Invincible

This film came out a few months ago, so by now there are quite a few reviews--so I'll try to make my comments brief. The film is a biography of the wartime experiences of Louie Zmaperini--as well as a few flashbacks to his life before the war. Zamperini was famous both for being an Olympic athlete as well as his being a prisoner of war in Japan--all of which he later wrote about in his biography. In it, he also talks about his difficulties coping with PTSD and anger towards his Japanese tormentors--as well as, with the help of God, he was able to let go of the anger and life a normal life. In many ways, this is extremely similar to another recent film, "The Railway Man"--a film which, to me, is better and makes a much stronger emotional impact.

What what did I like and dislike about the film? The aerial sequences were pretty amazing--particularly how they used wonderful CGI to make it appear as if Mitsubishi Zeros were attacking a formation of B-24 Liberator bombers. The story also was very interesting. But the film also seemed to be missing the spiritual and emotional side--and mostly only talked about this in the epilogue which was written only. In many ways, interesting but curiously uninvolving at times.

I cannot understand the negative reviews of this movie ,are the themes of bravery,endurance and forgiveness outdated?It is well known that the regeime of Japanese prison camps was cruel to say the least.The acting of the lead players was faultless proving again that British and Irish actors can play the roles of Americans.I found the movie moving, inspirational. Yes it was violent but not gratious. Ms Jolie is to be congratulated on her directing. One question did the leads fast for their roles or was CGI used to give the impression of their skeletal frames.The ariel dog fights did use use computer enhancement as did the plane crash.I found this movie much more watchable than the much praised"American Sniper"

Director Angelina Jolie has adapted Laura Hillenbrand's great biography, Unbroken, and made a conventional story about one of America's true heroes, Louis Zamperini. I'll continue to think about how Jolie could have made this more suspenseful, considering Louis was an Olympic runner, stayed in a life boat for the world record 47 days, and survived torture in two Japanese POW camps.

Although the film shows Louis to survive unbroken, despite the-Passion-of-The-Christ-like torture overdose, and follows his life story accurately, there's no soul, just dutiful recounting of the separate incidents. As a colleague commented, the real life footage of Louis returning as an old man to run the Olympic torch is more engaging and emotional than the whole film.

The cinematography of the renowned Roger Deakins is splendid on land and sea while Alexandre Desplat's music swells with romance at the right times. Otherwise, it's business as usual—get the history right. For me, a filmmaker could play with the story to make it more meaningful and involve more emotion if she has to—and Jolie has to.

The mediocre writing, that includes work of the Coens and the screenwriter of Gladiator, William Nicholson, repeats this trite line, "If you can take it, you can make it." Also this line, "One moment of pain is worth a lifetime of glory," doesn't sound right, whereas in the book, it does: "A lifetime of glory is worth a moment of pain." Now that makes sense.

The villain, called Bird, should be a ruthless torturer with emotional issues tied to his lack of promotion and homosexual longings. However Jolie has chosen an androgynous Japanese rock star, Takamasa Ishihara, who doesn't click as mean or psychotic, just barking torture orders to fill his time with an occasionally enigmatic sentence or two to entice us into thinking we havedepth. Like the film, Bird promises much but delivers too little.

As opposed to the boring torture—how about more of his home life or his search for Bird after the war? I want Jolie to do well—she has an exemplary family and solid career as an actress—but, with the negligible first directing effort, In the Land of Blood and Honey, she has yet to achieve as a director.

"I assess the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage." Friedrich Nietzsche

Okay, I've read Hilenbrand's book, which is simply riveting. Louis Zamperini's story is almost unbelievable and the movie cannot possibly do it justice in just over two hours. This could easily have stretched to four hours, but today's cinema-going public haven't got that kind of patience. The film is well done and I was certainly thoroughly entertained by it, knowing in advance it would never be as good as the book, but it certainly didn't leave me cold, demanding my ticket price back. Just watch this for the good movie that it is. Yes it could have been better, but it's a very good attempt by Jolie at the book. I just cannot understand why so many people have given it bad reviews. IMDb puzzles me greatly at times, especially when some awful movies get glowing reviews. Is there some sinister network of people out to sabotage certain movies? I really don't know. This is a very decent movie and Jolie should be proud of it.

Lets just say I just saw a great movie about loyalty, courage, survival and redemption. Angelina Jolie has fantastic directing skills and its Oscar worthy. Jack O'Connell knocks his performance out of the park and he's proved himself with this great performance along with his performances in "Starred Up" and "'71". He embodies the characteristics of Louis Zamperini and the great wonderful life he lived. Jai Courtney had a small role, but really good surprisingly, can't wait to see him as Kyle Reese in next summer's Terminator reboot. The movie slowed at a point but picked it up and blew me away, O'Connell gives an Oscar worthy performance, but given the competition it's unlikely. Who cares though? This is one of 2014's best films and you'll see it at the Oscars I promise you that.