pietclausen On a local radio talk show this morning listeners were asked to phone in and name a film that they had walked out from. A lady responded and stated that she and one other person on the other side of the theater, were the only viewers. An hour into the show the other person stood up, walked over to her and said ' I can't take it anymore, it's too gruesome' and walked out.This brilliant film by Anant Singh tells the story of psychological trauma suffered by a South African prison warden, who lands in court for a most serious crime. In this court drama the facts come to light as the case progresses, until the verdict is given. Based on true facts this movie gives viewers insight into the trial and tribulations of this 17 year old warden. The movie may be too graphic for some viewers, but it presents actual happenings, without which the movie would be senseless. The end result is an admirable film, leaving scope for thought. This gem has perhaps not had widespread circulation, but is certainly recommended if you come across it.

Andres-Camara What detail surprised me? Normally this type of films, they usually take more along the racist road, but this time no, this time the film is not going around, white against black, if not all drifting towards a plea against the death penalty. The funny thing is that on all sides we see that this is requested, except for the defense lawyer.The truth is that it is not a bad movie, but it does not become a great movie, more than anything because I do not believe many of the things. The lawyer and the lawyer should not have passed the casting. She has neither strength nor anything and there are moments when I focus more on other aspects of her face than on her performance. The defendant is very content, but can lead not to believe it very easy.The films of trials are usually boring and must be done very well. This is not the case. Moments of judgment are not the best taken. I do not really like photography. When you try to put the light through the windows, the photograph is horrible. He does not know how to do it. The moments on the street look more like a movie for television than anything else.The management is not great either. It does not get boring, but it's very close. It is very repetitive. He does not know how to do anything but close-ups.You will see it and well you have not wasted the time, but almost

michaeljtrubic Very similar to his work on Philomena. A brilliant narrative investigating a mass shooting and the tortured soul on trial. Much more that a legal drama. Its a dark journey into a barbaric (and hopefully much remedied) prison system in South Africa.Steve Coogan has carved himself a specialty with these films. He brings intensity and brilliant deduction into this character and his scenes.Also of note is that this appears to be from first time writer and a first time director. Very pleasant surprise that they are so good at delivering a moving subject in their first venture to attract the talented Mr. Coogan.The young murderer is also very well cast and I can expect other large roles in his future.

Red-Barracuda Set in apartheid South Africa, this courtroom drama is based on true events. It looks at the case of a young white man accused of shooting dead seven black men in a seemingly motiveless scenario. It soon became apparent that he worked in a high security prison as a guard in the death row unit, where his daily routines had him simultaneously look after the prisoners and also lead them to the gallows. His defence team tried to prove his actions were a direct result of the psychological trauma that came from such a disturbing and stressful environment.I thought this was a somewhat unusual courtroom drama. In most examples of the genre we are presented with a clear cut scenario where the film-makers make it quite clear who we will be rooting for. This one, by contrast, operates almost exclusively in shades of grey. Unlike how it is usually done, the lawyers on both sides of the argument are presented fairly. In most films of this type the opposing lawyer is generally shown to be a moral degenerate; in this one the prosecution attorney, played by Andrea Riseborough, is often represented as more reasonable that the main protagonist, the defence lawyer played by Steve Coogan. This measured approach is to be commended, as it comes over as more realistic and less manipulative. It also serves to ensure that the courtroom scenes are slightly underplayed, meaning that the flash-back scenes to the parts depicting the executions seem even more horrific by direct comparison. These scenes in particular are perhaps what ultimately defines this film as they show capital punishment in intensely graphic detail and are very disturbing. It's many of the little horrible human details of the process that will stick long in the memory.The story itself resolves itself in a way that is more complex than these films usually allow themselves to be. Coogan essentially wins his case against the system but in doing so gets his client a deal which feels – to me in any case – far too lenient and it is the black under-class who ultimately do not fully get justice. While at the same time, the reason given for triggering the murder seemed, to say the least, questionable. The case actually seemed horribly like a miscarriage of justice in an unfair society in all honesty. But through this case many things are examined quite effectively. Chief of these being the sheer horror of the death penalty mechanism and the way that it can sometimes be forgotten that it is ultimately a very violent and disturbing process. I think this film was highly interesting in that it is not about comforting resolutions - the resolution made me feel very uneasy in fact – but it feels truer to life for all that. It makes you ponder issues of justice, capital punishment and – even though it never comes out explicitly – racism. A very thought-provoking film overall.