Most comments refer to this as some kind of Witness rip-off. Sorry - just don't agree. Going 'undercover' in another culture was not patented by Witness. The parallels are just not there - so who was the 'Witness, in SAU? That's just one question. Then again if one has only 5 pigeon holes (or less) to file films into - then go ahead.
MG was just fine in the film - her voice is always going to be with her - and she's made it through 100 roles already with it.
The portrayal of the Hassidim was surely an education for many.
The 'background filming' was good - even as a born New Yorker - got to see some new 'shots'
The plot was there - but jumpy - I doubt very many predicted the killers - but did wonder why accomplices not revealed.
Sure there were inconsistencies and illogical stuff - but not any more than the bloody Crichton films which most of the time require you have to forget you have a brain - yet take themselves VERY seriously. SAU was not written as a documentary - it's overall flow was there - AND very much enjoyable.
MG was just fine in the film - her voice is always going to be with her - and she's made it through 100 roles already with it.
The portrayal of the Hassidim was surely an education for many.
The 'background filming' was good - even as a born New Yorker - got to see some new 'shots'
The plot was there - but jumpy - I doubt very many predicted the killers - but did wonder why accomplices not revealed.
Sure there were inconsistencies and illogical stuff - but not any more than the bloody Crichton films which most of the time require you have to forget you have a brain - yet take themselves VERY seriously. SAU was not written as a documentary - it's overall flow was there - AND very much enjoyable.