Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
In My Country
User Score
7.8 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 4 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 4
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 4
  3. Negative: 1 out of 4

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. MichaelD.
    Apr 12, 2005
    10
    Best movie ever; can anyone say the contrary.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. MarkG.
    May 13, 2005
    10
    Excellent. In micro and macrocosim reflects what are the complex and conflicted emotions of what are So Africa, interracial society, revenge and forgivness, humanity, cruelty, and love and death. Not bad for less than two hours!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. JohnR.
    May 31, 2005
    2
    Simply a disaster, embarrassing.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. MarkB.
    Jun 15, 2005
    9
    Combine two absolutely world-class actors (Samuel L. Jackson, who simply never disappoints, and Juliette Binoche, whose exquisite delicacy and vulnerability made her THE indispensible component in both The English Patient and Chocolat) with an incredibly compelling, fascinating historical moment (the tribunals called for by Nelson Mandela and conducted in post-apartheid South Africa in 1995) and you're halfway home. Director John Boorman (Deliverance, The General) and screenwriter Ann Peacock finish the journey by fashioning a work that asks scores of questions worthy of a week's worth of post-film discussions, such as: If the point of the tribunals was to forgive the White Afrikaaner minority for its torture of and other crimes against alleged Black majority dissidents, what offenses, if any, qualify as being absolutely unforgivable? How much weight should be placed on whether the alleged criminals truly are remorseful or just playing the part in order to get a wrist-slap...and how many of them truly WERE sorry? (According to the film, at least one...and he figures prominently in the most heartbreaking scene in a movie that's packed with them.) How much of a valid defense is the old "just following orders" line? (And if you're automatically thinking Nazi Germany, fine...but I think this movie correlates this excuse with human nature in all times and places. Certainly ANY example of mob violence ranging in history from the Crucifixion to My Lai would definitely prove that we're dealing with the herd mentality, a flaw in human nature that isn't limited to any time or geographic area.) Why do tragedies in predominantly White countries make the front page but, if they occur in Africa, get relegated to page 7 or further back? And finally, whose country IS the title referring to: Anna's (Binoche) because she claims it as her homeland and has lived there all her life, or American correspondent Langston's (Jackson) because his skin color links him to the original residents? I absolutely disagree with the standard criticism of this film that the affair that Anna and Langston fall into is contrived, distracting and out of tone with the powerful material. On the contrary, I believe that their actions fit in perfectly with it, because Anna's and Langston's relatively comfortable, Westernized minds, as well as those of other reporters covering the hearings, aren't equipped to handle the extreme examples of man's inhumanity to man that they hear described day after day; consequently, nonsmokers start smoking and everybody starts guzzling beer out of quart bottles...so it seems totally natural (if not right) for the happily married Anna to seek solace from the pain she's been witness to with a fellow observer who's also trying desperately to cope with it all. The last 8 months have seen 3 major motion pictures dealing with 20th century mass slaughter in the oldest and, arguably, most tragic continent: Sydney Pollack's superficial, self-important The Interpreter, Terry George's effective Hotel Rwanda, which boasts a magnificent performance by Don Cheadle but still pulls a couple punches too many...and this, which is not only the most heartwrenching, intellectually challenging and emotionally overwhelming of the lot, but is John Boorman's best film since his 20-year-old The Emerald Forest.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
44 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 27 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 27
  2. Mixed: 14 out of 27
  3. Negative: 6 out of 27
  1. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Kirk Honeycutt
    50
    The charisma and hard work by his two leads allows Boorman to succeed beyond all expectations.
    Read full review
  2. The A.V. Club
    Reviewed by: Nathan Rabin
    20
    Any social good the film might do gets lost in a soupy morass of histrionics, clumsy storytelling, overripe dialogue, and rampant didacticism.
    Read full review
  3. Variety
    Reviewed by: Derek Elley
    40
    An unquestionably sincere but dramatically stillborn outing by veteran John Boorman.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »