Could have, would have, should have, been so much more.

Rating: 5/10 (28 January 2015)

The story behind this film is interesting - I don't like the fact that it opens by stating 'A True Story' as the art of film is consciously choosing a perspective, and 'truth' is, or at least should be, outside perspective. I would much prefer 'based on true events' or 'inspired by real events', that way the filmmaker acknowledges that there is more to the content than what will be presented. Moving along.
"Unbroken" (Jolie 2014) is too long. It could easily have been an incredibly powerful miniseries of four one hour episodes as the story has four definite 'chapters'. Think "Band of Brothers" (Frankel 2001). This story has that much potential. The film does the story justice; there are some beautiful, powerful and beautifully powerful moments which makes the film work. There are however one or two moments where the emotions are indulged in and that breaks from the immersion a 'true story' should long for; every moment should to be completely believable. These moments make me question some of the creative license Jolie took with the detail of the facts which, if she did in fact not, means this film could have had a much greater effect on me.
For the fact that it is a single feature film, Jolie should have cut a lot of the content. The film is very obviously not a documentary which means narrative should be king (even where based on true events) and for this reason Jolie should have focused more on the moment, the people, the actions and the reactions than the amount of terrible things the characters had to survive. Taking any two of the four chapters, fleshing them out in terms of story and cutting down on the running time would have made this a stronger film.
Casting was well done, the actors look like the characters in a natural way. Jack O'Connell played a difficult role well for the most part. There are a few moments where you can see the actor trying to achieve an emotional and physical expression which he has very deliberately been directed into; which is a weakness. I do consider the fact that the actors had to portray people who had lived in horrible living conditions and that there is a definite threshold where your imagination starts filling in the blanks, it's usually around this point in time where disbelief sets in.
In terms of the quality of the film, it's top notch. The camera work and sound is great, the editing is mostly really good as well and any noticeable short comings really come down to story (as I've mentioned that the acting was effective as well – the short comings in the acting I credit to the short comings in the story and directing.
This is a good film, but it probably won't stay with you, it's memorable in that you will remember the greater story and the fact that this man survived a whole lot of terrible things, but you won't remember the man. You won't remember any one moment, and the moments you will remember you will remember as being obvious and forced.