nzallblacks_12 That, oh so poignant verse from Psalm 137 altogether sums my impressions of the film. By all means, I am kind with my assessment. This should have been a great film, provided, the Hollywood script writers followed the book's theme. Alas, they did not; what else is new under the sun!Despite its potential, the film did not explore or enunciate enough two of its main themes: the futility of war and more important, man's continued penchant to inflict inhumanity on fellow man. Oh yes, Bobby Golden Boy Goldman, one of the film's major players does indeed state either or both of those strong tenets even boldly. However, he does so en passant. Moreover, his excellent points are nonetheless made moot as the director cuts to the chase and the next bloodied then quickly sanitized atrocious conflict scene time and again. And there were so many of these telegraphed, goofy scenes. So many in fact,that soon I lost count. Not long after, quite frankly I lost any or all lingering interest to stick it out until the curtain fell. Thank God for that tender mercy. This low budget, grade 'B' production could not end soon enough.Before I exit, I must say that the film's depiction of the British protector-ship of the former Palestine was well, pathetic. Yes, we got it; the Thin Red Line had already gone bald and lost all of its former glory by that point. However, to paint them redder, er, yellow and to make them appear more inept even treacherous to the Hebrew cause, is well taking many creative, film making liberties. Sure, the Brits neglected their peace keeping role while there. Even General Barker voiced his 'haaarrumph' stilted opinion and attested to that very fact while protesting to the then backpedaling, fleeing British High Commissioner. Still, he did so in a not so poignant manner nor propitious moment. No matter. The film had already gone so far south that it was difficult for me to discern which way lay O Jerusalem let alone the true path to peace.I believe, the director and producer, though in an odd way tried to make their best case (whatever that was, we will never know). To wit, they could have done better with the film's plot if they had invested more time in exploring that noble road map to peace theme. No doubt, that lofty goal was well within their grasp and cinematic scope. However, all too predictably they instead chose to either neglect it, cut it first pass, or simply cast it aside altogether, just the same.Like the British, Hollywood just could not help themselves nor the script. At every turn the actors fumbled the football, or bungled the entire dialog until finally, together, the flimsy cast and entire film crew botched what should have been an otherwise beautiful, possibly even most edifying film.Forget about it!Sigh...

d-shayne My major gripe is not the slant, the film was not a propaganda screed for either side, but it is so inaccurate as to be nearly worthless. First, any one who spent any time in Israel will note immediately that it was not filmed there, the scenes do not remotely resemble the real sites where the events of 1948 took place. Major facts are fumbled--e.g., the Jewish Quarter of the Old City fell long before the first cease-fire (from the movie, it is hard to tell exactly what happened). In another scene, right before the Partition vote travelers are shown on a modern-style glass bus from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem--going over a non-existent river--with Arabs and Jews on the same bus! The acting is TV-grade melodrama and the script is trite.As for the overview-historical content, the movie falls to illuminate the events the lead up to the conflict--and with the single exception of the depiction of Deir Yassin, makes it seem as though the war was fought between a handful of well-meaning nice guys. But the 1948 war was bloody and ugly, with many atrocities committed on both sides, but especially the Arab side that was trying to wipe out the Jewish community of Palestine (later Israel).Finally, as already pointed out, this movie does horrible violence to LaPierre and Collins' fine book, one of the few truly even-handed non-fiction books written about the Arab-Israel conflict (In the trailer, even this was mangled as the book is called a "novel"). If any one wants to see a much better movie covering almost the exact same topic get "Cast a Giant Shadow."

joel brandt O Jerusalem is a terrible movie. Very bad, stilted acting and a very, very bad script. I had looked forward to watching this movie because I read the book and have emotional views regarding Israel's war of independence (or as the Arabs call it, "The catastrophe").This movie had virtually no resemblance to that book, which was an excellent portrayal of the siege of Jerusalem and was not otherwise burdened down by a phony relationship between a Palestinian and an American Jewish fighter. The pace of the movie did not allow for any meaningful storyline development. Some of the acting was so bad it was laughable, which is sad, because there is no comedy in this story. The lines written only served to exacerbate the bad acting. The shame of it is that while probably low budget, the movie had suffcient props and scenery to have allowed for a better production.My sad recommendation is to strongly urge you to stay away!

hassan-38 O Jerusalem is certainly a good step in the right direction. It does not claim to be a historically pin-point accurate epic, but it does cover most of the salient events of that period in history.I have personally known Abdelqader Al-Husseini, and Major – later Colonel – Abdallah Al-Tal. The first was the son of one of the top aristocratic families in Jerusalem, and the second hails from a large tribe in the area of Irbid in what is known today as Jordan. As the film shows, Husseini was let down by the Arab League and was killed in action during the Qastal operation. That corresponds to the facts. When Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre wrote their book bearing the same name as the film, they interviewed Husseini's sons. One of whom was Faysal Husseini of Orient House fame, and who died of a heart attack a few years ago.Major Tal's intervention during the fighting in Jerusalem was not sanctioned by the British Chief of Staff of the Arab Legion (i.e. the Jordanian Army), General Glubb Pasha, and only hesitantly if at all by King Abdullah. The latter was already pursuing secret negotiations with Golda Meir and Moshe Sharett about getting a piece of Palestine for himself (An act of high treason at that time, at least as far as the Palestinians were concerned). Major Tal's personal military initiative in Jerusalem secured the eastern part of the city for King Abdullah, but also for the Palestinians, until the 1967 Six Day war. But Abdullah became jealous because of Al-Tal's popularity and accused him of trying to seize power in Jordan in order to annex it to Syria (pretty disingenuous!) Al-Tal spent the next twenty years or so as a political refugee in Egypt. To check what Major Tal said during the encounter between him and the Haganah leaders (Moshe Dayan), interested individuals can read Dayan's and Al-Tal's memoirs (probably translated from Arabic by the IDF, and/or possibly by one of the Pentagon many agencies.The film perpetuates a line that has been discredited by historians on all sides, namely purporting that the "Arab governments asked the Palestinians to abandon their homes and leave their country so that the Arab armies could fight the "Jews" with ease". Nobody did call, and nobody would have responded to such a call. But Egypt and Jordan took every possible measure to prevent the Palestinians from acquiring weapons, and non-Palestinian volunteers were not encouraged to participate in the fighting.What is never clarified about the Palestinian-Israeli question, including by the Palestinians themselves, is that they did not rise against the Jewish Arab community that had lived among them for millenia, not even the few Europeans who had settled there during the Ottoman Empire. When, in the latter part of the 1920s and on, a new breed of mainly Eastern European Jewish immigrants escaping the horrors in Europe had started arriving into the country essentially with British help, and with the intent of creating a Jewish-only state; the only way for them to achieve that of course was by force. Nobody can fault anyone for resorting to force to oppose that predicament.I saw the DVD only yesterday in French, though it was obvious that the actors were speaking English, and the French was dubbed over it. I am looking for an English version if such exists. As for the change of title from "Beyond Friendship", which was probably going to appear in English, it is quite possible, though I cannot swear to it, that pressure was put on the distributors to avoid marketing the film in the USA. But then many of the actors are French.Some of the text titles translated into Arabic, and the name of a street or two in Jerusalem were not accurately translated or properly spelled in the film.Elie Chouraqui may be related to the famous André Chouraqui, who translated the Qoran into French, i.e. they should have a good understanding of the Arabic language and culture.All in all, the film could be a good discussion topic for both sides, to give events their proper names and historic dimensions in search for mutual accommodation. That is of course if they are willing and able to undertake this necessary exercise for the sake of their sanity, the future of their children and world peace. Otherwise they have no other choice! If you prefer, you may comment on my review in French.