I thought this was great - incredibly well-made and riveting, and the entire cast is fantastic. Jack O'Connell in particular is sensational and I also quite enjoyed Domnhall Gleeson and Finn Wittrock's work here. Garrett Hedlund is also very good though given the least to do. It's visually stunning, with an incredibly epic feel despite a relatively modest budget, and it's clear that Jolie has made this movie with a lot of care. It is a total crowdpleaser and despite the mixed reception right now I have a feeling this will still go far this awards season. If anything it should have great WOM at the box office. A-

Though few saw it, particularly during its brief theatrical run, I adore Angelina Jolie's directorial debut, In the Land of Blood and Honey, a poignant and visceral drama set during the Bosnian War. In my opinion, it is one of the finest and most interesting directorial debuts ever by a film star and, as a subtitled document of sexual violence during genocide, revealed Jolie's courageous and empathetic nature behind the camera. She has now directed a second film, Unbroken, and once again excels. It is much larger scope and more polished than In the Land of Blood and Honey, and not as impacting, but it without a doubt further solidifies her superior directorial ability.

Her subject here is Louis "Louie" Zamperini, an Italian American of the Greatest Generation with a spectacular life story. He is played by promising British actor Jack O'Connell in a charismatic and focused performance. Louie first rose to prominence as an Olympic long-distance runner. His lightning-fast final lap during the 5000-meter run in Berlin earned him a certain degree of celebrity, as well as a brief personal meeting with an admirer by the name of Adolf Hitler (an encounter not dramatized in this film). Later, during the Second World War, he served in the United States Army Air Forces and survived over 40 days adrift in the Pacific Ocean with minimal food and water after a plane crash. "Rescued" by a Japanese patrol, this bid for survival gave way to another nightmare: two years of degradation, servitude, and torture in various prisoner-of-war camps. (Japanese guitarist and songwriter Miyavi, with his metro-sexual and slightly alien presence, steals scenes as Imperial Japanese Army sergeant Watanabe, or "the Bird," a sadist who engineered many of Louie's abuses and was later cited by General Douglas MacArthur as one of the most egregious at-large war criminals of the Pacific theatre.)

This film exudes earnest fascination with Louie and respect for his wartime resilience. This is no generic awards-season studio product, but a deeply felt paean to the late athlete and soldier by Jolie. To be honest, it is a borderline gushing hagiography, indulging in the nearly mythic—dare I say Herculean?—quality of his saga, though Jolie and her head-turning private legion of prestigious writers (Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, Richard LaGravenese, and William Nicholson) include a few evenhanded and bluntly uncomfortable moments so as to not completely canonize their subject. In one, an ailing bombardier inquires if he will die soon, perhaps tonight. Louie ponders the question and rather flatly replies, "Maybe." The film holds viewers' hands a tad tightly in its positioning of Louie's torments and trials as a stations-of-the-cross march toward faith and transcendence—there is literal sermonizing early on as a priest expounds on the significance of loving thine enemy—but resistance to the inspiration and uplift proves futile, particularly with so many perfectly executed and truly exciting set pieces, shot by inimitable cinematographer Roger Deakins with an equal eye for verisimilitude and old-fashioned, David Lean-style spectacle.

B+

This and The Railway Man fit together rather perfectly. I have read complaints from fans of Unbroken the book regarding the fact the film ends with his initial return to America and only mentions his reconciliation tour of Japan in the postscript.

^I actually enjoyed Railway Man a lot more than this, too bad that never gained traction.

While handsomely made I think this film lacked the emotional punch something like this needs.

I've been hearing this complaint as well, especially in regard to the fact that the film makes only very cursory and implicit mention of his return to religion after the war. And to it, I counter that although I like the movie, there's no way I would have wanted to sit through what probably would have been at least another 15-20 minutes (if not more) of postwar material.

Plus, the film does include religious elements. Most overtly, there is his bargain with God while on the raft, but also the Passion-esque image of him holding the timber over his shoulders.

Jolie has a keen eye behind the camera and the acting is fine but the story just did not pull me in. It doesn't really do anything to set itself apart from other biopics. Plus the repeated torture doesn't add the element of trying to overcome like it should, it just becomes another repetitive piece in an overlong film.

This sums up my thoughts very well, though I'd like to highlight Deakins' magnificent camera work and O'Connell's strong performance.

I thought this was a strong, handsomely made production by Angelina Jolie. It's a bit more detached and vaguely less "inspirational" than I was expecting, but I found it to be an effective Hollywood example of crowd-pleasing filmmaking. B+

Unbroken

A rather weak film. What's the story? He had a tough time. Like, a real tough time. Every day. The End. But they gave him his Colgate every night before sleep. Oh, it's such a flat film. It's just there. There's no narrative, really. It's just there to say 'look, this was bad, and he lived to tell the tale'. Apart from the beginning where they are dropping bombs, all scenes to do with being a runner, and the bit in the life raft, the film was just clueless as to what to do beyond that, and that is Jolie's fault. I thought it had potential, but they missed an opportunity. Instead of telling (and re-telling) the story of how detention camps are bad, they should have cut that down by half and focused on his life back home when he returned. That would have been something interesting to see; how he settles back into life. The closing text said that he struggled somewhat getting back into society. Why not show us that then?!?! It's a million times more interesting than showing us him slowly walking around covered in coal. Or him slowly walking around covered in blood. Or mud. Or shit. That got repetitive. I wasn't deflated with the character. I was bored.

Jack O'Connell was pretty mediocre too. His accent was dodgy, but his overall demeanour was just wrong. An example; they were in the life raft, and after 28 days, his facial movements are still as quick as a cat, whereas the other guys are barely moving, lifting their eyelids twice a minute. It just felt wrong for me. The beginning was good, and solid. I enjoyed it. The Berlin Olympic Games scene was very good. I was rooting for him. The cinematography there was spot on. The crowd blending well with the runners to produce a surreal 1930s-esque mirage. Loved it. The shark scenes were also very good. Not tense, but enjoyable to watch. I was beginning to feel something. But then it went flat. There was no pay off. This is what happens when a director feels strongly about something or someone that nobody else gives a shit about. There have also been so many films and stories like this one that Unbroken felt like it was on well-travelled ground. For much of the film it felt like a TV movie. It was as if I was watching a direct-to-DVD "epic" like The White Squall, where they have semi-high budgets but most of it is just well-placed (or well-hidden) trickery - like when they conveniently didn't show the explosions from the dropping of the bombs, or how they didn't show much blood etc. It just didn't seem authentic. That's not just a dig at the makeup, but the overall production design. The movie just didn't work for me. If it had been in the hands of someone like Spielberg, I feel it would have turned out much better.

Should I even bother with In the Land of Blood and Honey?

C+

I'm not surprised this got released in China. Any opportunity for the Chinese to allow a dig at the Japanese, they will take it. It was packed in the cinema. All the seats were taken. This will do well here.

Kinda overlong and repetitive with the torture.

B

This was a really entertaining film, even better than the book, which was great as well. They cut out most of the boring stuff in part 2 between the part where he is in the olympics and when he is on the raft, and the movie feels much more cohesive as a result. I did think it was a bit too pretty for a war movie, and I would have preferred to see Louis adjust back to normal life instead of having to read it before the credits, but I don't see how this isn't fresh at RT.

B+