Who payed the critics

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Love the simple format. Appreciated the pace and lack of manipulation.Amazing story of courage, honesty, love, betrayal and sacrifice.Feel inspired by the courage of the characters. Although loyalty and doing the right thing is often portrayed in movies/stories, seldom do you see it in real life as this story so clearly illustrates.One can hope that it could inspire people to have the courage to think for themselves and question governmental, religious or business activities that don't follow the golden rule.Thank you to all who participated in bringing this story to light. It's not often we see the real sacrifices people around the world are making to make the world a better and safer place.

This documentary has one of those life-is-stranger-than-fiction premises. The son of one of the founders of the terrorist Hamas organization was successfully turned into an informant for the Israeli secret services, the Shin Bet. The story of Hassan Yousef would have remained one of the best guarded secrets of Israeli history had he not voluntarily exposed himself as a mole while living in the US after retiring as an Israeli asset. The story that gradually unfolds throughout the Green Prince is full of unexpected twists and intense political intrigue and family drama that one day needs to be turned into a full length feature film. But for now, we have this very competent documentary. Much of the film is a protracted interview with the Hasan with little camera movement, and simple lighting. This may sound like an overlong CNN special report, but the interview has such intensity, and Hassan narrates episodes of his life with such expressiveness and honesty, that the chronicle itself is gripping. It is interspersed with scenes that combine drone, night vision and CCTV like imagery, real news footage and some recreated acted moments, all heightening rather than replacing the narration. The storytelling and editing is tight and economical. Instead of taking a merely journalistic approach, it opts for a character study that slowly unfolds, turning a spy thriller plot into a story of betrayal and redemption that goes beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What the story does particularly well is show how gradually Hasan distanced himself from his father politically without ever disowning him. He simultaneously undermined him tactically and tried to avoid any threat to his life. At the same time, his "handler" Gonen Ben Yitzhak became a father- like figure. This bonding could be dismissed as no more than a predictable "Stockholm syndrome" denouement but for the fact that it was reciprocated by Gonen, who ultimately must also make a decision between advancing his career and protecting Hassan. The material never feels preachy or sanctimonious and it refuses to turn characters, even the Hamas founders, into cartoonish villains. A truly great documentarian like Werner Herzog or Joshua Oppenheimer might have taken a few more liberties with the material, and perhaps an even more cinematic approach, but this still deserves to be watched. In my case, the story lingered in my mind for many days after I had seen it.

Saw this premier weekend in New York. Promised to be - and was promoted by NYTimes as being - fascinating "thriller". Was neither fascinating nor a thriller, but instead appeared a boring amateur production. Unlike effective documentaries, there was no third party speaker or voice over putting things together in context but ONLY two talking heads (Mosad and his hander) which made up almost the entire movie, plus occasional shots of a map of the affected area, some short news clips showing Mosad's father speaking, a small bit of headline news, and then the same shot -- repeated over and over throughout the movie -- of a man, presumably Mosad, and a white car he gets into after walking along. So for the duration of the movie, it was basically just Mosad talking, then his former handler talking, Mosad, handler, Mosad, handler. And the discussion didn't really even make all that clear what should have been the pivotal point of the movie --what it was that "turned" Mosad. There was so little discussion on that point that, if you tended to nod off, as many were doing in the theater, you likely missed it. No Ken Burns here. Not even close. You come away from this non-gripping film understanding little more than you did from just reading a summary of the movie. New York Times reviewer--did you even watch it?

This was the opening film at the 34th San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, and what a good choice it was! It is a documentary, of which there were quite a few in this edition of the festival, however, this was not a regular documentary - it left a very strong impact.Before the film the Director, Nadav Schirman, came on stage and explained that this is a film about two people who have learnt to trust each other. Of course it is much more than that - it is an eye opener! But this is for each of us to reflect upon.From the first shot of Mosab on screen looking straight at the audience with his piercing, expressive eyes I was mesmerized. After the film, the two main personalities came on stage: Mosab Hassan Yousef, the author of the book "Son of Hamas" on which this film was based, and Gonen Ben Yitzhak, his spy handler. The film moved back and forth in time, recounting the events of a ten-year period, since Mosab was seventeen. A time in which he was constantly in danger or in prison. After the film screening, Mosab Hassan Yousef explained that he was striving to avoid unnecessary killings saying: "We are all children of the Devine".