User reviews

Contrary to the comment by "pusic, Israel" (who may be somewhat biased in not wanting people to know anything about what Palestinians endure), I saw this movie a couple of times many years ago, on 'cable'. Naturally, it has never been shown on regular TV...

It concerns a Palestinian who was accused of something, and who is defended by a Jewish American female lawyer (Jill Clayburgh). It is to be noted that the cast includes both Jewish Israeli and Arab actors, in addition to Jill and French actors.

I found the movie interesting and refreshing in its condition of being an example of something of which we should see a lot more, if Hollywood studios were run by different people. As it is, I can't think of any other movie which relates to the West Bank and/or Gaza and takes place in the times since 1967.

Costa-Gavras has superbly captured the mood and atmosphere of Jerusalem and its diverse people in this sombre work. It's an intriguing film for that reason alone. But he also has set a complex story with fascinating characters on that unique stage. You have to work at watching it a bit, but the effort is worthwhile. It's also one of Jill Clayburgh's best roles

A daring movie that hits the truth, goes against the stream, and explore the tragedy. The film is well worth watching, especially for those who are only familiar with one side of the conflict. I recommend it for people seeking understanding of the middle east. Hope you enjoy it.

Without going into details the movie explore an era that is sadly has gotten worse since, daring and telling the truth and going against what is said on the stream .

The acting would be a bit cold in certain scenes nevertheless it still delivered the message in a perfect way.

The atmosphere in Jerusalem feels so vivid and the scene when one of the protagonists walks in the street of and in the allee it felt really genuine how the people are selling, smithing and just walking or talking

The movie contain a lot of figurative scenarios that try to deliver a really nice message enjoyed the movie and I really wished it would last a bit longer .

Costa-Gavras raises some interesting and valid points here that are just as relevant today as they were 18 years ago.But like all backstage quarterbacks regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict he doesn't offer any suggestions to solve the problem.The real problem with this film though lies in Jill Clayburgh's performance.It never rises above a "TV Movie" level and she drags the whole cast and the story down with her.I think if somebody like Meryl Streep had starred in this picture,it would have been a completely different movie.

There is a good movie to be made of the Israel-Palestine conflict; but this is not it. The leading character is portrayed as a cipher, whose opinion sways according to which of her lovers -- the public prosecutor, or her Palestinian client -- she most recently slept with. It is an insult to the few Israeli women lawyers courageous enough to defend Palestinian clients, and I think they should sue for defamation.

Although it is laudable that Costa-Gavras attempts to show the suffering, and the struggle, of Palestinians expelled by the nascent Israeli state in 1948, this movie almost reduces them to bit players in the internal conflict of a confused woman. It does a disservice to both the Palestinian struggle and its own heroine. Costa-Gavras should be capable of much better than this tawdry pot-boiler.

Far from successful movie makes some distinctly weird artistic choices, right up to the last scene The rather adventurous underlying structure (Hanna's emotional confusion and attempt to forge a workable life and career, while poised between a politically and ideologically adventurous mix of men) needs a far more dynamic, less portentous telling than is employed here. The movie is mostly tedious and arbitrary and seems like a very odd way of approaching the undoubtedly important underlying issues. Clayburgh isn't a very exciting presence, and the men around her just float in and out - the forging of oppositions and conflicts leads us not to a heightened appreciation of the broader politics but just to melodramatic excess (for example, D.A. Byrne opposes her in court with particular enmity, but later - despite little apparent chemistry - she has a child with him even though their differences remain largely unreconciled : you just stare blankly at all this...)

This is without any doubt one of the worst movies ever made. The plot is all obscured,although it's not meant to be that way. You have the feeling that the director wanted to get this farce over with and return to his sun bed. Do yourselves a huge favour and don't waste your time on this one.