I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

This review is for the moviegoers who love animals and don't particularly enjoy watching snuff films ("snuff" meaning any film where animals or humans are actually killed at the filmmaker's discretion).If live beheadings aren't your thing (animal or human), then you might want to miss this one.First off, "In This World" is a work of fiction, despite its documentary approach which might fool people who are casually flipping channels. Make no mistake, every scene was scripted, the people are actors, and everything we see is dictated by the director Mr. Winterbottom.About 10 minutes into the movie, I suppose to convince us of the authenticity of refugee life (as if we hadn't gotten that from the first 10 minutes of wordless images of the harsh environment), Winterbottom feels the need to stage a water buffalo being slaughtered. She is tied at the feet and unable to resist while 6 men surround her, push her roughly to the ground, pin her down and slowly saw through her neck with a table knife.What is it with art house directors feeling the need to decapitate water buffaloes? First it was that fathead Coppola hacking a water buffalo to bits in "Apocalypse Now", again claiming he just "happened to catch a ritual on film", but as the Ifagao tribe later explained to the press, Mr. Coppola paid them with 2 truckloads of animals to slaughter while he filmed. I'm not sure if Mr. Winterbottom is as much of a bloodthirsty egotist, but regardless of his motivations, the scene was enough to tell me that I needn't waste my time here.There are many reasons to kill. Entertainment is not one of them. Art is not one of them. Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in a political message that senselessly beheads a living creature? (Ya gotta give Winterbottom credit for beating ISIS to the punch by 10 years.)

Every westerner ought to watch this movie. It is an extremely well done and very troubling movie that shows a part of the world that we are intimately involved in, but know very little about. Had I not known that the movie was based on a true story, I would have found it to be an unbelievable story. Our Middle Eastern policy is not working and this movie shows what happens on a personal,individual level as a result. At the same time it shows the human spirit and the desire that every person has to have a better life. What Jamal goes through to find his better life is truly amazing and probably not over yet. The movie works on a number of different levels.

This movie made me feel very uncomfortable, mainly because it blurs the boundaries between documentary and feature film. Had it been a genuine feature film based on a true story, it could have been a great movie. However, the introductory comments turned it into a documentary style movie and keeps you wondering how can the film team let this happen, why do they not interfere? The crew acts on some kind of deistic principle, we create but do no longer interfere after creation. Of course, the story is very moving and there are great shots and Jamal is a wonderful character. That is probably where my problem lies - how am I relate to this movie and its characters? I was wondering if spectators could gain something from this blurring of boundaries, but I have not been able to think of anything yet. The disintegration of reality? But where does this lead me? The disintegration of the reality of refugees? And the blurring would force spectators to look for orientation as much as Jamal does on his tour across a landscape that is at once very real and very surreal? I don't know if that is the intended effect, but maybe I search too far. As Winterbottom reveals in the additional footage and comments, the film crew intended to shoot some kind of road movie (paraphrase). However, I wonder if it is legitimate to use the tragic story of a refugee boy to achieve this goal. Is the initial concern about the fate of refugees just a pretension and a great backdrop to turn a road movie? I am sure the crew's motivation was honest, but it also seems that the tragedy of human refugees presented an ideal backdrop to shoot a exciting road movie. And, in my view, the two do not go together well and the product does not, ultimately, take me to a higher or just different level of understanding. Comments welcome.

Michael Winterbottom, I thought, was a director worth watching (I had seen his film "Jude") but I was sorely disappointed with this film that was bestowed with a Golden Bear at the Berlin Film festival--a festival that often picks up fine cinema for its honors. I saw "In this world" at the on-going Dubai international film festival expecting to see top-notch cinema. Instead of great cinema, I saw a film that flounders in its effort to capture reality. Winterbottom and cinematographer Marcel Zyskind capture young faces and their action creditably (the young sibling who follows his brother as he leaves the refugee camp) at times and then slip up to the most shoddy camera-work soon after (local Pakistanis staring at the camera, shadows of vehicles carrying camera equipment on road sequences). The film attempts to capture fiction in a documentary style. The effort is commendable but the outcome is at best an average effort at highlighting the problem of refugees. The film begins with statements on the ration provided to refugees. A great beginning with shots of a real refugee camp. Then I was appalled to see shots of women dancers being showered with currency notes and a gruesome sacrifice/killing of an ox--sequences that add no value to the rest of the film. What is the film trying to state? Refugees are in a bad shape and they need to escape. Is Winterbottom suggesting that those who succeed are heroes and those who do not are tragic figures? Is he trying to make a statement on cultural values across borders?I feel Winterbottom could have served better purpose if he had retained the elements of documentary and discussed the problems of refugees than dramatize the journey itself. If he wanted to dramatize the journey--what are the shots of the dancing women doing here?Berlin has made a wrong choice--not that Winterbottom lacks in talent. But this is mixed-up cinema