Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

robertofuiano 6.9 votes equal to fragile. And 'now clear that this site has a strong antipathy towards the horror film. If this movie had been in Stephen King would have had more. For me to go to pieces is the comment by Aaron1375. AARON STILL TU, quache distant relative of SHARON? Restless character already seen previously. Why make comparisons between SILENT HILL AND MIRRORS? E '100 times better this movie. Silent hill comes from a video. Do you have anything like the original film plot. There are mediocre film recited by actors who have high ratings as we are beautiful film recited by people less known. This site is so. In this movie there is a coup scene that leaves us with mouth open the others kind of Nicole Kidman. But since this movie and played by Sutherland takes one vote less. that's disgusting. Arise THE VOTE!

bob the moo With the two sides in the Bosnian war producing significant civilian casualties a third force enters the conflict zone. Armed with cameras and microphones, they are the eyes and ears of the West through the daily news. Among them is serious British journalist Michael Henderson and the more flamboyant American Flynn. While the latter is concerned with his ratings and manages to stay relaxed with all the violence around him, the former becomes tied up with the plight of the children in an orphanage on the front line and loses his distance from the story as he tries to force someone, anyone, to get the children out of the war zone.The film opens with a scene that sums the evil nature of the Bosnia conflict up perfectly when one of a wedding party is picked off by a sniper. It is an impacting way to open a film and the script more or less maintains this across the film in one way or another. The plot is hardly anything too original as mostly it relies on Henderson getting personally involved in his story to provide a narrative frame for the conflict but the film uses it well. Winterbottom was a good choice for director because he doesn't over-egg the emotion or push the narrative beyond what it can cope with. Instead he uses it well to tell one story without ever losing sight of the fact that it is just one story among millions. This worked well for me as I found the bigger picture to be the more engaging side of the film but appreciated the structure given the subject by the narrative; this way it remains impacting on a political level while also looking at the personal, human level.With the time the relevance of the film will fade as the conflict becomes something in the past – I don't mean this coldly but just suggest that something fresh in our collective memories will be of more relevant than something in the "past". The film retains its impact because it does shown more than the news showed but what I found more distressing was the fact that the same attacks on the media and our politicians could be launched about many conflicts since. Welcome to Dafour, Rwanda, Iraq – take your pick. How many times do we see our "leaders" quibble over the legal definition of genocide while the news footage shows us images of corpses and the suffering of civilians? Winterbottom uses news footage within his material to good effect to highlight the stupidity and hypocrisy of the world leaders in the face of such horror and few viewers will take too much issue with the lack of balance in this regard; it is a strength of the film that these points are still valid but I truly wish that they weren't.The cast take to this serious material well and produce some solid performances while also knowing their place within the bigger picture and not showboating or overdoing things. Dillane is the best example of this as he is technically the lead character but yet holds back and shows restraint to the point of keeping his story from dominating the film – it is a good show and Winterbottom also deserves credit for helping him produce this. Looking at it cynically, Harrelson and Tomei were added to sell the film and this is mostly what they do; however both are solid albeit in smaller roles than some viewers will expect. Nesbitt, Fox, Visnjic and Nusevic all produce solid support and more than stand up alongside Dillane's lead. The most important delivery is that of the conflict itself and Winterbottom does that well. Some viewers have bemoaned the lack of context or explanation of the conflict but to me this was a good call because what matters is that civilians were slaughtered and suffering, when this is the case what does it matter what the reasons for it are? Overall then a solid and impacting film. It doesn't have the most balance in the world but it is well worth a watch for what it does well and, sadly, the continuing relevance in current conflicts around the world today.

Raissa Skvortsova I saw the movie about 2-3 years ago and I was very impressed and touched. I couldn't help crying all the time. Because it was so realistic... As a Russian I faced myself the pain of the war in Chechnya, for example... I mean the feeling is close to me and I can quite understand it. All the pain which seems so indescribable is "summarized" in the movie. However, what I didn't like was a certain lack of objectiveness. I mean the political moment. In this movie the Serbs are presented as the bad guys, and the Muslims - as the victims. But the true is the opposite. Or at least, both sides were victims of this horrible conflict.

Claudio Carvalho In Sarajevo, the British journalist Michael Henderson (Stephen Dillane) is correspondent of war, who decides to cover the orphans' situation due to the Bosnian War. Through successive matters, he tries to show and sensitize the public opinion about this ignored war. Meanwhile, he gets emotionally involved with Emira (Emira Nusevic), a young Bosnian girl. He decides to take the chance and brings her to the breast of his family in London. Some time later, the girl's mother is found alive and requests the care of her daughter. Michael returns to Sarajevo to convince her to let him adopt Emira. The first time I watched this impressing movie was in 1999 and indeed it was the first film about the Bosnian war that I have seen. The director Michael Winterbottom makes a magnificent work, alternating reality and fiction through images. Based on a true event, he uses real war footages intercalating with his film to show the atrocities of this war, having the focus on the children. Stephen Diallane, Woody Harrelson, Marisa Tomei, Emira Nusevic and the rest of the cast have brilliant performances. There is a very special and cynical scene that I like a lot, when the American journalist Flynn apologizes to a local in the name of the American people for the non-intervention of USA in this dirty war. This is maybe the best line of the great actor Woody Harrelson in this excellent movie. This week I have watched five films about this war and all of them are really excellent and highly recommended. If the reader likes this theme and wants to see different approaches, do not miss 'Harrison's Flowers', 'Vulkovar', 'Pretty Village, Pretty Flame' and 'Shot Through the Heart'. I intend to see again the magnificent 'Savior' and 'No Man's Land' along this week also about this horrible war. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): 'Bem Vindo a Sarajevo' ('Welcome to Sarajevo')