Page Six: Angelina Jolie didn’t get final cut on ‘Unbroken’, the studio re-edited it

FFN_Jolie_Angelina_CHP_112614_51595104

Most of the press about Angelina Jolie’s directorial work on Unbroken has been about how she had to convince the studio that she was the right person for the job. I believe that she was genuinely passionate about the project and that she really wanted to do right by Louis Zamperini. Still, Unbroken is only her second film and even though she’s Dame Angelina (literally!), the studio was still looking over her shoulder. If she had messed it up, I have no doubt that the studio would have sent in some fixers to protect the project. Page Six says that the studio was happy with Angelina’s work during Unbroken’s production, but there were problems in post-production. Specifically, there were problems with Angelina’s “director’s cut” of the film.

Angelina Jolie’s Oscar contender, “Unbroken,” will screen for media and other VIPs this week — but sources tell Page Six that the film they’ll see will be Universal’s cut after she turned in a version of the movie that was deemed “too arthouse.” “Unbroken” follows the true story of American Olympic runner Louis Zamperini, who later became a prisoner of war in a Japanese camp.

The film has screened in Australia and the UK and will be unveiled in New York this week, including a Tuesday screening at MoMA followed by a Q&A with director Jolie and her cast as part of the museum’s The Contenders series. The film is perhaps the last potential major Oscar contender yet to be shown.

But a source says the finished work is different than the one Jolie handed in to Universal as her director’s cut. While a rare few top-tier directors get the privilege of “final cut,” it’s increasingly rare — particularly on big-budget studio releases.

“Universal re-edited her movie, because it was too arthouse,” a Hollywood insider said. “They took control and edited it into a more commercial movie.”

“A lot of people tried to make his life story into a movie,” said a source. “This has been a real passion project for Angelina. Her cut was intense and dark in some places. But the studio wants the movie to be a commercial success, so took control of the final cut and re-edited it. Jolie can’t have been happy about it, but she is proud of the movie and let the studio make the changes it needed to.”

While a rep for Jolie couldn’t be reached, a Universal spokesperson said, “It is patently untrue.”

[From Page Six]

I would imagine that this story is actually true, just because this kind of thing is very, very common. Angelina’s cut was probably too long and – if the film is accurate to the book – very violent, bordering on torture p0rn. Universal wanted a PG-13 rating (and they got it) and they wanted this to be a film that families could see together, so they recut it. Most directors working today do not have final cut – it’s something that has to be earned after a director works in the industry a long time, and even then… someone like Harvey Weinstein can still come in and tell a legendary director to shave off 10 minutes or edit down that scene or whatever.

Meanwhile, did you hear about the bizarre “hack” of Sony Pictures Entertainment during the holiday? Apparently, hackers going by The Guardians of Peace hacked into Sony and stole the studio’s “sensitive documents” about everyone from Cameron Diaz to Angelina. Like, hackers now have PDF copies of Angelina’s passport, and the passport images of Camy Diaz, Jonah Hill and more. Also, medical riders, contracts and more were stolen. Go here to read more.

wenn21966841

wenn21962114

Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

103 Responses to “Page Six: Angelina Jolie didn’t get final cut on ‘Unbroken’, the studio re-edited it”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Kiddo says:

    The trailer I saw of this film seems…Spielberg-ish. You know that point where a film with grit and reality descends into treacly and overwrought with sentimentality? That’s the vibe I’m getting.

    • Ennie says:

      It could be, but I wonder how many of Spielberg’s stories, besides the Schindler’s list are based on a true story. The Unbroken book was a lot of hard facts and still, to me, it was endearing, and a great life lesson.

      The Color Purple was a raw movie with lots of emotional moments, but it was fiction. I bet Saving Private Ryan had some true stories, too.

      • Kiddo says:

        Some of his films were good, no doubt. But he has a habit of slamming audiences over the head with larger than life presentations, and to put it lightly, unsubtle emotional manipulation, that he loses any nuance in the clamoring of cymbals-approach/direction that he takes.

    • Artemis says:

      In other words: Oscar material! It’s the Crash-school of Oscar-baiting film-making 😉

      • Kiddo says:

        lol. true

      • cherry says:

        Frankly, the oscar buzz is really premature and it annoys me that this movie is introduced as ‘Angelina Jolie’s oscar contender’. We ‘ re trashing Jennifer Aniston for creating Oscar Buzz around ‘cake’, but Jolie gets a free Pass?

      • Dallas says:

        @Tarsha, no one is comparing the two. NO ONE! They are two totally different movies. I think what was being said, is the fact that 99.9% if JP fans are constantly trashing Aniston for her movie and Oscar buzz, but yet Jolie is given a pass for her pimping of Unbroken months in advance. And who gives a flip if Jolie doesn’t have a publicist? Jolie and Pitt know the PR game VERY well. Face facts, she HAS the studio behind her, directing her EVERY move.

      • Tarsha says:

        Again, I can only re-state my post. You obviously didn’t read it. Because it outlines the very REASONS the 2 situations are very different. Also, Aniston has out-pimped Jolie 5-1, so even without basing it on the REASONS the situations are different, the fact that Aniston has out-pimped Jolie five-fold for many months now completely negates your point. If Jolie pimped out as much as Aniston did, I have no doubt she’d get the same flack.

      • Kitten says:

        @Kiddo-YES. The trailer makes it look like a movie I have no desire to see. That being said, trailers can be manipulative and deceiving, usually cut and crafted to sell the movie to a specific demographic.
        @Artemis-lol @ “Crash-school of Oscar-baiting film-making”.
        I hated that movie so much.

    • Jayna says:

      I don’t go by trailers for all movies. The Grey with Liam Neeson in trailers was promo’d like an action movie, him fighting wolves I never went to see it for that reason, but saw it at home.. It was far from it. It was a character-driven story about a man who wanted to die and his will to survive once he was faced with death in an airplane crash and the men who were also in the airplane crash with him. The wolves were almost like a metaphor, although they did create carnage and there was that part of the story, but it was really about a group a strangers bonded together in the wilderness over their desire to live and their back stories as it goes along. But beyond the amazingly shot airplane crash, it was a slower movie actually. If they had promo’d it the way it was in reality, it might have sold to a different audience, but not sold to those who wanted a Liam Taken type action movie.

      So the same with this movie. They use the parts they think are more commercial to sell the movie in a trailer.

      • I can’t remember who said it, but it was a previous post where one commentator said that he/she made the trailers for movies–not the director, or anyone who worked on the film. I thought that was interesting–I always assumed that it was the director or editor.

        I do feel like the trailer is a little saccharine, but I think that it looks good.

      • Lee says:

        I agree, and this is a good example of studios “selling” a different film than what was actually made, as The Grey was more a thought-provoking art-house film than an action flick.

      • Kiddo says:

        I have found that sometimes the absolute highlights of a film are released into trailers, especially for comedies that suck. But you’re right, the trailer may not accurately represent the overall tone of the film, but that’s what they are using to sell it, so…

      • Algernon says:

        @Virgilia

        Some directors still do cut their trailers (Wes Anderson has been known to do it), but trailer editing is a job unto itself. Especially these days, with the way movies are marketed while they’re still in production, there’s no way a director has time to do it. A lot of the editors I’ve worked with on commercials have at one time or another edited trailers. It used to be a real artform, but now it’s treated as a stepping stone either to a “bigger” editing job (same as commercials get treated, thus the overlap) or into a marketing position. It’s a shame, really. I love a good trailer. They’re like short stories.

    • missy says:

      “But a source says the finished work is different than the one Jolie handed in to Universal as her director’s cut. While a rare few top-tier directors get the privilege of “final cut,” it’s increasingly rare — particularly on big-budget studio releases.”

      Am I the only one who read that? THat is not taking her down a notch at all, I read that as she isn’t God so therefore she got the same treatment as everyone else except maybe Spielberg.. Which she shouldn’t be treated like him. SHe isn’t for goodness sake.

      • lisa2 says:

        So if she is getting the same treatment as anyone else.. then why is it a story or why even make it a big deal.. I haven’t seen such an article about any other director that has a film out or coming out..

        again if it is the NORM then why is it a story about her and not the hundreds of other directors.. that is the point.

        No she is not GOD.. nor is she the Devil.. She shouldn’t be treated as either.

      • Kiddo says:

        It’s a story so that people will talk about the film.

      • lisa2 says:

        People have already been talking about the film. So no that is not it.

      • mia girl says:

        @missy – I agree. When I first read it, I didn’t take it as an attack on Jolie or her capabilities as a director. You hear about directors not getting final cut pretty often.

        If anything, I read this as …. hmmmm maybe Jolie was not as happy with the final studio cut of the film – that it was not her vision. If anything the article makes it clear that the studio changed the tone of the film (from “arthouse to commercial”). I thought the article supported the notion that the final product was not completely what Jolie wanted.
        I did not infer that she did not deliver a good film to the studio.

      • Bridget says:

        Its negative Oscar campaigning. Someone’s trying to torpedo Julie’s chances. Stuff like this happens every year – remember the kerfuffle about the torture scenes in Zero Dark Thirty?

    • lirko says:

      Sadly, those are the movies that make bank, so they just reuse the formula ad nauseum…is beyond trite at this point

  2. Frida_K says:

    I’m sure that the film will be true to her vision, slightly altered by the studio or no.

    As to the hack, I think that is vile.

    She is beautiful, and I am still the #1 Brangeloonie.

    Good morning, dear Celebitchy friends!

    🙂

  3. lisa2 says:

    The Studio has already said this story is BS..

    and most new directors don’t get final edit on a film. It seems that no matter what there always has to be some story to discount what she is doing no matter what it is. I don’t see this with any other person just her.

    • Amcn says:

      I wonder if her name wasn’t attached to the project how different reactions would be? You really see it in so many bloggers reaction to the movie before they even see it. That is why she has to sell this so hard. People think that it will receive accolades just to kiss her ass but I think it will be quite the contrary. If she receives recognition it will be in spite of who she is. This is not just a woman being taken seriously but an extremely beautiful, public, successful woman and people always seem to want to take her down a peg because of it.

      • Soulsister says:

        @Amcn – This is not just a woman being taken seriously but an extremely beautiful, public, successful woman and people always seem to want to take her down a peg because of it.
        ——————————————————————————–
        I totally agree with what you have said. I lurk at Awardswatch and the attitude of some of the posters there seemed to be ‘I want this film to fail, solely because Angelina Jolie has directed it’. There also appear to be awards commentators such as Sasha Stone and Peter Tapley who have the same kind of attitude.

      • Andrea1 says:

        @AMCN +1000000000 to your comment
        I Wouldn’t have been able to say it better!

      • Jayna says:

        Sometimes it’s new directors who were actors. Ben Afflecks’s first directorial debut was met with so much cynicism and his persona at that time that they downplayed him in the trailers as the director, thinking it would hurt not help sell the movie. He said he knew he was toast if this failed and was really afraid. It got good reviews and did decent at the box office for a small budget movie. When he did his second movie, he knew that if it didn’t get good reviews or horrible box office, they would say it was a fluke the first movie he directed. When he received good reviews on his direction of The Town and it did well at the box office is when he said he knew he could take a sigh of relief and start being taken seriously for projects as a director as far as funding and offers.

      • Artemis says:

        I agree with Jayna.
        Actors becoming directors is always a hard sell. Many have failed, few have succeeded. If Jolie succeeds, she deserves it and she will be entering a select club.

        I think some comments are unfair but based on her first film (which was mediocre and a total flop at the box-office despite her selling it hard), she still has to prove herself.
        Sure, she doesn’t deserve some of the criticism, like they’re out for blood because it’s HER but at the same time, she shouldn’t get a pass just because she’s trying. She has earn the title of director.

        I am interested to see how this film will be received. Critically and commercially. I am tempted to watch it too to be honest but I’m not sure if my friends will want to watch such a devastating story.

    • Emma - the JP Lover says:

      @Lisa2 …

      I totally agree. Angelina Jolie is always over analyzed with a fine-toothed comb, and I’m not talking about her personal life, either. Every little flaw is magnified and discussed to the point where it becomes about the ‘flaw’ and not her work in the film. Nuts are saying the only reason “Maleficent” was a success is because it’s a Disney film. Yet, if the film had failed it would have been because of her. The only other actor I’ve ever seen this with is Matt Damon, only with him the film becomes his ‘Liberal Propaganda’, when all he does is star in it (at least one of his films was killed pre-release by this). I just don’t get it.

      • lisa2 says:

        That is so true.. Look I’m a fan.. but I would wish that even if you don’t like someone to at least be fair. All this she is promoting so hard.. Heck she just started promoting the film. Just before the World Premier the same naysayers were saying why isn’t she promoting.. She is doing the same Q & A that every other person is doing. No more no less. And as I said she is just now presenting the film to critics. Hardly over kill.
        I would love her to get an Oscar Nomination. win or not.. I want her film to do well and be received well but fairly. And some bloggers are already out to attack the film. Which is sad because it is so unprofessional. You job is not to attack one film because it is a rival to your favorite. I know not everyone is going to love the film. but it is not about that.

        Some people are going to attack it just because she is the director. I wonder too if it is because they are (fill in the correct word) that she has too much. That is seems she can do too much. Wow imagine that being said about a male.. It wouldn’t be.

  4. xboxsucks says:

    it was obvious they would cut it as her version was over 140 minutes.
    kaiser:will you be covering the reviews?
    so far it has been really good.

    • That’s what I was wondering. The reviews have been very good.

      • Monica says:

        im a brangieloonie but there hasnt been any reviews posted. just reactions and Oscar chances.

      • Monica says:

        @VC those are reactions and about its Oscar prospects. they arent reviews

      • Greata says:

        @Virgilia Coriolanus….Agreed..This is from Deadline Hollywood/Pete Hammond.
        “…And what a movie. The sheer craft of filmmaking is all over this one. It is beautifully directed by Jolie who definitively proves, after a promising but largely unseen helming debut with In The Land Of Blood Of Honey, that she has the chops behind the camera as well as in front of it. She pulls off highly difficult scenes in shark infested waters as well as in the confined spaces of a B-1 bomber, not to mention finding just the right tone for those grim prison camp scenes.”

      • Monica says:

        @greata hammond likes EVERYTHING literally. i am a big JP fan but i want actual reviews not bloggers and Oscar pundits. same thing happened with Les Mis etc. just dont want fans here to get their hopes up.

      • Isn’t a ‘reaction’ a film review? I didn’t know that there was a difference. I’ve seen reviews where they talked about the trailer, and the Oscar buzz….but I thought they’d seen the movie, so my mistake. I thought Variety and THR were pretty good sources, being that they are industry type websites.

      • abby says:

        @Monica
        From I first heard that Angie was breaking into directing and then when she landed Unbroken my main hope as a fan has been that she find the career fulfillment that she seemed to be seeking and that her projects, at the very least, be well received.
        I think she is accomplishing that.
        – Directing is stressful but also a near constant challenge and learning experience. So far, she seems to love it. I hope that continues.
        – so far, the film appears to be well-received by those who matter. Foremost, Louis and his family seem pleased (Louis reportedly liked it). Brad and those close to Angie also seem to be proud and supportive – Brad also has to promote Fury still and perform any duties still needed for Selma.
        Universal is pushing this film hard. They clearly liked what they saw in the footage and positioned this film as a contender. There were no reshoots, Uni did not push the release back. Angie was on budget and on schedule, and she delivered.
        These are the people who matter. So yeah, I would say it’s been well received.

        As to the critics, pundits, etc well many of them have an interest in promoting their faves in the awards race and cannot be objective. In fact, according to some bloggers/pundits Angie only got Unbroken because she is pretty and a big celebrity.
        So imo either put up or shut up. Provide evidence that Angie is shown favoritism due to her looks/stardom or be objective and weigh each film on its caliber. That’s not to say that I expect Unbroken to be nominated for anything given the many high quality films contending for awards, although that would nice. But it says something (and nullifies their film review imo) when the reviewer spends more time ranting about the actor/director’s personal life, the number of children they have and their fitness for the project as opposed to focusing on the merits (or lack thereof) of the film.

        So anyway, I am happy with how Unbroken has turned out. Angie stepped away from Gravity and other film projects to make Blood & Honey because she wanted to try something different. Without that little watched film, her activism with Hague on wartime rape would not have been initiated. And clearly Universal saw something in her first film ( and her pitch) that convinced them to take a chance on her. Through this film she met Louis, a man who left an indelible mark on her life. This will no doubt lead to other projects.

        Anything else is just gravy.

    • Amcn says:

      Mostly just bloggers and no critics reviews yet. Tomorrow is the day the embargo is lifted.

    • Em' says:

      How can you tell? Reviews are under umbargo until later today. Non of them are out yet

    • ShilaLaButt says:

      Actually the reviews have been mixed.

      Not glowing. Mostly pacing problem. Too much violence in lieu of an actually story.

      Which explains why a second editor had to come in the 11th hour to fix it. Causing Unbroken to miss the fall festival circuit. Unlike twelve years a slave (another violent film)which had huge momentum from the festival circuit.

      So far on rotten tomatoes. 4 rotten and 3 fresh. Mostly saying at best it will get a Best Picture nod no win.

      Still Boyhood and Birdman is ahead. Which makes sense these directors have pushed the medium forward. Both directors are film junkies. You have to know the rules to break them. To make the audience feel.

      I never understood why someone like Jolie who has specifically said she doesn’t like to watch movies became a director. Most directors are obsessed with film. Watching and studying film is a huge part of the process of the greats.

      • Jayna says:

        That’s true. Matt Damon said he and Ben Affleck when young used to have meetings after a movie to discuss the the movie, study it, dissect it. They had a love of cinema from their teens.

        But Angie has enough experience on movie sets to be a good director since she seems to have a strong interest in it and a developing passion for it and will learn from each movie she directs, and is a reader of books, so the art of storytelling is not lost on her. But if you don’t like to watch movies, that could hinder you in some aspects.

  5. Ennie says:

    I am waiting for these movie to hit feathers in my town in January! I would not go see Horrible movie no. 2 for anything, but I am just excited to see Zamperini’s life onscreen.
    If more people see it, the merrier.
    I am all for fun at the movies, drama is great, especially inspiring true stories, but also mindless fun is needed, now, some movies are too dumb, like the Transformers franchise, or too raunchy with idiotic jokes, like Sandler’s. To those, no, thanks.

  6. Mean Hannah says:

    Meh. All directors’ cuts are too long and final edit of a film has a lot of input from many people, so this is a non story being pushed by NY Post.

    The hack is a much more interesting story…if true.

    • Jayna says:

      Well, this is more than input. It says it was taken over in the final edit. Although, as only a second-time director, I don’t see the issue. It isn’t completely uncommon. It might not be her strength yet, and they have a lot riding on it.

    • Algernon says:

      The hack thing is definitely true. I got all kinds of weird messages from clients at Sony all last week about not emailing them and checking all Sony-related files on our servers for compromised elements (like a Trojan horse). So far I haven’t heard of anyone else being affected but they’ve already had several major movies hit the internet, including Annie and some other stuff that hasn’t been released yet. It seems like Sony was specifically and maliciously targeted.

  7. minx says:

    I would be surprised if a studio gave a new director carte blanche on the final cut. I don’t see where this is that big of a deal.

  8. gio says:

    Angie looks high in the white dress pic

  9. Greta says:

    The trailer makes it look overwrought and like something from LMN. If I were her, I’d claim studio interference, too.

    • abby says:

      well if the trailer looks off that is Universal’s marketing department and the scenes they chose and the tone they set. From the feedback so far, the film is far from overwrought or sentimental. But a clearer picture will be given when the embargo is lifted on Tuesday.

  10. Maya says:

    Why does everything Angelina do have to be diminished?

    Is it because she is beautiful, talented, high profile or because she is currently one of the most powerful women in the world?

    Before Maleficent came out – the critics, haters etc all claimed that the movie will flop because of Angelina’s star power is not there anymore. Then bam the movie became a mega hit and one of the hugest grossing movies of 2014. But now it’s not a hit because of Angelina – it’s because its a Disney movie.

    Same with Unbroken – the studio struggled to make this movie for 50 years and even had some well established male director in the contention. Angelina fought hard and long to get the opportunity and succeeded. Not because of her personal life but because she had a vision. She made sure to get the best people to help her – Coen brothers, Deakins etc who are also longterm friends of Brad & Angelina. Especially Deakins who has collaborated with the best in the business and must have seen something in Angelina to be willing to do another movie (Africa) with her.

    I have never seen such a witch hunt regarding a movie and it’s director – I don’t think Bigelow, Sofia Coppola, Ava D and other female directors have gone through this form of attack from the media.

    • RobN says:

      First of all, women directors are constantly getting attacked by the media for something or other, and you can’t compare AJ to those you named. None of them are worldwide figures, none of them were major actresses first, none of them went and married one of the biggest male movie stars in the world. That gets you different treatment, and it also got her this job. You think the studio lets her have this huge project, their holiday release, if she isn’t AJ, movie star married to Brad Pitt, a virtual guarantee of huge, and free, publicity? Not a chance. She had one credit; you don’t get this movie based on one credit, so yeah, you take a little second guessing in return. It’s the deal.

      • lucy2 says:

        I agree – I think it’s a benefits/disadvantages thing. There’s more scrutiny and focus on any actor trying direction, and especially a woman, but at the same time, her high profile helped get her the job and publicize the movie. Most new directors don’t get the cover of Entertainment Weekly to promote their work, you know?

      • mayamae says:

        I think it’s a combo of being a woman and an actor. Natalie Portman has gotten nothing but disdain (much of it here), regarding her first directing experience. I’ve read many comments here about how dare she direct a film in Hebrew in Israel. Which, since she’s Israeli where they speak Hebrew, was ridiculous. But the best part, was reading an outraged post (about another actress turned director) stating how unfair we are to first time female directors. The irony was overwhelming.

        It’s a shame when those hardest on women are women.

    • Artemis says:

      I have never seen such a witch hunt regarding a movie and it’s director – I don’t think Bigelow, Sofia Coppola, Ava D and other female directors have gone through this form of attack from the media.

      Can’t have a witch hunt if there aren’t no witches though! It’s painfully obvious that female directors are not giving a lot of chances in Hollywood. Just Google Brenda Chapman.
      Women with far better credentials aren’t allowed to exert control over a project or aren’t even given the chance to direct at all.

      There are more Jolies, Hardwickes, Bigelows etc out there so if you think that Jolie is the only one having a rough time directing films, then you’re wrong. She’s actually one of the lucky ones. And she didn’t get there by her credentials as RobN points out.

      • lower-case deb says:

        i think women directors face a hard time overall. just that we never heard about most of them because most of their projects just got swept aside quietly or plain never got considered. there are actually a lot of women directors in the indie field, but we rarely hear of them because they are just not marquee players.

        in my country, there are tons of women directors, churning out great thoughtful films, but you don’t hear them too often because the men dominate the field with flashy and/commercial films, that the women tend to go on indies and little-heard festival routes or enlist, and take a backseat to, a guy as co-director!

        Jolie’s story we hear a lot and much louder because of her background and pedigree. i’m sure Bigelow, or DuVernay have their “war stories” too. i read in a lenghty coverage of Selma how badly she has to fight for it, and not even Oprah can open the doors quick enough.

        btw, if you like horror film: please check out Jennifer Kent’s Babadook. amazing amazing horror film showing how a woman’s sure touch can make a well-trod genre seems fresh. if anything a good marquee to put up to show that more women director is not only a damn good idea, but a must.

      • Artemis says:

        I’ve seen the trailer for Babadook in the cinema. It looked good. It didn’t register that a woman directed it but then again, I don’t look at the director’s name in trailers.

        Thanks for the tip!

      • lisa2 says:

        Selma is also produced by Brad Pitt’s Plan B company. THEY had been developing that film for some time (7 years) and they brought Ava on to direct. She then worked on reworking the script. Oprah is not the reason the film got produced or made. That is the team at Plan B.. Dede and Jeremy. Their baby. Oprah came on later as a producer.

      • lower-case deb says:

        @lisa2 thanks for the info. i didn’t know that. i remember only reading how Oprah was on the phone almost all the time to arrange this that and the other to make sure that the shoot can go smoothly, and post-prod etc.

        i didn’t know about the Plan B involvement. must’ve read the article in a skip-slop manner. i’ll try to dig it out and reread it properly.

        thanks for the heads-up!

      • lower-case deb says:

        http://m.christianpost.com/news/selma-movie-trailer-director-likens-oprah-winfreys-hard-work-to-moses-parting-of-the-red-sea-she-did-it-all–129325/
        apparently this is the one that i read, re: Oprah and Selma.

        in this article the only mention of Plan B is a throwaway line at the bottom mentioning Brad as coproducer.

      • lisa2 says:

        Brad is not involved as much in this film..thus the Just producer title.. but Dede and Jeremy are the ones that are fully behind this film. Oprah makes everything about her.. She practically begged them to let her in on the film.

    • NickT says:

      Maya, I feel the same way about Beyoncé.

    • norah says:

      that is the thing – nobody talks about sofia coppola being the daughter of francis ford going into directing etc – nobody talks about bigelow either – there is not such a ‘witchhunt’ either going on for these other women directors. even ava who has directed selma was praised for her directing – but because angelina is there – mastering her field of acting etc ( oscars golden globes box office ) apparently that is a big no no for others – why should she be good enough for directing is the opinion it seems mostly from the women critics esp –

  11. Soulsister says:

    As an Angelina fan, I really like the fact that she was the one who finally got this story to the screen even though others had been trying for the last 50+ years.
    This fact crystallizes why I admire her so much, in the respect that she is somebody who really challenges themselves, is prepared to take risks regardless of the scope and complexity of the projects she takes on.

    • Jayna says:

      I agree. Taking on a role as a director places you out there for tons of criticism compared to being the actor in someone else’s project. I admire her for that. In her last movie, her screenplay writing was lacking, but I still admired the fact she took on the project and had a passion and interest in writing and directing a movie, a complex one at that.

      This movie, Unbroken, was adapted from a book on this man’s life, and I was glad to see she (or the studio) had someone else write the script for such an important story. I just don’t think that’s her strong suit yet. Joel and Ethan Coen rewrote the script when Angelina came on board as director that already had initial drafts written by other writers when it was attached to a different director.

  12. Adrien says:

    Jolie is starting to morph into Jon Voight. I never thought she looked like her dad before but now it has become apparent.

  13. Wren33 says:

    Part of the impact of the book was seeing the really horrible, violent things he had to endure. I’m hopeful that they don’t edit too much of that out. There is a difference between knowing someone was tortured, and really seeing what is meant by it. Not to turn it into torture p0rn, but knowing why many of those men, including Zamperini, came back completely broken.

    • lisa2 says:

      From the people that saw it she was true to what he went through. Inf act she said exactly what you said.. about him being tortured.. but they did it in a way that young audiences would be able to see it.

    • lower-case deb says:

      one reviewer actually came out and called it Christian torture p0rn a la Mel Gibson’s Last Temptation, fueled by Angelina’s S&M hobby (his words). another reviewer actually calls it “luxuriating” in violence.

      what i don’t get is others call it too tame, too polite. so i guess they’re watching two different films.

      btw, i’ve just read 4 reviews, i guess embargoes’re lifted now?
      THR calls it a good retelling of an actually great story. The Wrap calls it Generic. Variety calls it underwhelming. The Guardian calls it rote-telling, deserving of technical prizes but no major prizes.

      anything good coming out of the picture: Deakins, Coens, Desplat, O’Connell. no Jolie.

      • lower-case deb says:

        on the other end of the scale, lest i be dubbed a debbie downer:
        Awards Circuit calls it great movie for a sophomore effort with Jolie able to coax a lot out of her team; Radio Times calls it confident and gives 4 out of 5 stars.

        so there are rejections and there are also glowing reviews. i guess we’ll see what the final tally on Metacritic or Tomatoes.

        perhaps more succintly, a twitterer sums most of the available reviews: lovers still loving, haters gonna hate. Jolie polarizing critics.

      • zut alors! says:

        “one reviewer actually came out and called it Christian torture p0rn a la Mel Gibson’s Last Temptation, fueled by Angelina’s S&M hobby (his words).”

        That would be Jeffrey Wells from his Hollywood Elsewhere blog. He seems to be rather obsessed with Angie’s S&M fascination and tries to find every opportunity to tie it to the films she has directed. I wonder why. I also wonder if he attaches the peccadilloes of male directors to the subject matter of their films.

      • Wren33 says:

        Yeah, I’ll have to wait to see it. Personally, I have trouble watching violence, much more so than reading about it, so I can see why people may have such varying reactions to how it is depicted.

  14. Alexis says:

    Trying to diminish a woman doing a “man’s job,” typical. Highly doubt anything that wasn’t standard happened here.

    • norah says:

      people are trying to diminish aj for directing this movie. They praise everyone else but her – if that is not throwing shade on aj – someone who got a movie made after years and years

  15. Bananapants says:

    I finished reading the book Wednesday night, and was truly moved by it. What surprised me though was the spiritual awakening that Louis went through at the end of the story. My dad and I were discussing it at lunch, and I told him that I guarantee that all of the “religious conversion” got left on the cutting room floor, because to me, That aspect of the story would not appeal to Jolie at ALL.
    Now that I read this article, I’m wondering if the studio DID redo the ending to include the spiritual aspect so it will appeal to the mom-and-pop crowd. When I heard that the film is pg-13, I was immediately afraid that it might have gotten the Jurassic Park treatment, and made schmaltzy for wider appeal.
    All that being said, I’ll be there opening day, because the book was incredible, and I think it’s super cool that a woman about my age got to direct. Hell yeah.

    • lisa2 says:

      Well obviously you have not been reading about the film Angie has talked a great deal about Louis faith and how he endured what he did. But his faith is all throughout the film according to many. so tying to say Angie is anti faith is not going to wash. Again as I have seen many of her interviews since the World Premiere she has addressed his faith. Zamperini’ family is happy with the film and he was too. I think their opinion is much more important.

      They were at the screenings and were said to be very happy.

  16. scout says:

    Yeah, I bet she had to work hard to break the glass ceiling even further as a woman, even if she is Dame Angelina but she did get it and I can’t wait to watch this movie. Hope she gets an Oscar.
    I sure damn hope she, Brad and her kids had a great Thanksgiving!

  17. Janet says:

    If you buy the Blu Ray version of Salt you will get three different versions so the film on it — the theatrical cut which was shown in the theaters, the director’s cut, and the extended cut. The extended cut is totally different from what was shown in the theaters and is actually a much better movie.

    • lisa2 says:

      exactly.. but again people are acting like with Angie it is the first time this has happened. Like this is some big story.

  18. Kim1 says:

    Much ado about nothing
    Angie and Jack will be on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon on Wednesday.
    Her first late night show appearance in over ten years.

    • doofus says:

      I really, REALLY hope Fallon gets her to participate in one of his silly celeb games, like a lip-sync battle or water fight…

  19. Paige says:

    I’m sorry but I don’t remember any other female director having tabloid stories around them about them having flings with their male co-stars. So far she’s had a fling with Jack and Miyavi. Tabloids love to make her look bad.

    • Jayna says:

      Because female directors aren’t stars. They are behind the scenes, directors. She’s a famous star/actress now trying to direct, on her second movie. Far different than a director that is not a household name or known as the most beautiful woman in Hollywood.

      Look at Ben Affleck. Every time he directs a new movie, they are saying he’s having an affair. He’s a famous actor, handsome, now turned director.

  20. Juliette says:

    My husband and I were having this exact debate at dinner the other night. Will the film be able to stay true to the torture experienced by the POWs, while still keeping audience’s from feeling too overwhelmed by the horror of it all.

    We both loved the book. However, my husband feels the story itself is too graphic and gruesome to translate well on film. He thinks that the story cannot be told without going to a very dark place. While I agree with him, the dark places will have to be shown, I think the overall message of human resilience will save the film. Great stories always have dark places, otherwise there is no plot.

    I’m someone who cannot stand gratuitous violence. Clockwork Orange, both book and film were repulsive to me. I can’t even see modern action films. But, I truly think Unbroken will not go down that path of gratuitous on-screen violence. The fact that the torture experienced was TRUE will save the film for me. I hope that instead of focusing on the violent torture, there will be a great deal of time dedicated to the little ways in which the POWs saved themselves, their sanity, and showed their courage and humanity. I particuarly loved the Scottish-run sugar cartel. I loved that other POWs saw Louis and Phil on the verge of death after 47 days at sea, and despite the fact they were starving to death themselves, they put their lives on the line to make sure Louis & Pete got extra rice.

    I’ll see it regardless, but I am hoping the film is overall uplifting rather than entrenched in the darkness.

  21. lucy2 says:

    Nothing new – almost all films are recut by the studios – hence all the “director’s cut versions”.
    I think I posted this before, but it’s the history of bringing the story to the screen, the directors and actors who were once attached, the producer who’s been trying to get it made for nearly 20 years, the book that made it possible again, how Jolie pitched her vision of it, and they finally go the go ahead.
    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-ca-unbroken-20140420-story.html#page=2

  22. M says:

    Please write about the hacking! Not only did they steal personal info but they released five movies online that weren’t set for release yet. And it could be tied to Franco & Rogen’s new movie. Crazy!

  23. Kori says:

    Not surprised. Unless you’re Speilberg or someone like Wes Anderson who is hired for an art house touch, it’s to be expected.

    Shallow notes: 1– in the header photo she looks SO much like Jon Voigt and Shiloh like her. I’ve seen a photo of JV doing that same way and smile. Incredible. 2–man she looks gorgeous in the black turtleneck with the reddish tints. 3– Like an earlier appearance, the formal carpet appearance, it looks like her foundation is too pale. Or it’s the lighting. Or both. But her makeup with the turtleneck is superb.

    • zut alors! says:

      She really does look like Jon Voight. It hasn’t always been obvious but you can really tell here. I also wish her makeup person would not use that super pale foundation on her. The combination of the foundation and the hd powder makes her look like she should be on Twilight or something.

      Speaking of JV, I very much enjoy his character in Ray Donovan. He is a really good actor. Too bad father and daughter don’t get along. It would have made for some interesting onscreen collaborations (outside of the Tomb Raider cameo).

  24. lower-case deb says:

    @Artemis, news just in: Babadook won Best First Feature at NYFCC!!! *happy dance happy dance*

  25. maddelina says:

    Sooo Cake and Unbroken running neck and neck.

    • Janet says:

      Uh, no. One’s going into wide release on December 25. The other is going into limited release the last week in December, after which, if a studio doesn’t pick it up for wide release, it will sink out of sight and re-surface on VOD.

      • maddelina says:

        Lol. Well I guess we’ll find out!

      • Janet says:

        Well, what’s-her-face needs something to save her career, since Life of Crime was nuclear waste, Cake couldn’t get a studio to distribute it, HB2 is major suckage according to the reviews, and She’s Funny That Way doesn’t have a release date because no studio has picked it up yet.

  26. Dorky says:

    Audrey Hepburn in the white-dress pic.