Unbroken

I cannot understand the negative reviews of this movie ,are the themes of bravery,endurance and forgiveness outdated?It is well known that the regeime of Japanese prison camps was cruel to say the least.The acting of the lead players was faultless proving again that British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

Unbroken opens with an extended sequence of a bombing run by a US B-17 crew against Japanese targets in the Pacific, and the subsequent attack on the bomber by a squad of Japanese Zero fighters. This aerial combat sequence is one of the most harrowing of it's kind I have ever seen. You actually feel like you are in that plane experiencing that terror and exhilaration first hand. This segment cannot be over praised, it is that good. Another sequence in a bomber, where the plane experiences massive engine failure and crashes into the sea with the crew all on board is also very well done. The flashback segments on Zamperini's running career are also fine, the extended sequence depicting three airmen's time on a life raft floating in the middle of the Pacific ocean is well done. So far it's all good.

Then we get to the meat of the film, the prisoner of war scenes, and the film becomes a ponderous slog through torture and brutal beatings of the main character by an effeminate and sadistic Japanese captor. This is essentially the entire second half of the film, and it becomes monotonous and numbing.

The photography, sound , and music in this film were all award-caliber, and Jolie shows great promise as a mainstream director.

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.

I never compare books and movies, but one thing the book has over the movie was the distinct unpreparedness we had for war. The planes were flying deathtraps, and the supplies were totally inadequate.

Angelina Jolie had to make decisions about what to include and exclude in a two-hour film, so we missed a lot of important information that was in the book. No matter, the film itself was well worth watching. Not a great film, but entertaining.

If you want to be shocked and angered at the aircraft manufacturers, the military that failed to supply the troops ( where have we heard that before?), and the absolute barbarity of the Japanese in their prison camps, buy the book.

Come to think about it, watching the film will help you appreciate the book so much more.