User reviews

As someone with a Masters in International Relations, I just loved this film. It really humanized the difficult process of international diplomacy. Although it doesn't get into the nuts and bolts of diplomatic deal making, I think it's quite instructive of the power of getting opposing sides to the table for talks. Of course, we now know the Oslo Accords ultimately failed, but the process for which they came about remains truly inspirational.

Also, Ruth Wilson was wonderful and delivered a quietly powerful performance.

Tempted to give this film 10/10 to balance out the politically motivated ratings. But it's really an 8 for me.

P.s. Teachers in university IR courses or high school social studies classes, this would be a great film to watch and discuss during units on international diplomacy.

Being a political movie fan I kinda like this movie. The film seems like being dragged on but you can imagine what more draggy and difficult the real peace negotiation was. It shed some light into what is happening in politics of the area. Go watch this with an open mind and you will enjoy this.

The film, which consists of a painful story, is successfully reflected to the audience with the outstanding performances of the actors. A very impressive movie that makes you question your humanity. You should definitely watch.

An unofficial meeting in Oslo back in the 1990s between Israeli and Palestinian representatives seems an oddly specific thing to want to make a film on, and, on the face of it, an even stranger thing to want to celebrate, considering the state of that region even today: What did they achieve? What has changed? What there will EVER change?

But it does a lot with very little - a tiny cast, almost all in a single location - and successfully opens what was originally a stage play up to look and feel very cinematic. The acting is nuanced and engaging, and while the end result of it may all seem a little naive and simplistic, it's entertainingly done, and feels much like other real-life-stories executive producer Spielberg has had a hand in, such as Munich and, especially, Bridge Of Spies.

There's nothing groundbreaking or truly first rate here, but this is a nice film with nice sentiments, best summed up in the words of one of the characters in it:

"Our peoples live in the past, both obsessing over what we have lost.

Let us find a way to live in the present."

If only people can sit down and talk. They didn't solve all, or even most of the issues, they didn't make years of hatred and violence disappear, but they made more progress that 40 years of official negotiations. Two people took a chance, then two more and just like that 10 people managed, at least for a little while, to stop a war.

It's not a great movie, the writing leaves a lot to be desired, but the acting is solid and it gets the job done. My main complaint is with the cinematography. Some parts look good, some have a terrible yellow filter over them and then a few scenes are straight up dipped into mustard.

I think this film is a brief summary of the current Israeli-Palestinian relationship. I liked the choice of Palestinian actors.n N matter how much he is shown as a peaceful on both sides, there is a sense of hatred. Mona's" the world left you on your own " is a brief summary of film and finally, the dominant yellow light color was very disturbing.

The Good: I think this movie works best when it most resembles a stage play. The final scene has so much dramatic pastiche and is shot in such a perfect way, I felt transported to the theater district. I also like that this movie is only partially about the nitty gritty of the negotiations and is actually more about the individuals and their relationships. The film also excels when the characters demonstrate and understanding of this very complex conflict and don't just boil it down to overused talking points.

The Bad: THAT being said. There are some problems here. This movie is heavy on the cheese and corn, if you get what I mean. When the music swells, I couldn't help but roll my eyes. I also thought some of the performances here were quite lackluster. I don't know if Salim Dau's English isn't very good or if he has a hard time emoting, but I couldn't ever understand his vibe. I thought Ruth Wilson's character and performance were...certainly not her best.

The Ugly: that yellow filter anytime they're in Israel. This movie sometimes feels "over stylized" and while I get it's based on a stage play - that's when it's at it's best, when it feels like one - it doesn't have to be hokey.

I suspect that people giving this film a bad review either don't have any knowledge of what the conflict is about, or don't like the portayal of «their» people. It's politics!

I'm from Oslo and I remember this agreement very well. Great acting and a believable portrayal of the process. No Hollywood drama.

I miss the part on how the Americans was informed of the agreement and their reaction. I guess it was ok for the Americans as long as Peres, Rabin and Arafat was giving speeches and shook hands in front of Bill Clinton at The White House - as if the Americans had anything to do with it.

At the end of the movie, it could also inform the viewers that Peres, Rabin and Arafat shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994. Holst, the Minister of foreign affairs in Norway was also ment to be a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, but he died in January of 1994 due to a stroke. His wife said that all the stress of this process caused the stroke.

IN BRIEF: Well acted but talky drama about the Oslo Peace Accord of 1993 that debates the issues without making its case.

JIM'S REVIEW: (RECOMMENDED) Oslo was a slow go for this reviewer. The more prior knowledge one has about the Israel / Palestinian conflict, the more compelling the film will be. This reviewer must admit to be one of the uninformed. The movie tells the back story about the secret negotiations between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat in 1993. Other political representatives are their proxies and main characters, all leading to Oslo Peace Accords, as two Norwegian diplomats who are also husband and wife, Terje Rød-Larsen (Andrew Scott) and Mona Juul (Ruth Wilson), broker peace talks in Oslo.

Adapting his Tony-winning play for the screen, J. T. Rogers cuts down his three hour play's length by an hour, although the film's pacing still seems much longer. Just how many scenes of constant bickering and debate between pompous men can be exciting, despite his fine prose? That is the central theme of the film. (And who would want to be caught in a room with these politician for an hour or two?) Bartlett Sher makes his directorial film debut and tries to cut back on the stagey proceedings by opening up the play with flashbacks. Archival footage of the war, and scenes of conversational walks outdoors, but he is only partially successful in his approach.

I found the film a tad disappointing. While it does provide some historical and political insights, the overall result was turgid and unemotionally involving for me, despite its uniformly strong cast. Succinctly stated, unlike the movie itself, this dramatization lacks drama. Perhaps, the subject matter remains too frustrating and unsettling for this reviewer. The war in Gaza continues as the casualties mount to this day. Conflicts outweigh commonalities and borders stay ever-present. Since this initial meeting in Oslo nearly three decades ago, treaties have come and gone, with no real hope in sight.

Some may like the fact that both Mr. Sher and Mr. Rogers never cast any blame on either party. But for me, the filmmakers compromise their own personal views and never take any side on the debate when more compassion and outrage is needed to be heard to make a broader impact on the topic. They remain neutral parties, without any solutions. And ultimately, so do I about this well-intentioned film. (GRADE: B-)

Of surprise when the osloaccord where presented, and typical it was the very humane kind of people of norway that took the role as peaceseekers, and many more should come, amongst them sri lanka etc.

It was called a road map to peace, and it had the idealism to try, but changes in the political climate on both israelis and the palestinians has more or less made this agreement function as a 1997 toyota corrolla gps map unit that hasnt been updated since, and the female voice unstoppingly screams, '' make a u-turn at next possible chance''.

As a film project its a heavy drama of more or less free of any substance, the script should have been better developed, and the actors used to portray historical persons are badly casted in my grumpy old mans consideration. Will this film help the peace process in the middle east... nope, will it remind new generations of middleeasteners what happened in 1993 in a good and informal way, nope to that. So was it worth the attendance fee... nope to that too, will i recommend... only if you can read between the lines and knows the prehistory of the conflict.

This is an incredibly interesting glimpse at one the most significant events in the history of the Israelí/Palestinian conflict. Yes! There is no action packed scenes, but rather intelligent dialogue that is interesting and thought provoking. There is also a sprinkle of humor that ties the whole story together. I highly recommend this movie to individuals who are interested in the behind the scenes look at the events that shape history.

The movie achieves what best can be achieved in 2 hours. The pace is good. Narration is clear. The actors are all very good. The background score stays in the background.

I feel that this very good movie could have been a great movie if they had added more of the historical aspects to give a deeper background & highlighted perspectives of both sides on all / each of the main negotiation points .. even if it added an hour to the movie length. Then the viewer could have come off with a far better understanding of the complex & long list of issues. As it stands, viewers just get that this process happened in Oslo and that it was an unorthodox approach and that it was a difficult process.

That notwithstanding, it is a very good movie & a 'must watch' ... with prayers that this evasive peace will be achieved sooner than later.

The inherent problems of bringing a work written for the stage to the screen are manifest here. Focusing on the World's most significant conflict, there's a very delicate line that filmmaker's have to walk to keep the audience in their seats so they'll listen-hopefully-to whatever the "other" side has to say, and we can all come out of the theater enlightened. This isn't a recreation of history, although the "back channel" depicted happened. This is a fiction that is balanced on the head of a pin so that both sides are wrong...and right. And to do that-remove the passion of both sides-you're left with what? Something lesser than the urgency of the problem the World faces.

Dialog on the stage is very different than what a screenplay needs. Moving this material required a full rewrite or you're left distracted by the question, "Do people really talk like that?" The best example is Toril Grandal's portrayal as the cook for the party who've been assembled. Both the actress and the role's conception come from a long tradition of comic French maids in the theater. It's embarrassing to watch but given the way the role is written and directed, the actress is left with little choice. On the stage, the distance a theater offers it may play better, but on a movie screen it's a disaster.

The one actor who is able to make this material seem less offensive and not a stereotyped construct is Salim Dau, as PLO's Ahmed Qurei. He walks away with the film, communicating the pain of the Palestinian experience with searing pathos.

Ruth Wilson too seems to find a quiet dignity as the person who brings the parties together and simply hopes peace will be the outcome. But everyone else screams, gesticulates, reaches for every trite stereotype at hand.

There's a brief newsreel that ends the film of the actual participants speaking and shaking hands. Those are the only honest moments in the film. And we're thrown back into reality of all that was lost as a result of these negotiations, and all that is still left to do. If the playwright/screenwriter wanted us to believe that it's outside World actors (the U. S. A., Moscow, and others) that are "the problem" and we just need to let the injured parties take a long walk in the snowy Norwegian Woods, we've since seen proof of how misguided that turned out to be.

For this specific material, a filmed stage production might have been the better choice.

To tell a story about a part of the history of the Arab-Zionist conflict, it must be neutral to the maximum extent possible, and this is what the film was trying to do. It tried to collect the views of the two parties and present them to each other, in order to prevent the filmmakers from being accused of siding with one party, but the question is, did he succeed in that?

In my opinion, it did not work, because in the real world you cannot be neutral in a way or another, especially if you are part of this conflict and discuss a subject with such sensitivity.

You must be very accurate in telling historical facts, for example: *were the Palestinians really willing to recognize the legitimacy of Israel in return for granting them semi-autonomous rule in the West Bank??

*Was the Oslo agreement expressing the public opinion of the Palestinians or the Zionists??

*Was the scene of Mona Juul's memories during the Intifada really expressing the two sides??

All of these topics and more it gives an idea to ordinary Western viewers that the Oslo agreement was in this very ordinary form like any peace agreement.

Finally one movie is made that brings forth to the world the life and work of Diplomats, Foreign Service Officers and showcases how important foreign policy and diplomacy is.

If you watch it without any biases and treat it in a value-neutrally, without taking sides, there are a lot of lessons for humanity in this movie, and it's full of entertainment as well, if you enjoy the story.

It will show and teach you, how important it is for humanity to understand the differences between different communities and factions of our world, to acknowledge it, to find a common ground and to work towards a solution - together and how challenging it can be to do so, to get the opposite sides to talk of the common issue of interest with stark differences and disagreements to the table, and to find a solution despite of that. How it can change the course of history.

I am tempted to give it 10/10, to balance the politically biased ratings, but I'm giving 9, in hope to see more and better movies like this in future.

It's excellent as a drama movie, but it's very far away from the truth and the complete story.

It's not a conflict between Israel and Palestinian; it's an OCCUPATION!

Thought it would be a boring movie but turns out to be surprisingly good, about the events that took place for signing the oslo accords. Though hours of meeting and talks would seems boring to some but its strangely intriguing and kind of uplifting when both sides came into agreement with each other. Acting is solid and non pretentious, and the couple's effort to establish the accord deserves a nobel peace prize imo. This is a good movie you should see, ignore the negative ratings as they are all silly and irrational, it certainly deserves a much better rating.

The movie gives a pretty ok Hollywood picture of the history.

Growing up and living these times as an Israeli I know most of the characters involved and the acting seems exaggerated and not very close to the truth.

Uri Savir didn't talk or look like the guy in the movie. He was a diplomat but they made him look like a bad ass tough guy in the movie.

The character portraying Abu Allah is a good actor though also seems like exaggerated acting.

Isaac Cohen playing Yossi Beilin is always a great actor and does a good job.

Overall, I don't know what exactly went inside those rooms back in 1993 but it's an interesting perspective.

On a personal note, I was one of the biggest supporters of the Oslo Agreements but sadly history has proven that they were a complete disaster. Happy to see Israel is doing peace with Egypt, Jordan, UAE and soon Morocco, KSA and Bahrain. This is such a blessing. With the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza I am sadly less optimistic for a resolution.

1/10, 1/10 ... come on people! Give humanity a chance. Excellent movie.

5 mins into this mess i was already getting disinterested but that piss-yellow filter was the last nail on the coffin for me. What a terrible filmmaking.

If you've seen MUNICH, youve seen this movie. Spielberg directed the former and produced this one. The agenda is so obvious.

There are two Palestinian negotiators. Both are noble in their grievance and open to peace. There are several Israeli negotiators and they all CURSE. Constantly. It's the director's cue that the Israelis are vulgar. The Israelis are also condescending. All that's missing are hook noses and money coming out of their pockets. I've been to Israel many times and have never seen characters like these.

The issues in the Israeli-Palestinian feud are complex on both sides, but it helps no one to paint one side as all good and the other as all bad. Really good people dont use their women and children as human shields. Good people dont place missiles in mosques, schools and hospitals. And really bad people dont warn the enemy before bombing them.

It is great to see a movie that doesn't have the "slap in your face", so called action of the majority of movies nowadays. It is also great to see what really happens instead of the mainstream media's politically correct version of events that give a totally false impression of who really brokered the negotiations and eventual accord.

Well done to the crew that made this movie, I am giving it a 10 as I cannot abide seeing the armchair detractors who know nothing of life in the Middle East.

The story is far away from the truth, If you want to know the truth just travel to Palestine.