Such a frustrating disappointment

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

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)

It's a shame that I didn't get the emotional punch I felt as if I was supposed to have when watching In My Country, Country of my Skull to many others. You cannot force emotion and you cannot force an opinion on a film so whilst In My Country is nicely unfolded and is visually engaging for what it is, the fact that some people are pouring their hearts out in apparent regret at various points over horrific prior activity and I'm not feeling the pinch, I suppose you have to consider the film a minor failure.But why is it that In My Country doesn't pack the necessary heat to make one identify and feel upset for the characters on screen? I think a lot of it is down to the overall approach director John Boorman adopts. The film feels like several things at once rather than an actual case-study of post-Apartheid era events that will change and affect lives just as lives were changed and affected during the era. You might argue that the best way to tackle historical issues that deal with human cruelty to other humans is to set whatever story or narrative you're doing during the actual time thus giving a first hand account of what went down and how. Many films have done this in the past but films such as The Pianist and perhaps more notably The Deer Hunter are so vast in their scale that they manage to cover life prior to 'the event'; the event(s) themselves and then the aftermath of it all through either escape or returning to their former lives before 'the event'.Interestingly, both those films look at prisoner of war scenarios, Jews to the Nazis and Americans to the Vietnamese, respectively. In My Country is more a look at what happens after 'the event', that being the Apartheid and all the atrocities that befell South Africa midway through the twentieth century. Trouble here is that the best the rest of the world can do here is show up, look glum at a couple of press conferences in which South African men of the law admit what they did and then report on the confessions, something that one character cannot even get much space for in his respective newspaper.As a film alone, In My Country works as a re-telling of events that happened after an atrocity but it never delves deep into its subject matter. The Apartheid and the people involved in the Apartheid are not the central characters in fact they are relegated to giving accounts at timely spaced intervals throughout the film that hope to produce the odd tear from the audience. Families of the victims bursting into tears and music native to Africa that balres up try to add to the emotion felt in these scenes. But that's about as good as it gets with the rest of it crossing genres in and out of romance, historical, melodrama and the overall approach that gets tangled up that is the docu-drama.At its very centre, In My Country has an American journalist named Langston Whitfield (Jackson) travelling to a country to cover events few people will have an interest in. It's interesting that a film dealing with the post-Apartheid era would have an American at its core as the lead male and not a South African. There is a South African lead of sorts but they are female and they are pulled up by Whitfield on more than one occasion about the treatment they gave the black inhabitants of the nation. Here there is a confused triangle of conflict; Whitfield is American and complains about Anna Malan's (Binoche) nation's treatment of blacks but as an American he could be read into as representing America, a powerful nation that did nothing about the Apartheid anyway. Then there is the fact Whitfield is black himself and his beef with Malan's nation's treatment of blacks could just be something personal.The fact Malan is female in the first place immediately relegates her from what she would have been had the character been male. As a male, Malan would have made a good foil for Whitfield and the personal prejudice might not have existed as much. It's no secret that women in films have always been lowered somewhat when pitted against men – indeed theorists have argued that all films are shot for the male audience in mind so women view things through a male perspective when watching a film. But the fact sexual tension is present in the film between these two adds another layer of confusion and opens up the possibility that the film could fall into the romance as well as the, shock, 'buddy' genre. They fit the bill in the sense they are binary opposites to one another (black/white; male/female; American/South African, etc.) and rebound dialogue off one another but is there really space for 'buddy' content in a film about post-Apartheid South Africa?Twinned with this, there are other sloppy instances that aid the film in its mediocrity. When we first get an introduction of any sorts of chief villain De Jager (Gleeson), it is a visit to his house at night; complete with eerie music and we see a lot of animal heads on his wall –he must be a baddie. As well as this clumsy labelling, De Jager's press conference right nearer the end does not act as the final moral catalyst for the film but rather as a plot point for Anna's family to ultimately fall apart which was unfortunate. While it's all nicely unfolded and cute for what it is, In My Country bogs itself down with confused studies and feels like a missed opportunity.

I found this movie interesting because I realized just how ignorant I am of South Africa's recent history. The movie seemed to give a fairly balanced retrospective of what went on during apartheid. That is, it showed many sides. I certainly liked the focus on forgiveness.But as a film it was very mediocre. The cast could have done so much more. I found the characters to be very flat most of the time. When they did get emotional, it seemed forced. I couldn't really sympathize with any character.It was a bit like watching a comedian who is telling good jokes with poor timing, if you know what I mean.

I am surprised that it got only 5.8 on the score card. But at the same time should say that it is not one of my best movies. You know something, being an ex-militarily connected man, i think it says only one side story. I don't think, any war, in the world, be it between just two man, or 200 thousand man or between two countries, the so called atrocities goes on both sides. The winner always gets the good publicity. This i have always seen it. I think this picture too presents that. Please don't read in between lines, i am no supporter of aparthied, what i say is that there cannot be just only one incident, where a white man was involved and all other 27168 ppl interviewed happened to be black. I think that movie lost its genuinity at that point is my perception. They could have come equally out with incidents. And press, how much i hate them, they glorify some one overnight next day they screw them if they don't like, i think thats what is presented in this movie. i think so much of passion they just rekindle by gorifying the deaths and victims stories, but again they are wolves, they live on dead meats, we cant help them. Let them be so. Over all, the movie is a good movie, albeit few additional points they could have considered. PS: If any of you think i am whiteman, sorry, except my white hair nothing is white on my body(of course that liquid will always be white universally, whichever race or region you belong too).