There is something else at work here. This is the third review I have read that seriously belittled the movie while saying “Yeah, Louie Zamperinin’s story is impressive and all and he went through a lot, but...” and then follow it with some kind of criticism.
In one movie, a wimpy grease spot of a guy in his twenties complained that Angelina Jolie “fetishises” Louie Zamperini’s suffering. It must have been a new word he read in a dictionary.
I don’t know squat about Angelina Jolie. But I do know about Louie Zamperini’s story...an American story, and an unbelievable, remarkable one.
The reviews I have read seem to take personal issue with her in some odd way. I think they are taking issue with the fact that she directed it.
I dislike most film reviewers, beginning with the greatest dislike for Siskel and Ebert, they kind of personify my dislike for their craft.
As for the movie, I haven’t seen it yet, but I will.
Do see it. You will be searching the dictionary for a synonym to fetishness. People think it’s inspiring to young people to watch two hours of a guy getting beaten, no. It is not
Zamperinis story has the perfect combination of independent thinking, discipline, devotion to faith, normal male motivations, legal immigrant devotion to country and endurance with hope and humor
Jolie turns that opportunity into two hours of prison porn
What’s bad about film criticism? There should not be serious discussion of cinema?
Stanley Kaufman....New Republic... worse
Siskel and Ebert were just low wattage red diaper babies