Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, there was quite a bit in the book about Zamperini's life after he returned from the war. The movie covered his life up to about age 25.
I think it would have been fine to cut out some of the POW camp and perhaps a few minutes of the time lost at sea and add a little bit of his life after returning from the war. All the suffering would have still been portrayed, but I wanted to see him overcoming the PTSD and find out how he came to feel the only way to do so was to forgive his captors.
I find that part of the story fascinating, watching these young men who witnessed so much and suffered so much overcome their trauma and find a way to live with it for the rest of their lives.
I saw the movie yesterday and, as with most movies where I have read the book first, I was somewhat disappointed. I had a real problem seeing the actor who portrayed "The Bird" as a good fit for the role of a psychopathic, sadistic prison guard, and totally because someone with the facial configuration and features of a WOMAN just does not fit into that kind of role. Although this actor is very tall, his facial structure and features are too feminine (beautiful and soft) to be convincing in the role. Also, the part of Zamperini's life AFTER his return to the US is of utmost importance in portraying his life story. How he came to the point of being able to forgive his captors is truly the most inspirational part of the entire book and would have made the movie even better.
I was a child in WWII and now that my memory has been jogged, I remember the stories I heard decades ago about the sadistic brutality of the Japanese of their treatment of POW's and civilians in the lands they conquered.
All in all, it was a pretty good movie but I'm not interested in seeing it again (as I am with some movies.)
I'm not sure who rated my post and suggested I read the book for answers, but I wanted to respond. I may just read the book, but I wasn't really talking about the book. I wanted to give a critique of the movie and how I thought it could have been better.
I think for Angelina Jolie's directorial debut, this was a pretty good movie. I do feel that she may look back on it and think of what could have been done differently. All I'm saying is that I find it very wearing to watch an entire movie of suffering without breaking up the story in some way. There was a lot of time at the camps and at sea that really didn't add to the story except to show the length of time passing. That time could have been better spent on certain aspects of Zamperini's life before and after the war in my opinion. I was getting a little fatigued by the camp and sea scenes and started to lose focus on the story.
I find it very wearing to watch an entire movie of suffering without breaking up the story in some way. There was a lot of time at the camps and at sea that...
I agree with you. I'm still trying to figure out why Jolie focused on his POW experience at the expense of the other aspects of his life.
English education is compulsory in Japan. He may not have been fluent, but it would be false to assume he spoke no English.
Apparently he learned English at age 25. "I had no experience, and it was such a responsible role, and in English. I never wanted to act, and I only started learning English eight years ago, so I never expected to be in a Hollywood film speaking English and hitting people. That was totally beyond my imagination."Angelina Jolie, Jack O
Apparently he learned English at age 25. "I had no experience, and it was such a responsible role, and in English. I never wanted to act, and I only started learning English eight years ago, so I never expected to be in a Hollywood film speaking English and hitting people. That was totally beyond my imagination."Angelina Jolie, Jack O
It depends on what he meant by "learning English".
English is required in Japan, starting at 5th grade. In old days it might have been later, but not much,
It depends on what he meant by "learning English".
English is required in Japan, starting at 5th grade. In old days it might have been later, but not much,
I wish they would start foreign languages earlier in the United States. In my state it's compulsory to take two years of a foreign language to graduate from high school, but it's not really offered in elementary school unless the student takes it after school or is enrolled in a language immersion program starting in kindergarten. It seems to me that the earlier different languages are taught, the better chance there is to actually become conversant in the language.
I had a friend move to Texas from Quebec when we were in high school. She spoke French as a first language, but she had also taken years of English and Latin while in Quebec. I wish we would do that here, maybe start off with Spanish and then Mandarin. Imagine the work opportunities for someone who could speak English, Spanish, and Mandarin. I'd even like to learn French, or Russian, or Arabic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
