À quel prix?

Worth is not an adventure movie; it is a process movie. The changes are very small; it affects the attorneys, victims, and other advocates.

The individual performancesb Michael Keaton and Stanley Gucci provide gravitas for the entire movie.

It's set from 2001 to 2003 in Washington, D. C. and New York City and tells the story of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund through the eyes of its Special Master, Kenneth Feinberg. The movie is "based on" Feinberg's book, "What is Life worth"?

The movie opens by setting up Kenneth Feinberg's (Michael Keaton) bona fides as an expert on compensation for loss of life from a sudden loss of life by accident or violence. After 9/11, Feinberg, a longtime Democrat who had worked for Ted Kennedy, is asked by Attorney General John Ashcroft (Victor Slezak) to be the Special Master for the compensation fund. Feinberg welcomes the invitation, and with the help of his assistant, Camille Biros (Amy Ryan), and staffers Priya Khundi (Shunori Ramanathan) and Darryl Barnes (Ato Blankson-Wood), begins the process of meeting the claimants.

Initially, Feinberg is an insensitive number-cruncher who alienates the relatives of those who lost family members. We hear snippets of many stories of victims and follow a few more extended stories. These include the gay partner of a victim who does not fit the "formula" because Virginia, where they lived, did not recognize civil unions. Another involved the widow and children of a firefighter who had other children the widow presumably did not know about. Other characters are critics of the Fund's rules, Charles Wolf (Stanley Tucci), and a lawyer representing only the highest-income families, Lee Quinn (Tate Donovan).

The storyline follows Feinberg's transition to greater empathy and the challenge to get at least 80% of the claimants to sign on to the Fund by the deadline.

At some levels, this is a heartwarming story of growing empathy. However, I wondered what the real Kenneth Feinberg thought of his depiction. In the beginning, he's a tone-deaf bureaucrat, which seems odd for someone reputed to be an expert in compensation cases that requires meetings with survivors. This rattled my believability gauge, which is always crucial for me in biopics. In addition, I found Keaton's "Boston" accent more distracting than reinforcing. And the ending surge to the finish line seemed a bit pat.

But I found the story engaging and a good reminder of the chaos and myriad stories that emerged from 9/11.

Well written, edited, and so forth. Keaton and Tucci are masterful in their portrayals. The movie has very touching moments that portrays the situation in the film as well as those of the stories of the people this is based on in a very sympathetic and emotional manner. I would recommend to almost anyone who asks me to give it a shot. My only real criticism is that it can be slow at times, and at the core concept the movies plot self describes to be about justice. How suing the airlines over the events of 9/11 is about justice or the motivation in doing so however is never explained.

It comes down to characters always saying the whole movie is about being just but never once explains why it's the airlines fault.

This movie is frustrating because its has so many of the ingredients needed for a great movie but it's not a great movie and I don't know what the missing ingredient is. But it plods along without impetus. It needs a jolt from a director who would see a great story thats told in a boring way is not story to be retold.

The good: excellent acting performance by Michael Keaton. Photography and direction are great as well.

What's missing? Anything bad? Well, this movie turns into a feel good movie, wherein all the 9/11 vicitm's families suddenly start treating the government as a friend, while in real life there was no such thing. In fact there is still a lot of resentment towards the government because of the fact that a lot of volunteer aid workers did not get a penny. Not even for their severe disabilities.

Still not a bad movie, but a movie which feels like someone is whitewashing the mistreatment of many aid workers by painting a rosy picture of a terrible mistreatment of volunteer aid workers.