Free Zone (2005)

the audience applauded

Overrated and overhyped

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

The second film in Amos Gitai's "Border Trilogy" (after 2004's 'Promised Land', which even with the involvement of early-career Rosamund Pike didn't do much for me either), 'Free Zone' is a film with noble intentions and takes on a brave subject but could have dealt with it with more tact, subtlety and illumination than it did. 'Free Zone's' best asset is the acting. Natalie Portman disappears into her role and gives an emphatic performance that has its fair share of poignant moments. Same goes with a terrific Hana Laslo, as the film's most interesting and least hollow-in-development character, and Hiam Abbass brings dignity to the proceedings. The scenery is atmospheric and evocative, often looking quite beautiful and some of the lensing is impressive. There are a few sporadically moving parts, but this is largely down to the quality of the acting and how good a job the actors do with what they're given. Another attraction is the soundtrack. Not only is it very well-composed and full of atmosphere and sheer beauty, it really adds and even enhances the mood, giving an emotional wallop. Contrary to some calling the interaction robotic, to me it came over quite naturally.However, a lot doesn't work. The allegorical/metaphorical elements are too confused and slight, the symbolism is really over-bearing too often and 'Free Zone' doesn't work as an emotional drama due to flimsily developed characters and a very preachy tone. The story is not easy to follow, which is usually not an issue for me, and feels very incomplete and inconclusive. With the establishment of 'Free Zone's' theme done to death in the first ten minutes, to be reminded of it constantly throughout made the film feel repetitive.Pacing is a real issue here too, often being far too long-winded and drawn out. Unlike 'Promised Land' which started off promisingly, the opening scene in 'Free Zone' goes on for an eternity and already gives off a sense of heavy-handedness, making one conflicted as to whether to stick with the film. On top of the lethargic and ham-fisted direction from Gitai and the very clunky, underwritten and over-emphatic script, 'Free Zone' is visual chaos, the over-reliance on long shots and shoddy editing looking amateurish and self-indulgent. Nothing is illuminating or emotional impactful here, one is instead feeling restless, talked down to and confused to care for the characters and their less than compelling plight.To conclude, not awful and has some good elements but there's no real incentive to rush to see 'Free Zone' unless a Natalie Portman or Amos Gitai completest. 5/10 Bethany Cox

It was a remarkable film. It wasn't what I expected from Portman. I felt for all the characters. Although certain moments were slow, and I didn't particularly like some of the unsteady camera work out the window of the car, I did like the way it moved at a pace slower than the average high speed modern film. It went at sort of a real life pace. I think Hiam Abbass was the most interesting character of the bunch. I actually wished the movie was longer. I did want to follow the lives of these characters. I liked also that it felt like these actors (with exception of Portman) weren't typical pretty Hollywood faces. I liked the credibility that that lent. Portman has a certain naturalness to her looks anyway so I could tolerate one pretty face. As an American what do I really know about Palestine besides what I see in the media? I liked the feeling of dignity that it lent to all people, and I feel for that, whether I can relate specific details to real or imagined knowledge.I think people who are used to the big production films would impatiently miss the rich and unspoken undercurrent and how it expressed what was not verbally said. It was a very humane film.

This film is one of my top five most painful films to watch. Amos Gitai calls himself a director, but he offers nothing to legitimize that title. He is hardly artistic, but he must see himself as an artist--the way he drowns his audience with the superimposed scenes over and over again; the way he drags his shots on excessively in an attempt to be poignant; the music and sound effects he chose to convey sadness and lost are so exhausting. The result was an incomprehensible and excruciatingly dull compilation of scenes slapped together to make a so-called 90-minute film. I hope that Natalie Portman accepted this role without full comprehension of the director's intentions. If she did, I'm glad that she has already made a name for herself in Hollywood.

It would be easy to misunderstand or even miss the whole point of this movie. But if you can get past the endless opening scene of a sobbing Natalie Portman, by the end Gitai has explored three characters (with great acting performances), three women from different cultures, and three countries. I don't want to give away the end, but Gitai has managed to make a point about Israelis, Palestinians and, after some thought about his set-up of the character, especially Americans. This makes some of the slower, strained parts of the movie better, even makes them seem to fit together nicely. My grade might be a tad high, but it's rare when any movie maker pulls off character, acting, politics, and characters that well represent their different societies. For that, this movie gets a lot of credit.