jjploquin The first thing we have the right to expect from actors is that they can speak loudly and clearly enough to be understood by everybody in the audience. I am sorry but mumbling is not good enough for a professional who makes his/her living by speaking. The subject of the movie seemed attractive enough but after half an hour of straining our ears to understand what was going on, my wife and I decided that no matter how bad we'd love to see the bad guy brought down, enough bad acting was enough. It was made worse because the movie was supposed to be subtitled and it was not. Please, miss Fox and company, call me back when you have passed your exam in elocution.

JoeKulik A very "twisty" storyline that is very well thought out and well executed. Yet, as convoluted as this tale is,it was not only easy to follow, but it "sucked me in" more and more as the film progressed. Very suspenseful. Excellent, "natural" acting by the whole cast that gives the film an air of actually being a documentary, as much as a theatrical film. The court proceedings, both the public part, as well as the "behind the scenes" maneuvering was quite accurate from my layman's point of view. The cinematography was very good as well, providing several interesting camera positions in many scenes. The only unrealistic part of the film is towards the end, when the female prosecutor begins to lose her professionalism and becomes emotionally involved with the case. That she discovers in the end that her diplomat husband was actually conspiring with the defendant for political reasons was Much TOO "coincidental" for me, as well. Overall, though I would DEFINITELY view this film again, now having benefited from seeing it the first time. ... [email protected]

artu_ue This film was supposed to be done in 2007 and to talk about a Croatian war crime criminal Ante Gotovina that was arrested in Spain and the infamous 'Storm' (military offensive in Croatia in 1995), but somehow the title stayed, but the story changed (probably doing the long research) and it's about a trial against a Serbian commander from the same war (who gets caught in Spain at the beginning of the film though) and the main roles (the convict and his lawyer) were played by Croatians which was funny. The commander's name and the place where he allegedly committed crimes are fiction, except the hotel's name that was modified, but who can speak the language will get it.Anyway, doesn't matter which side is being the bad one, a war criminal is a war criminal but also a national hero for some. What I like about this film is that it's remarkably restrained for a political film, there are no flashbacks to the wars in the Balkans because in the first place it covers the dynamics of the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) in pretty much critical way, how it works (shown from personal and public perspective), how time pressure on witnesses, judges, prosecutors.. should be reduced because the UN plans closing the Tribunal by the end of 2010 and many things have been left untold, unsolved, criminals unpunished.. It yearns for public awareness hoping something will change. It portrays how difficult it is to run a lawsuit when you can't make witnesses testify because they are afraid for their lives and families, when even after so many years some people are not ready to speak, the others are not capable of accepting the terrible crimes violating human rights as crimes that should be punished. It shows women's zeal for justice and punishment more than men's, people trying to maintain their balance when everything's unjust, betrayals, political countermeasures.. In this film a hero may not get the villain, the victim may not get to testify like she wants and the justice may not be satisfied because even at high court as this one justice is just a part of political games, a lot of compromises are being made because a lot of things are at stake (for example the witness' testimony may jeopardize the political need to bring various states from ex-Yugoslavia into the EU, it should be done as smoothly as possible and everything else is less important, even justice).The heart of the film lies in the scene when a witness finds out that she won't be allowed to testify about her ordeal she asks a question about the ICTY in the fury - What kind of court is this? What the hell is it actually for?! The frustrating answer which is hard to accept is - Partial justice is better than none. And I should add superb acting by leading female roles Kerry Fox and Anamaria Marinca, the Notwist's music in the background giving the special cold feeling to the whole murky atmosphere and making the film good as it is, but still it has more sense to people from the region or those involved with the Tribunal.

buzzbruin I saw this picture after a critics recommendation. As a retired Lawyer I was fascinated by the Hague and its world Court process in prosecuting the atrocities of the Muslums and others in Bosnia. It is a cerebral thriller. It is more interested in pursuing the criminals who were the Leaders of these horrible crimes. It is a great film about the legal system no matter what the court. It relies on drama, good acting rather than tales of horror. The trial scenes are simple yet riveting and suspenseful. It is also a great pleasure that my wife and I knew NONE of the cast, making the film that much better. It always amazes me how many good filmmakers there are in the world who out perform the crap that Hollywood makes. The over blown-in love with special effects is so juvenile it is revolting. Suffice to say Im not a kids anymore and is great to know there are people who recognize that there is an adult mature audience hungering for such films. It is also a thriller, so I guarantee you wont be bored. See it as soon as you can since it is very limited release!!