Judging by early reviews words it looks like it went down the Oscar-bait route (big surprise there) and very unsuccessfully too.

Disappointing considering it had decent talent behind it (Deakins, the Coens) but ultimately something that panders for awards attention using every staple in the book shouldn't be rewarded with such.

This movie looks like a bore. Usually there's always that one movie at the end of every year that looks as if they made it with the intention of pleasing old-time Oscar voters. This is the one. At least from what i've seen.

Early reviews. Mostly mixed.

http://variety.com/2014/film/reviews/fi ... 201367581/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/ ... iew/752885

http://www.thewrap.com/unbroken-review- ... -oconnell/

http://www.indiewire.com/article/review ... l-20141201

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film ... pirit.html

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/de ... oscar-bait

Panapaok wrote:Early reviews. Mostly mixed.

But it will still be nominated for Best Picture over Interstellar.

Knew this movie was gonna' suck nards.

always looked kind of baity to me

Visually and aesthetically, it looks breath-taking, but the story is so obvious and tacky. I mean, everytime I watch the trailer, I cringe at nearly every line of dialogue spoken.

"You can take it, you can make it."
"I swear, I'll dedicate my life to you."
"This is about America, it's not true."
"Stay down!"

It's cheese at it's finest.

deakins should be billed higher than jolie

BlairCo wrote:

Panapaok wrote:Early reviews. Mostly mixed.

But it will still be nominated for Best Picture over Interstellar.

Unbroken is with 50% on RT.
If this keeps up, there is no possibility it will be nominated for best film. I see some technical awards, but even that is not guaranteed.