Unfinished Sky (2007)

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I came across this movie on Netflix. I had no idea it was a remake. Funny story. You know how at the credits of a movie/show, how Netflix will give you recommended similar movies? Well, I started watching the original "Polish Bride" from there not realizing it was the original. I'm kind of slow. Anywho, the movie was sweet. I generally love watching movies where we get to observe how a character goes through his day so the beginning was perfect. Being the perv I am, the moment I saw how pretty Tahmeena's character was I was really looking forward to an epic love scene only to be left with a short interrupted make out session. I think lacking a love scene and the ending is what didn't make this movie great for me. The ending left us with so much unanswered questions. Also, Monic is sooo much hotter 10 years later. I mean did you see her hair and eyebrows in the original? Yikes!

I agree with most of the comments on this film-it is very Australian, in spite of its Dutch/Polish roots, the acting is spot-on, with one possible exception, the chemistry between the two leads is palpable, and there are no false notes right up to the end. One quibble another reviewer had is about the cop that shows up unbidden every time something unusual goes down at the main character's house which is, to say the least, off the beaten track and not on anybody's nightly rounds. That happens two or three times in the film. The connection seemed pretty clear to me from the first. Another reviewer mentioned the tacit acceptance of human trafficking in the local metropolis (Boonah and/or Beaudesert, near Brisbane). There's your answer. The only problem I had with the film is its ending. It wraps up one major story point, but opens up two or three new ones, then leaves them unresolved: After a life-and-death struggle (I won't say with whom) the two main characters are left alive, reunited and intact at the end, all dressed up-he's wearing a suit for the first time-but in what is clearly a jail or detention center of some kind, although they are not behind bars. Who is "inside" and who is out is not made clear. Where did this come from? True-she's an undocumented alien, and now that her main concern has been resolved, maybe she's just planning to leave Australia for home, but none of that has come up before, and why is he wearing a suit? What is about to happen? Are they getting married, or what? The two main characters have been bonding slowly until this point-and suddenly it's all over? There may be a simple answer, but the scene was so unexpected that it seemed like a damaged print. That startling non-ending is my only reason for giving the film a "7" instead of a 9 or 10.

I really wanted to like this film because of the fascinating story line of an Afghani woman and a rural Australian farmer. These really are two worlds that should not collide, and so the premise based on a collision of these two characters should make for a compelling narrative. However, when I walked out of the cinema I left with the feeling the film was satisfactory but nonetheless failed to deliver.The chemistry between the two main actors was evident, and the powerful feature of the film was the beautiful silences between them. For aspiring screenwriters Peter Duncan and Mr. der Hulst prove that films light on dialogue make for fascinating stories, because we can evaluate the characters based on what they do, not on what they say. This is not an easy accomplishment in screen writing, as the tendency is to write cheesy dialogue that suffocates story. Moreover, most actors seem to choose scripts heavy on dialogue with the hope it contains that one memorable line. Unfinished Sky is truly a story told in pictures.The veracity of the story is believable, and no Australian should doubt the possibility that an almost an entire rural community could be complicit in the knowledge that certain "businesses" employ and exploit illegal immigrants, particularly females. Now, I think the most unbelievable aspect of the story was the community police officer and his relationship with the town and the main character John. He suddenly just seemed to show-up throughout the film, and I couldn't help feel the Director was throwing him into the scenes for the purpose of maximizing dramatic value. It didn't work, and Roy Billing is forced into overacting.Flashbacks – another screen writing vehicle that either works or doesn't. I think there were other ways they could have structured the narrative, perhaps in a more chronological order, as opposed to inserting flashbacks throughout. Sadly, Unfinished Sky is a film that incorporates flashbacks to the detriment of my viewing experience. It slowed the action down; there were other ways to reveal insights about these characters.My last critique was the blue sky as the chosen motif for the film. Personally, if the title of the film is Unfinished Sky then the film's key motif should NOT be the same! Surely! The Director frequently portrayed John working on an "unfinished puzzle" depicting a blue sky. Then John and T. working together on the puzzle. I felt at times choking on metaphors; not an ideal cinematic experience. More subtlety is required.Finally, one reviewer made this comment about the film "When we are steamed up about injustice, we cannot access the very fine-tuned emotions associated with love." I whole-heartedly disagree with that. This line says a lot more about the individual viewer than it does the quality of the film.

This film demonstrates how fragile film aesthetics are. Quite possibly as a novel, which takes time to read and allows us to accommodate shifts in our emotions, it could be fine. But here we have, essentially two conflicting stories that are jammed onto one another with destructive results.One story is a tough, indeed brutal, issues movie dealing with justice, male dominance and humanist sentiments, the other is a touching romance about two vulnerable people trying to heal each other from their emotional scars. Neither of these is very original and the one, in my view, emotionally precludes the other. When we are steamed up about injustice, we cannot access the very fine-tuned emotions associated with love.One of the greatest things about the film medium is its ability to twist time and integrate the past into the present. But here, that is the film's undoing. If the story had been told chronologically, we would at least have been able to get the nastiness out of the way and empathise with the romance, but the threat and extremely crude depictions of the 'horrors of the brothel' keep bursting back in, destroying any subtle emotions that have been generated.