animals), and I oppose any form of persecution like the awful kind that is on display at the end of this film.

That said, this is a pretty decent movie, one of this year’s best, in a very bad field of them. And it’s the story of thinking outside the box (though the use of that phrase is now inside the box) and genius. It’s the story of those who think differently not letting the mainstream horde of sheep get them down or cause them to change. And more than all of these, it’s the story of a brilliant British man, Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch), who broke the Nazi Enigma code and helped end World War II early, saving countless lives. He also invented the first computer.

This movie also employs flashbacks to Turing’s childhood as an odd duck who is endlessly mocked by classmates, has only one friend, and so on. You get the point. But unlike in Angelina Jolie’s “Unbroken,” the flashbacks are few and far between, and they are employed to make a point. Despite being a persecuted kid on the outs with others, he didn’t let that stop his different way of thinking or get him down. He persevered and thought great things, did great things.

He is chosen for a position on a squad of code breakers attempting to decipher the Nazi code to pilots and others. The code changes every 24 hours, so if it’s not solved by the end of the day, they have to start all over again. It’s frustrating work, and they aren’t making progress, until Turing convinces Winston Churchill to make him the director of the project, and he fires those who persecuted and attacked him. Turing creates a computer of sorts to break the code, but the computer isn’t making much progress. Soon, though, he hires people who solved a crossword puzzle he put in the newspaper. One of these is Keira Knightley, who inadvertently helps him figure it out.

She also becomes his girlfriend and fiancee until he tells her he is gay and that they can’t be married. This was back in the day when homosexual acts were against the law. Ultimately, none of his World War II heroics or genius matters. And it’s, in the end, a sad film because of the deplorable way Turing was treated.

Still, it’s an important movie about a lesser-known man who helped the West against the forces of evil and was a computer science pioneer. And it’s a great portrayal of the importance of rugged individualism and independent, critical thought–all of which Turing embodies in this movie.

Usually, science and math geniuses aren’t sexy enough for Hollywood, and so their stories aren’t told on the silver screen. I’m glad this was one of the exceptions to that rule.

THREE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS
reagancowboyreagancowboyreagancowboyhalfreagan

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Big Eyes“: I always dislike reviewing movies about real-life people, as told from the point of view of only one of those people. You never know if the story is true. And this one is very heavy-handed, very over the top. Walter Keane, the villain in this movie, isn’t alive to defend himself. And the movie is told from the point of view of his ex-wife, Margaret Keane. The movie isn’t just heavy-handed. It’s heavy-handed feminism and it’s also anachronistic because even if everything that happens in this movie actually happened in real life, none of it would happen today.

The story: Margaret Keane (Amy Adams) is an artist and single mother. She paints portraits featuring big eyes (think “Bratz” dolls). You’ve probably seen her work, which became popular in the ’60s and ’70s. My late maternal grandmother had a “big eyes” painting, probably a knock-off or lithograph of Keane’s work, hanging in her basement. (I used to think it was soooo ugly and creepy-looking.) Keane meets another artist (or at least a man who pretends to be an artist) and eventually marries him. The man, Walter Keane, soon begins marketing and selling his new wife’s paintings as his own. And after being initially upset, she goes along with it. Walter turns the paintings into a huge marketing hit. They are soon everywhere, and the Keanes are making a mint. But Margaret is upset that she doesn’t get credit for her work and that her husband is abusive and constantly degrades her, plus he’s apparently an alcoholic. Ultimately, she leaves him and fights back with a vengeance (and this movie, told as she sees it). Gloria Steinem and the ghost of Betty Friedan are proud.

But is the story really true? Mainstream liberal media accounts discuss the lawsuit depicted in the movie, so that seems accurate, as does Margaret’s claim that she, not her husband, painted the pics. Still, I saw nothing confirming that Walter Keane was a violent, abusive, harmful person, threatening and attempting to burn Mrs. Keane and her daughter and their house down. Like I said, I hate reviewing these movies that seem over the top in depicting what may (or may not) have occurred in real life.

I don’t want to give away the whole movie, but you get the point. I wonder about the casting of Christoph Waltz as the Nebraska-born and American-raised Walter Keane. Waltz’s Austrian accent comes through crystal clear, and that is never explained in the movie, despite the fact that much of the movie takes place just a decade or two after World War II. It’s curious.

Like I said, the real Walter Keane is long dead and not around to give his side of the story, which–in past press accounts quoting him–was quite different than what you see here. So, if you go see this agenda-laden, ax-grinding movie, keep in mind that it’s propaganda neatly wrapped in Hollywood’s “You go girl!” grrrl-power-narrative bow.

And you’ll never know the whole story. Or the real one.

FOUR BETTY FRIEDANS PLUS FOUR MICHELLE LAVAUGHN ROBINSON HUSSEIN OBAMA IDI AMIN DADAS
michelleobamaangrysmallermichelleobamaangrysmallermichelleobamaangrysmallermichelleobamaangrysmallerplus.jpgbettyfriedanbettyfriedanbettyfriedanbettyfriedan

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Into the Woods“: While the “first act” of this movie is entertaining and engrossing, the second act is an anti-male bore. Copied from a Broadway musical of the same name, the movie takes several fairy tales–“Little Red Riding Hood,” “Cinderella,” “Jack and the Beanstalk,” etc.–and intertwines them, with the characters involving themselves in each other’s stories. Johnny Depp’s child-molester-like wolf in the “Little Red Riding Hood” story was just more than a little creepy, but I enjoyed the first half of the movie.

It’s all male characters, especially the princes (including the one Cinderella marries), are idiots, fools, and failures, fending off a female giant in the woods, that I got bored and turned off. That part was boring and typical Hollywood crap. And if you don’t like musicals (I do like them), you’ll hate this.

Oh, by the way, Meryl Streep is pretty true to character as a witch. She’s played one several times, and I get the feeling this ain’t just acting.

FOUR BETTY FRIEDANS PLUS FOUR MICHELLE LAVAUGHN ROBINSON HUSSEIN OBAMA IDI AMIN DADAS
michelleobamaangrysmallermichelleobamaangrysmallermichelleobamaangrysmallermichelleobamaangrysmallerplus.jpgbettyfriedanbettyfriedanbettyfriedanbettyfriedan

Watch the trailer . . .

* “The Gambler“: Mainstream (liberal) movie critics are falling all over this movie in gushing unison. Not me. I don’t know what the point of this slow, boring, pathetic movie was . . . other than to give Mark Wahlberg yet another paycheck and pretend he’s a great arthouse, indie film actor. This is supposedly a remake of the 1974 James Caan star vehicle of the same name.

The story: Wahlberg is a college professor from a very rich family. But he keeps losing everything because he’s addicted to gambling. And even when his wealthy mother and loan sharks give him the money to pay off his gambling debts–and even when he’s hundreds of thousands of dollars ahead at the casino tables–he deliberately keeps making risky bets and gambles it all away. Therefore, a whole bunch of mobster and loan shark thug types are after him.

Oh, I forgot one other reason they musta made this movie: so they could show you a digustingly morbidly obese John Goodman wearing nearly no clothes in a schvitz joint, playing a pseudo-Jewish loan shark, who uses the word “schvartze” (Yiddish word for Black, usually derogatory). We are just 5.2 million people (and shrinking) in America. And they couldn’t resist yet another opportunity to implicate Jews as ugly, fat, racist cretins in a movie. Thanks, Hollywood.

THREE MARXES PLUS THREE OBAMAS
karlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgkarlmarxmovies.jpgplus.jpgobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmallerobamasmilingsmaller

Watch the trailer . . .

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email






25 Responses

thank you DS I was planning on seeing Unbroken but now I will plan on seeing The Imitation Game. I don’t go to the movies often because there is so much trash. Your reviews are, in my experience, reliable.

bobguzzardi on December 26, 2014 at 4:09 pm

    I agree. If Debbie likes it, I like it. If she doesn’t I won’t. It’s the most reliable system I have.

    John on December 27, 2014 at 1:52 pm

Just like the movie about Ike & Tina Turner, What’s Love Got to do With It.

Ike always denied abusing Tina physically; I don’t know who’s telling the truth, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they exaggerated Ike’s weaknesses.

Little Al on December 26, 2014 at 4:44 pm

I thought Unbroken did an excellent job of showing the horrors of war. The scenes with the air fights and the plane making a tough landing and having to ditch at sea seemed well done. I thought the movie covered the story well in two plus hours. It would have been nice to have depicted the change in Louie’s life, but that would have made the movie way too long. Maybe something needs to be done to build on that. I did think the scene at the Olympics with the glance exchanged by Louie and the Japanese athlete seemed odd. The flashbacks seemed like a good way to present Louie’s background. To do the full story would have been too much.

Aaron on December 26, 2014 at 4:51 pm

Very unfortunate about “Unbroken.” The book was amazing and very difficult to put down. As happens so often, Hollywood manages to screw up a well written book when it is made into a movie.

Jeff on December 26, 2014 at 6:27 pm

Great writing, as always.

Because it’s a pet-hate of mine, I’m gonna have a go @ Tim Burton who directed “Big Eyes”. I’m very Tim Burton-esque and I like a lot of the wacky & dark stuff he likes too but while I love his artistic side, I don’t think Burton has EVER delivered a great movie except “Edward Scissorhands” and his animation films. In all of his other films he always MORE than delivers artistically but fails to produce a truly great movie plot wise. They always seem to lack something that would have made them superior and on par with his fantastic artistic side. (He delivers a better film though than Rob Zombie thou’. I am a huge Rob Zombie fan but while he also delivers artistically, his movies are VERY disappointing…I almost cried while watching “The Lords Of Salem”…I thought he was a better artist than that and the film while artistically pleasing to me came off worse than a 70’s “After School Special”! It was so cheesy and horrible. Everyone wants to be David Lynch but they can’t deliver!)

My go @ him is regarding the “feminist” bent of his film. I noticed that “feminist” Tim Burton and his shack-up honey Helena Bonham Carter are kerput as a couple. That “feminist” never married her or any of the women who “went” with him (he even had to have a special private home attached to their home). How is NOT respecting a female and keeping your distance like that “Feminist”? It’s one of the most disgusting ways a male can discount a female (and let’s face it…females are more to blame because they let men like that use them…) so I take umbrage with a dude like Burton slinging a “feminist” slant. I don’t respect it and I call him OUT on it. Gimme a break! Go buy a box of tampons, Timmo…

I started to watch “Snowpiercer” and I just couldn’t get into it. What a buzz-kill! How could they make a film like that so bloody boring? This HAS been a crap year for films!

Skunky on December 26, 2014 at 6:35 pm

I saw “Big Eyes” on Christmas evening with some friends, before I read Debbie’s review. Based on the options, I selected this one, knowing full well that it was likely to have a heavy-handed “feminist message” based merely on the bare bones outline of the movie’s talking points. And I also correctly anticipated that in today’s simplistic story-telling that also meant that the movie was likely to present the artist’s husband in the most negative light possible. I assumed that the filmmakers would do this to create the requisite “drama;” with relatively flat “good” vs. “evil” characters, and with only modest development over the course of the story. And I even correctly anticipated the “payoff” with the “you go-girl moment” that Debbie referred to when the Amy Adams character makes the decision to step into the limelight.

Thus, I did not walk into the theater a great movie and fully expected a relatively superficial rendering of the characters. So would possessed me to pick this movie for the evening? Well, for starters, the other options weren’t that interesting. Second, I take the view about movies similar to that expressed by writer Norman Mailer: “Good movies need be no better than good or interesting one-night stands. They do not have to change lives, provided they show us something we has not known before.” Third, I like several of the key people involved in the production, including director Tim Burton and the actors Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz, and Terence Stamp. Fourth, because the movie was about an artist by a director with a striking flair for visual presentation–regardless of what you or I think of the merits of the particular artist’s work–the movie was likely to be visually exciting.

And on that last reason, the film really delivered, with wonderful production design by Rich Heinrichs, art direction by Chris August, and DP (director of photography) by Bruno Delbonnel. The result was a stunningly beautiful visualization of the period and times, capturing Burton’s vision of the late 1950s and early 1960s, with rich attention to detail.

I also like the casting and acting, as the leads, played by Amy Adams (Margaret Keane) and Christoph Waltz (Walter Keane) played their parts convincingly. Debbie questions the casting of Waltz for the role of Walter, but I think the choice was a good one. True, Waltz’s native language is German, and his accent comes through here. But that works in the movie to emphasize Waltz’s gift at playing malevolent, but outwardly appearing charming characters.

But the writers dropped the ball–and probably intentionally so for the reasons I suggested–by underplaying the Walter’s motivations and positive attributes, all in the name of focusing on the simple, heavy-handed feminist message. Although the movie touches on Walter’s desire to be an artist (but failing to achieve that goal), and on Walter’s business acumen, sense of showmanship, and considerable charm (as evidenced by his ability to schmooze with the well-heeled and the Hollywood stars), none of those attributes are explored with any depth, so that the focus is mostly on Margaret’s lost dreams.

We would have had a much richer and better movie had the filmmakers explored Walter’s character in more depth and underplayed Walter’s almost cartoonish scripted villain characterization created to justify Margaret leaving Walter, but then we wouldn’t have a feminist “message” movie as the filmmakers intended, would we?

So, if you’re willing to forget the Hollywood political message and enjoy a beautifully crafted film and learn about what makes the difference between an outstanding story (when the characters are richer and deeper) and a so-so story (when the characters veer toward the flat), you will find “Big Eyes” to be an enjoyable movie experience.

Ralph Adamo on December 26, 2014 at 8:32 pm

    Sorry for so many typos in my post. I’ve got one other point to add regarding the flat characterizations and lost opportunities in “Big Eyes.”

    Because the screenplay put the feminist message over the story and characterizations, important supporting characters were also flat. One key such character was Enrico Banducci (played by Jon Polito in the movie), owner of the legendary San Francisco club called the “Hungry i.”

    You’d never know it from the script, but Banducci was one of the most important and interesting figures in show business in the late 1950s and 1960s, and that should have been part of the story. The movie makes it look like the meeting between Walter Keane and Banducci was just a lucky accident. That’s bad writing, even if there meeting was actually just an accident–which I don’t believe was the case. Rather, I believe that Walter was motivated to work with Banducci because Walter Keane knew that Banducci was a keen judge of talent (pun intended) as well as a master showman. All of this could have been presented to the audience without much exposition at all, as part of the organic development of the story–IF the characters were well rounded.

    To give you an idea of what a vital role that the real Enrico Banducci played in the culture of that period, Banducci booked the following acts at his club when they were relatively unknown: Mort Sahl, Jonathan Winters, Barbara Streisand, Mike Nichols and Elaine May, Woody Allen, Bob Newhart, Shelly Berman, the Smothers Brothers, Bill Cosby, Irwin Corey, Jackie Vernon, Tom Lehrer, and Phyllis Diller, to drop a few of the names that would go on to become famous.

    What was Banducci’s “secret” of success? He obviously had an eye and an ear for talent and for what would capture the public’s imagination. He also understood what environment would best help develop the talents of the artists and performers he nurtured. As Banducci put it, “I gave people artistic freedom, allowed them to express themselves as they wished, without any interference from me or anybody else.”

    But the movie gives us hardly a clue of any of this. All that we know is that Cal Tjader, a Latin Jazz musician, was playing at the “Hungry i”–if we even pick up on that tidbit.

    Why would communicating at least some of this be important to effectively telling the story of “Big Eyes”? We’d get a better sense of Walter’s motivation to work with Banducci, a better idea of Walter’s own showmanship and business acumen, and, most importantly of all, his belief in the artistic merits of his wife Margaret’s work. Instead of going deeper into Walter’s character, showing several aspects of his motivations that would have been a natural outgrowth of the story if it were organically developed, those things were ignored. Walter’s character was essentially simplified into a buck chaser, just as the supporting Banducci character was presented to us.

    Good storytelling does not necessarily have to be “THE truth,” even when the story is based on real people and events. The real requirement is that the story have “A truth,” reflecting the visions of the filmmakers. In fact, the demands of telling a good story often require that “the truth” be modified for the more important end of making the story more interesting and engaging. (They call this artistic “license.”)

    But here, in “Big Eyes,” I believe that an important truth was sacrificed about Walter that would have made the story much fuller and more interesting, while still keeping the feminist message intact,(since that’s what the filmmakers wanted to convey). The audience just wouldn’t be bludgeoned over the head with it.

    Ralph Adamo on December 28, 2014 at 5:27 pm

Much of Stephen Sondheim’s work is very pretentious and a lot of it has not aged well. In that sense, “Into the Woods” is very much true to form. And that’s not counting the subtext Debbie mentioned.

ConcernedPatriot on December 26, 2014 at 10:07 pm

And all this time I thought it was Alfred “Dilly” Knox that cracked enigma and won the war, or was it the Tuskegee air men, it’s hard to keep up with new history.

Brian on December 26, 2014 at 11:18 pm

We are just 5.2 million people (and shrinking) in America. And they couldn’t resist yet another opportunity to implicate Jews as ugly, fat, racist cretins in a movie. Thanks, Hollywood.

I’d bet that Marky Mark had his putrid, white-trash hand in that. He’s a scu»bag through and through.

DS_ROCKS! on December 27, 2014 at 1:16 am

Interested to read your view of “The Imitation Game” Debbie, as that is the first movie I have seen in ages. I didn’t particularly want to go, but the family did, so I trailed along. Rather expecting the worst. Not only do I try to avoid the product of Hollywood, but I try to avoid reading/seeing anything about WW2 these days.

However… it wasn’t bad. No graphic sex, no graphic violence, no vile gutter language to speak of. I liked Benedict Cumberbatch (of course) and the young lad who played the young him.

And – amazingly – whereas in the Hollywood version (didn’t see it, don’t know what it was called) the only Polish character was a Nazi – in this movie, the Polish contribution to the breaking of the Enigma code did get a one-line mention. I nearly fell off my seat.

sue on December 27, 2014 at 6:28 am

Saw “Imitation Game” last night, your review is right on target. The best of a poor lot this year. I also think we’ll see a best actor nomination for lead actor, Benedict Cumberbatch, who’s name will now be better known after this film.

Marshall Frank on December 27, 2014 at 6:34 am

Likes thousands of retirees from the northeast, I will soon be in the bumper to bumper line of traffic on I-79 to Florida. Not much to do there except to catch up on some movies. We rely heavily on Debbie’s reviews before spending $30. There is not a very good list for this year but “The Imitation Game” will be first on the go see list. Normally I wouldn’t even give it a look.

Larry Schneider on December 27, 2014 at 8:31 am

Makes me wonder if Unbroken could be re-edited for Blu-Ray. Instead of the Director’s cut or Extended cut, they could market it as – the cut you expected.

Brian on December 27, 2014 at 10:46 am

I’m gonna watch “Casablanca” for the 99th time and be way ahead of the game.

Then maybe “Henry the 5th” with KB not LO.

“Mama Mia in the Woods” sounds excruciating.

chuck lowe on December 27, 2014 at 10:48 am

I’ve watched several documentaries about breaking Enigma. Why is this the first time I’ve heard about Alan Turing?
There is much more to the story than this movie is depicting. For decades I had always read that a Polish mathematician had broken Enigma. I’ve also read that we never fully broke it until we captured on of their code machines from the German U-boat U-110. Googgle “U-110”.
So I’m called a foul on the play and saying that The Imitation Game is 90% fiction and was made purely as a pro-gay movie.

smg45acp on December 27, 2014 at 11:52 am

LOL. Great stuff. You’ve talked me out of watching Unbroken.

Thank you Bob G for linking to this site.

Bill Lawrence on December 27, 2014 at 1:28 pm

‘The Imitation Game’ “based on a true story”.
Suuuuuure it was, just like ‘Noah’ and ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’.

theShadow on December 28, 2014 at 12:20 pm

Debbie,

I don’t need a response. I just want you to know how much I appreciated your review of the movie Unbroken. I thought for a while I was the only one who thought Angelina Jolie did a terrible disservice to the book and to the man. Louis Zamperini led an incredibly interesting life, particularly after he met Billy Graham and became a Christian. The man lived 97 years and Jolie covered about four years of his life in a dreadfully depressing movie. There was none of the inspirational aspects of his life that would be uplifting. Instead, the movie was downer from beginning to end. Thank you for an accurate, right on target movie review. I’m telling everyone to read it.

God bless,

Don

Donald Gilleland on December 28, 2014 at 2:16 pm

I, too like the Imitation Game. It’s nice to know that Hollywood liberals now regard Stalin and Soviet agents as bad people. The movie did leave out one detail – many of these traitors – Philby, McClean, Blunt, Burgess were homosexuals.

Pete on January 5, 2015 at 10:13 am

Saw “Big Eyes” and enjoyed it. Didn’t know the backstory so I wasn’t looking to compare it with a book, and Walter Keane’s perspective wasn’t important to me unless I was looking for historical accuracy.

To me, it’s not so much a “girlpower” film as much as Amy Adams’ character being pushed to the brink, realizing she had misled her daughter and finding God through Hawaii thus giving her the confidence to do what she did. Not feminism.

I consider it a pleasant little film, harmless and “50’s-kooky”. Not to be taken too seriously.

roboslater on January 5, 2015 at 4:50 pm

I first read the book, UNBROKEN, then months later have seen the movie. Even though I liked the movie, it was only OK. So much really was left out of the movie. My advice is to read the book. It is so much more inspiring. Debbie is right again.

LYNN B on January 19, 2015 at 9:32 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field