sddavis63 A movie about the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings established by Nelson Mandela after he became South Africa's president with the end of the apartheid era should be powerful and riveting. What a surprise to tune into this movie that features good actors such as Samuel L. Jackson and Juliette Binoche in the leads and discover that this movie is neither powerful nor riveting. Instead, it lacks any real depth about the hearings - of which we are given snippets but little real context, or vignettes but little substantial content and it chooses for some absolutely inexplicable reason to focus far too heavily on a completely unnecessary romance that develops between those two leads.Jackson and Binoche play American newspaper reporter Langston Whitfield and South African radio reporter Anna Malan respectively. There was some potential for reflection in these characters and their relationship - had it been kept on a more professional level. They were perhaps a bit too one-dimensional, but in the one-dimensional characters there was some interesting material. Anna deals with being a white person in a country so long oppressed by white people, and even though she herself acknowledged the evils of apartheid, she also grew up as a child of some privilege under the apartheid regime who now, through her reporting, seems to be trying to make her own amends as she covers the Commission (even as she creates tensions with her own family by doing so.) Much more could have been done with her character than was done. Jackson's character, in my opinion, was even more shallow. He seems to have little journalistic detachment. He has a chip on his shoulder about the Commission, deploring the goal of the proceedings, which was to bring about if not forgiveness at least reconciliation, and instead wondering why this isn't about punishment. His "chip" seems based more on his own treatment as a black American back home than on the feelings of the black South Africans he encounters. There was an interesting reflection that began (but was then largely discarded) about the fact that the white Anna knew far more about Africa and being an African than the African-American Langston. Langston's series of interview with De Jager (Brendan Gleeson) - apparently a high ranking security official in the apartheid regime - were scattered throughout the movie and didn't really do much to push the story along, aside from giving us a apartheid-era figure who didn't really seem all that repentant.So much more could have been done with this than was done, and so much was done with this (especially the Langston-Anna romance) that shouldn't have been done. (5/10)

paulouscan I am amazed to see the negative review this film got in North America. It is a wonderful film. The interpretation is excellent, very moving. Direction achieves its target very efficiently, without lengths. What better message than that of Love, that of seeking reconciliation? Force and violence never came to anything lasting. Admittedly, it very often took force and struggle and blood to achieve peace. But it has never lasted otherwise than by the love of man, the type of love which made us educate, cultivate, teach people everything we knew so that they would go even further in this direction, along this work, and so that by increasing human brotherhood love, we could achieve a more calm, more live-able, more fertile society, with a future still ahead. I tip my hat to the general attitude of the black people of South Africa, who has followed the lead of Mandela to see an end of war in the reconciliation process, an end to hatred, an end to insecurity, to this imaginary threat which used to inflame the minds contagiously and drove men to kill each other. It is difficult to bring a better message to the audience of a film. Very brilliant screenplay. Absolutely worth seeing. And I would add that one can see in that message the old axiom: it is not enough to be honest and to act according to his faith, beliefs, convictions; this attitude is just an elementary basics; what is needed is to act according to truth; and if one wants to know where the truth lies: it's what leads to more life, the solution that produces the most life, not one that respects one's personal beliefs, it would be much too easy ...

bernhardzils Why 8 stars ? John Boorman has made more "cinematographically" significant movies, in terms of artistic creation, but the grandness of a nations people shown in this movie dealing with its terrible wounds, is a great lesson in humanity.This movie just reached Belgium. It was never shown in our theaters, it was released as a DVD. I really would have loved to discover this picture in a theater. John Boorman conveys the magnificence of this country and its people, thus giving us breath enough to bear the unbearable. The rather sober way of acting leaves room for our own emotions.Thank you, Mr. Boorman !

jotix100 John Boorman, an interesting film maker, takes us to South Africa after Apartheid. Right after the country underwent the big change during the last decade of the last century, a commission was formed in order to hear the atrocities that were committed by the old regime, as the victims, and their families, were invited to come forward and speak to the panel that was investigating. The film is based on a novel by Antjie Krog, but not having read it, one can't really give an opinion about how true the film is to the novel."In my Country", the movie based on this book in its American release, came and went quickly. We tried to see it during its debut, bu it disappeared from local screens in no time. We recently caught the movie on cable.There are some interesting aspects of what the commission was trying to accomplish in trying to bring members of the repressive force to justice. As in other conflicts, the people that were involved in the atrocities keep repeating about how they were following orders, a poor excuse, since no one owned up to having done anything wrong. After all, this was a country in which a white minority controlled a big black majority, and who wanted to keep things unchanged.At the center of the story is Anna Malan, a white South African, who is a radio personality. She follows the commission as more and more people are coming forward to tell their stories. A Washington Post black reporter, Langston Whitfield, is also covering the process. Inevitably, both come together. While they clash at first, they find common ground in their desire to tell the truth about South Africa.Juliette Binoche and Samuel L. Jackson are seen as Anna and Langston. Both give good performances. Brendan Gleeson is seen as the evil De Jager, a man responsible for some of the crimes committed against the poor black of the country who were deemed terrorist by the controlling whites. Menzi Ngubone plays Dumi, Anna's assistant and Sam Ngakone makes a dignified appearance as Anderson, who works for Anna's family.The film is interesting to watch as Mr. Boorman has given us a film to think about the criminal acts that were committed by a group of people that didn't stop to consider the consequences of what they were doing.