I don't get it

I am very leftwing and liberal ... and I thought the film was great. The Director is certainly liberal. Some of the biggest critics of the film seem to come from the right (would you say republitards) because the religious aspects were not as prominent as they would like.

I loved it. I haven't read the book so I had nothing to compare it to. Besides, I don't like comparing movies to books - its an unfair comparison.
I watched this with my 10 year old son - he loved it too. He was able to appreciate the theme of the movie and cheered at the end credits when we see the main character's Olympic race many, many years later.

Both myself and my wife thought it was really good. I also don't understand the hate levelled at this movie.

Considering how incredible Louis' story was, I left the the film thinking it was good - I mean you can't hate a story of super human endurance and courage - but forgettable. Which is such a shame because this man survived being stranded at sea, was an olympic athlete, endured POW camps, suffered from depression and PTSD and had the heart to forgive his captors and return to Japan. Kind of a shame they left the last parts as a side note at the end, I feel like they're really insightful elements of his story. Instead Jolie decided to give the film an atypical Hollywood ending.

For someone who overcame so much in his lifetime this film greatly lacked character development. It was not deep at all. We only saw the exterior, it never unveiled the inner workings of Louis and his struggles. The acting was great, and I guess that made of for each character's lack of complexity, but the only character that vaguely gave us insight and made us question his story was "the bird". We needed to be able to see the protagonist's motivations, reasoning and vulnerabilities through the script and characterisation. Unfortunately we didnt get any of that.

I too thought it was well done.

Why was it trashed? Although there are many reasons, my theory is this: It is not a comfortable or easy film to watch. The torture is hard to watch for many people (myself included) despite the "triumph of the human spirit" aspect.

It is hard to like a film that has so much torture that is hard to watch. Few would ever admit it, but that is ONE of the reasons people gave it bad reviews.

In order to have an invested interest in a film (unless it's an equal-roled ensemble tapestry like something in the way of Rent or Happiness), there must always be a main character that you can really seek your teeth into and root for.. and rarely even root AGAINST.

Even though we see important parts of Zamperini's childhood, his character is never truly fleshed out onto the screen. Hollow, if you will. Even by the end of the film after watching all those atrocities, heroic acts, Olympic honors, surviving the worst of the worst, etc., there is just something missing from the main character's human essence or maybe the viewers' empathy towards him.

The actor who played Zamperini did an excellent job with what he was given, and I'm sure the novel was an entirely soulful reading in its own right, but for some reason the whole film was just devoid of any strong emotions taken or given towards this character. And since the acting was great, the production, storyline, historical accuracies, musical score, etc. each were also very well-rounded, my only conclusion is that the director had something to do with the "falling flat" effect that so many including myself took away after viewing this film.

It indeed felt like watching a Hallmark channel movie as someone else mentioned above. I had more empathy for Andy Dufresne (a FICTIONAL character, no less), and more fascination with Henry of "" Potrait of a Serial Killer than I did for this character. If it's not the acting or some horrible soundtrack, you must look at who's in charge of the whole dam thing to start with. Director = the person in charge.

I think it was a very good movie over all. I saw a few flaws but do not spend time dwelling over them because they can't be changed. I think many people who write posts are just haters who want to make themselves feel better by tearing others down. And to all of those folks, I say write a better story and work towards getting your idea financed and on film using your favorite director. If you don't like how Hollywood does the things it has been doing for decades, there are airports and shipping docks who will take you to your country of choice. But you have to have something to offer them or you can't stay longer than a tourist. Remember that wars are mainly cause by over populating a given country and that government's desire to take someone elses country so their breed can spread out. We need more films that hammer in the message of the futility of wars and the senseless waste of soldier and civilian lives regardless of whose side you are on. I give Unbroken an 8.0.

I thought it was a very good movie, bordering on excellent. I don't get the reviewer saying it was the longest two hours of his life, or that it had no dialog ala "Castaway." I was afraid it was going to be so sickly patriotic that I'd be rolling my eyes, but it wasn't overly done.