What makes '12 Years a Slave' different/better than 'Unbroken'?

I just saw Unbroken, and liked it okay. I didn't go crazy for it, but not against it. I've been seeing a lot of people label it from mediocre to absolute shit.

This got me thinking, a lot of the qualms that people have with it were also in 12 Years a Slave, a very-much loved and respected film.

12 Years a Slave, as well as Unbroken, uses a Passion of the Christ method of showing characters be beaten and abused for a majority of the movie. Both offer flashbacks that show the character as a great man with few flaws. Both have their character have one major antagonist that beats the shit out of them the most. Both end with a written epilogue about the true story. My point is, both films have a lot of similarities, not just in story, but their portrayal in general.

I am NOT saying that the two are equal in quality, however, I want to know what people think makes one film better or worse than the other.

Sure, 12 Years has McQueens great direction (that loooooong hanging shot), but other than that, why is it seen as a great film and Unbroken a bad one?