Takeshi-K I spent a few years living in Australia and while improving my English, I developed a love of this country's cinematic tradition. This film has stuck in my mind ever since. While seeing it with foreign eyes probably helped, anyone that enjoys a good romance film will find something to like about it.This film follows a widowed farmer that seems fairly happy living the life of on the land alone with only his faithful dog to keep him company. Enter one mysterious, scared and battered woman into his life and you have the makings of a good mystery romance.The acting is excellent and while the plot is predictable, the mystery subplot was a bit under-cooked, its heartwarming where it needs to be and serious at the right time too.

dlldeano i thoroughly enjoyed this film. history would suggest Aussie made films aren't generally of the highest caliber - mad max(mad max 1 that is) aside. But as an Aussie myself i will allow myself to be critical of Aussie movies. so to watch this film was a delight. this film had a great back drop - rural Australia - and didn't under or overplay that aspect of the film. Was a lot of money spent making this movie - no - but that would be true to the film - a gritty and very good Australian film. The film also contains a little something for most, with an element of romance and suspense thrown into this drama. The plot tag also suggests she flees a brothel which sounds very cliché but isn't accurate in relation to where she is fleeing from at the beginning of the film. Give it a try - great film.

tomas_ernst 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.

Balthazar-5 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.