African Film

Hmm - the earlier version with Sidney Pottier is better, but neither version is even close to the lyricism and power of the novel.

Admittedly the poetic rhythm and love of the novel is difficult to interpret on screen. Transferred to screen the dialogue seems stiff and the story stolid - and even the majestic sweep of South Africa seems to shrink. This is a film that cries for 70mm anamorphic treatment. Both the characters and the country need space to breathe, and if they aren't given this; if they are shot conventionally, without care and attention, if they are not given a minims silence, you get this.

Both James Earl Jones and Richard Harris are men that have great on screen charisma. Yet Jones simply cannot carry the fragility of the character here, and Harris's role seems insignificant, while the music washes the whole thing down with a slosh of inappropriate sentimentality.

It tries, but the characters, even on a big screen seem to shrink to a TV, and at times they even bore. The material needed better direction.

It's impossible not to laugh watching this film. Sure, the Kalahari Bushman are portrayed unrealistically, but so is everyone in this film, and at it's heart it's a loving, sweet natured comedy. My one regret is that it spawned a long running joke in the US of people mimicking the linguistic clicks of the tribal language. Oddly, though this film is very famous in the US it's not well known in the UK.

Not the Johny Depp vehicle, but a film about a French woman returning to her childhood home in Cameroon. Evenly paced, without much actiion, but an interesting reflection on nostalgia, with some nice humour.

I work in medical research. One professor whom I have met referred to the story contained within the film (and novel) total nonsense. Maybe. However I attended a meeting where an incident was discussed that was reminiscent of the film. It was this: a particular vaccine was apparently tested in a part of Africa where it would have no benefit, simply to ensure its safety (I'm not going to give the vaccine involved here)...

The film is superbly photographed and runs along at a solid pace, at times flashing between time-frames, and sometimes lapsing into almost poetic imagery. Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz are perfect in it as the people caught up in the mystery (though I felt Bill Nighy's and Pete Poslethwaite's roles were a little cardboard, it perhaps would have been tough to portray their characters otherwise).

I loved it.

Yes, okay, the story is fiction - but its supposed to be (being based on a novel). And it is fiction that makes you think... about our responsibility as well as that of our governments and pharmaceutical industries. Definitely a must see.

Surprisingly accurate depiction of the turmoil in Sierra Leone and Liberia in the 1990s. I noticed that the involvement of British troops in resolving the conflict in Freetown was not hinted at (fair enough, since it may have detracted from the story - but if they had been American troops?) And I did wonder whether the mercenary group in the movie bears any relation to the group "Sandline."

I followed the news of the Rwandan crisis closely as it unfolded, and knowing about this event, I still found this film harrowing to watch. It's not a bloody film, but the events that occurred in the country are hard to see put in front of your eyes again. Very sad.

Despite the opening claim of 'the film's factual content, the Western characters in this film are fictitious - and while I appreciate the roles they play here, I have questions about the precise suitability of the nature of the characters chosen, in light of a number of allegations made at the time. As a result, to some extent the film ends up feeling like the audience is rubbernecking an accident.

The film is a Hollywoodised version of Stephen Biko's life, but it was an important story to be told, in a version that needed to reach a wide audience. It retains some humour which gives it eminent watchability.