User Reviews

PARADISE NOW opens windows of information to those of us who do not live in the Middle East and who toil over understanding the strife that daily bitterly continues, bruising the lives of both ends of the polarity that separates the peoples of the region. Are there ever to be answers or solutions to the crises? For this viewer watching and absorbing PARADISE NOW is illuminating in that it removes the expected political preaching to focus on the minds of the people living under the daily stress of life at its most difficult. Taking us there, making ideas into people with all the convictions and rebelliousness and fragility, writer/director Hany Abu-Assad (with Bero Beyer) offers invaluable insights and in the end we are left with a story about humanity and the consequences of decisions, and the desperate need for peace.

Said (Kais Nashef) and Khaled (Ali Suliman) are childhood friends in Palestine who have been elected to be suicide bombers in an attack on Tel Aviv. Their election to be martyrs for the destruction of the 'invaders' is considered an honor: their deaths will bring glory to their country, their families, and guarantee them instant entry into heaven. We see the two men as citizens living in the dusty hovels, facing barricades and checkpoints that make their lives ones of constant stress. Martyrdom will bring them peace and eternal rest. The entire process of preparing the elected martyrs, from making farewell videotapes for their parents, to having their hair cut short, to having the bombs strapped to their bodies, to dressing them in black suits for the 'wedding' they are instructed to claim to attend in Tel Aviv, to sending them off at the designated spot is relentlessly filmed. Said and Khaled accept their roles although with varying degrees of emotional commitment. At the point where the lads are to begin their martyrdom venture they are separated and the story is how each continues living, each now alone.

The families and the perpetrators of the scheme are well drawn by a strong cast, with one female role Suha (Lubna Azabal) as a voice of reason and peace standing out particularly strongly. The sensitivity of the actors Kais Nashef and Ali Suliman keeps this drama from sinking into politicism and instead allows us to understand the inner turmoil of the two men they portray as they cope with their duties and their lives.This is a powerful document that serves as a plea for peace wherever terrorism is a factor - and now that is global. If more of us could watch and absorb films such as PARADISE NOW perhaps the itinerant boundaries separating mankind by misunderstanding could be reduced without the need for war. Highly Recommended. In Arabic with English subtitles. Grady Harp

"Paradise Now" is a rare film in which one sees another angle to the Middle East conflict first hand. In fact, the movie is non violent while making its point, something, that in another director's hands, would have taken a different path.

Director Hani Abu Assad takes us behind the scenes as two young men are being asked to perform the most daring act in order to make a statement to the enemy, give up their own lives! Mr. Assad takes us along as this pair prepares for what could be their last day on earth. In fact, one of the things that have always puzzled us is the idea that the young people giving their own lives, go to their deaths so quietly, and without any questions posed to the leaders that are asking for their sacrifice.

We watch as the two good friends, Said and Khaled spend the last night with their families, not even giving a hint of what they are about to do. Later, in a scene that reminded us of "The Last Supper", Said and Khaled sit with the leader of their group to partake their last meal. Then, we watch as they both are transformed to resemble their own enemy.

The two young leads, Kais Nashef and Ali Suliman are perfect in their roles. Lubna Azabal, is seen as a young Moroccan woman who has met the pair at the garage where they worked and seems to act as their conscience because she makes them reflect on the deed they are going to perform.

"Paradise Now" points to a lot of the causes for the problems in the region where the contrast between the two sides is like day and night. Nablas, the town where Said and Khaled live could well be in another planet, while Tel Aviv, with its skyscrapers, modernity and order, is perhaps, the paradise they are searching for.

The film is worth a look since it is a different account about the tragedy in that part of the world.

After watching "Paradise Now" and reading the reviews on this site, I had to ask myself whether those who hated this film saw the same movie I did. It is entirely possible to watch this film and not side with the two protagonists. Why? Oh, I don't know, it's called having a rational, open mind.

I never got the impression that the filmmakers were celebrating suicide bombers or condoning the actions of their two protagonists. What director Hany Abu-Assad attempts to do - and does it rather successfully - is show us the thought process that happens when people decide to do the unspeakable. We might not agree with the decision - at least, I certainly hope we don't - and we should be repulsed by what's happening. But the unmistakable truth is that these people exist and, whether we like to admit it or not, they firmly believe in what they're doing.

Being objective, or trying to be, and humanizing people like Said and Khaled in the film isn't necessarily bad. I realize it's awfully easy for our leaders to simply brand them as monsters and "evildoers" and see the world in purely as good and evil, a world without complexities, subtleties and contradictions. It makes them feel good to spoon feed us trite sound bites and most of us seem to be quite willing to accept their mindless platitudes, phrases and talking points without debate or even an iota of skepticism.

But when you humanize these characters, it makes them more terrifying. We realize they're not rabid monsters we can't know and understand. It makes what they do all that more alarming. When Bruno Ganz humanized Hitler in "Downfall" (2004), he didn't make Hitler any less evil; he just made us realize that a human being could be that horrible and, therefore, his actions were all the more despicable and frightening.

The American public - as much as it might not want to admit it - needs to be educated and learn about what makes people like Said, Khaled and their comrades tick. It's too myopic (and ultimately unproductive) for us to simply toss them aside as evil. Our ignorance of foreign cultures and religions, especially Arab and Islam, is staggering. The media must share some of the blame. TV networks are more concerned about young, white women missing than foreign affairs. World news in this country essentially is limited to the goings-on Iraq. That, too, barely penetrates the surface. Not when you have to cut to breaking news of a new "development" in Aruba or the latest on Brad and Angelina. Afghanistan barely gets mentioned anymore, even though the Taliban seems to be gaining strength in several parts again. (Then again, even the Bush administration seems to have forgotten about that place.) And then networks have the audacity to put on talking-heads to pontificate on shows headlined, "Why they hate us."

"Paradise Now" never asks us to support what the characters are doing. In fact, it provides a counterbalance to the characters by giving us a Palestinian woman who sees the futility in this enterprise. The film also never glorifies what these people are doing. It show us, and there's no implied endorsement of their actions. The acting is uniformly good and, above all, convincing. We may not agree with the subject matter and we should find the characters' actions loathsome. But that doesn't mean we simply brand the film as irresponsible.

This is the world we live in, whether we like it or not. And we owe it to ourselves to learn and comprehend how the other side thinks. What they believe and why they do. Doesn't mean we have to like it. But we sure need to understand it.

I thought this was a very powerful and well-made film. The acting was excellent, as are the script, direction, and cinematography. Perhaps the biggest challenge with a film on such a controversial topic is what position it takes, but as a moderate American Jew, I felt it took as objective a position as possible. It does not push one side or another, but merely tells one story about two men chosen for a suicide bombing mission. I was concerned there might be an attempt to get the viewer to sympathize with the would-be bombers, but did not find that to be the case. Ultimately, the story leads you to sympathize with the families and friends of these men, demonizes those who have led them down this path, and simply humanizes the men themselves. There have been some criticisms of the film for focusing too much on Palestinians and essentially reducing the Israelis in the film to background and setting, but I think this was necessary. This is not a documentary about suicide bombings; it is the story of two of the suicide bombers themselves.

As interesting as it was, as undeniably striving for objectiveness, original in its approach and well-made both visually and in terms of production values, I found Paradise Now a little weak narratively, especially in the central part. But when a filmmaker decides to tackle a theme of this calibre, a subject as thorny and well... explosive, not to mention one involving such daunting amounts of moral responsibility towards humankind, you cannot help but feel in awe of their courage a priori.

The attempt to shed light on the unfathomable – how a healthy, "average" young person could ever wish to become a suicide bomber – is quite successfully carried out, and is probably one of the movie's strength. It was the main reason I watched it and possibly Paradise Now's main purpose successfully nailed – and that really is no mean feat. On the other hand, I was confused by the shifts in focus between personal drama (Said's resentment against his father and desire to be different from him) and socio-religious-historical content at the beginning of the movie's second half. I wasn't sure what the director was trying to do... It's impossible to deny, though, that the tension never lets up during the whole time that Khaled and Said have the explosives strapped to their abdomens, much to the filmmakers' credit.

Even more shocking, though, are the accusations levelled against the movie by ordinary viewers – that it's allegedly an apology of suicide bombers, and pro-kamikaze propaganda. Not all these accusations come from Israeli viewers - though most are (while at the same time, many Jewish reviewers loved the movie). One Israeli mother I read from who lost her son in an exploding bus in Tel Aviv claims that humanising the suicide bombers is the equivalent of a direct insult to the memory of her murdered child. Though you cannot argue with the grief of a mother who loses her child in such a horrendous way, you cannot help asking yourself what such people expect: that suicide bombers be portrayed as two-dimensional monsters complete with horns, forked tongues and slitty snake pupils in their eyes? This doesn't bode well for the future of the peace process in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Hany Abu-Assad has tried to give his own personal, brave, heartfelt contribution, and this viewer looks forward to more cinematic efforts from this talent.

Some people can consider Paradise Now as propaganda, however, in my humble opinion, this movie is much more than a story about the situation in Palestine. It's a movie that shows how human beings can do horrible things when they are oppressed and how this behavior even seem to make sense when you're taught from the childhood that doing such things is the only way to get freedom.

It's obvious that suicide bombers are murderers, but it's also obvious that they are victims from Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, USA and everyone that gets profits with the violence in the Middle East, so this movie wasn't special to me for showing some kind of sympathy for terrorism if it does. The role of this movie for me was to show a humanized version of a group of people that I usually only take acknowledge by the TV as people whose only objective is to kill the highest possible amount of people.

Here in Brazil we don't have ethnic or religious wars. Here, Palestinians and Jews live sometimes in the same neighborhood and there's never been a terrorist attack. On the other hand, we've got extremely serious problems with violence caused by the oppression that poor people suffer from the Police, that seems only to exist to protect the rich. In May, a criminal organization called PCC (Capital's First Command) attacked more than a hundred of places (most Police stations) in São Paulo, killing approximately one hundred people.

Are these criminals originally bad or their acts are just the consequence of an extremely unequal society? Well, on the TV we only see the criminals and the terrorists, but thank God we have movies like City of God, Carandiru and Paradise Now to show us the human beings.

Paradise now is a very realistic film about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Therefore it's a very contemporary film concerning a topic that still receives a lot of media attention.

The film follows Said and Khaled, two friends who are recruited for a suicide bombing in Tel-Aviv. However, something goes wrong and the attack is postponed. Said and Khaled now have the time to think about what they are going to do.

The feelings of the two leading characters are carefully explained and brought to you very realistically by an outstanding performance of Ali Suliman and Kais Nashef. Though it's a little long-winded in the end the story is excellently written. The film explains a difficult situation without taking a stand or forcing you to do so. People who've seen this film will hopefully better understand the Israel-Palestine situation.

Conclusion: Paradise Now is a brilliantly made movie and a must see for everyone.

Paradise Now is an authentic film that poetically deals with one of the most prickly and difficult issues facing the world today. It is a natural and elegant film, which leaves you thinking and feeling in ways you did not expect. For those who say that such a movie should not be shown, or that there is no value in pondering such topics from this viewpoint - my response is that open awareness and the exchange of ideas is the beginning of a solution. You cannot suppress reality, or freedom of speech and expression. This film vividly demonstrates that life is not black and white - we live in shades of gray. This is a perspective that should be seen, and deserves to be shown.

A tale of terrorists with human faces in the Middle East. Two young Palestinian men in the occupied West Bank city of Nablus volunteer for suicide bombing missions against Israelis. These two lifelong chums have more-or-less drifted along through their 20s, making a few shekels helping out at an auto repair shop. Like so many young adults in Palestine and throughout the Arab world, their prospects for much of a future seem dim and undefined. Compared to the drab existence they now lead, the trappings of martyrdom seem compelling.

This film's strength lies in its quasi-documentary recounting of the process of establishing martyrdom. There is the first step of selection: finding reliable persons for the task. There is some informal orientation, more a matter of brief pep talks and aphorisms delivered during hastily arranged meetings with cell leaders, sites for which change constantly to evade detection and arrest. For example, Jamal (Amer Hlehel), the handler for these two young men, says at one point that "…death is better than inferiority." The new recruits hasten to agree.

There are preparations and arrangements for the mission itself. This step seems especially helter-skelter in the film narrative. Things never seem to come off as planned. It doesn't help that one of the young men, Said (Kais Nashef), is a loose cannon, wild and unpredictable. His personal motive for martyrdom is to redeem the honor of his dead father, who was forced by Israeli strong arms to act as a collaborator, bringing shame upon himself and his family. Said's a demoralized, angry fellow, so different from Hassan, the Pakistani terrorist in "The War Within," who was a chilling study in cool, burnished, self contained passion.

Said is also quite different from his buddy Khaled (Ali Suliman). We see each man making videos for their families to view after they die, saying their goodbyes, stating the reasons for their acts: Said with his usual barely controlled fervor, Khaled more soft spoken, quiet, possibly ambivalent. We never learn whether Khaled had a personal motive beyond the usual intentions of a political and religious nature. The figure of Khaled seems to stand for a more unformed, unimpassioned type of volunteer, a sort of lackluster person, someone with little in life to lose through the act of self sacrifice.

Arguing the other side, the anti-terrorism theme, is Suha (Lubna Azabal), a European-born woman who is the daughter of a Palestinian martyr father. Her response to her father's violent past and death is to serve as a human rights activist opposed to the Palestinian resistance. After Khaled tells her that his reward for martyring himself will be to enter Paradise, Suha tells him that "…Paradise is (just) in your head." There is a flicker of mutual love interest between Suha and Said, but only a flicker, which merely serves to underscore the degree to which Said is married to the redemption of his family's honor; he has no time for women.

This film nicely complements "The War Within," the other new movie that puts a human face on Islamic terrorism. Both films use their principal characters to convey opposing religio-political perspectives. Comparing the two films, "Paradise" lacks the nuanced human depth in the lead character portrayals we saw in "War Within." Instead "Paradise" depends more upon action and conventional psychodynamic/biographic rationales to define the protagonists' motives. So "Paradise" is in a way more superficial. But its meticulous attention to the recruitment and preparation process for suicide bombers in Palestine is instructive and, I think, unique in narrative film.

The film's Dutch-Palestinian director, Nany Abu-Assad, also made "Ford Transit" (2003), a clever movie that discloses aspects of daily life in Palestine from the perspective of people riding in a broken down shuttle bus that serves a refugee village. "Paradise Now" received the Blue Angel and Amnesty International Awards at the 2005 Berlin International Film Festival. (In Arabic). My rating: 7/10 (B). (Seen on 11/17/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.

For those viewers who are wondering whether this is a pro suicide bomber movie or not, I can say that it may depend upon who's doing the viewing. Director Hany Abu-Assad, who is a Muslim was born in Nazareth, which is a largely Christian city in Palestine. He moved to the Netherlands when he was a young man and currently lives in Los Angeles. He believes the film presents "an artistic point of view of...(a) political issue." I tend to agree. The proof perhaps is in the fact that some Palestinians feel the film wasn't fair to their situation while some Israelis feel that the film glorified suicide bombers. Both sides can find evidence in the film to support their point of view, and the arguments can become heated.

Personally I find suicide bombings abhorrent and counterproductive. My belief has long been that the Palestinians would further their cause through a non-violent approach similar to methods used by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Using your children to kill other people's children while committing suicide is not only morally wrong, but not likely to win the hearts and minds of people who can help you. Furthermore the idea (expressed in the film by the suicide bombers and those who exploit them) that some people are superior because they are not afraid to die demonstrates a limited understanding of human nature and ignores history. The Japanese used suicide bombers in World War II for example to no good effect. And those men were not the "humiliated" and "oppressed" uneducated youths typical of suicide bombers in the Middle East. Instead some of them were the cream of the young manhood of a growing nation. Understand also that if the United States had the need it would have no trouble persuading countless Americans to commit suicide for God and country. Some of the combat missions in the Pacific Theater amounted to something close to suicide. No single people have a monopoly on tribalism.

What Hany Abu-Assad shows in the film is that the justification for suicide bombing is at best suspect and at worse without any merit at all. "What happens afterward?" one of the bombers asks, and is told, "Two angels come and pick you up." This is not merely satire, it is a burlesque of the "Paradise Now" reasoning. Indeed the title of the film is itself satirical and ironic. Young men seeing this film will notice that it is THEY who are being used as suicide bombers, not the political leaders and the imams. Also the scene in which the suicide bombers make the obligatory video saying goodbye to family and friends and "I did it for God" with automatic rifle held on high, was played as farce, revealing the empty promise behind being used.

The fact that most of the anti-suicide rhetoric in the film comes from Suha (Lubna Azabal) who is the daughter of a privileged Arab and onetime opposition hero is seen as significant by some because in Arab/Muslim countries the political opinion of women is of scant value, and therefore Suha is seen as expressing a minority or discredited opinion. However, since her expression is so very well articulated and persuasive, it can be seen from the opposite point of view, as expressing reason and moral truth.

Hany Abu-Assad of course had more than an artistic intent in making this film. Clearly he wanted to put the tragedy of the Palestinians upon the silver screen (and DVD) for all the world to see. To be effective he realized that he could not poison the waters of his expression with subjectivity and one-sidedness. He had to work hard to be as objective as possible and to present both sides of the argument. That way his film would be viewed and discussed, and some sympathy and understanding might develop. He had to show suicide bombers as living, breathing human beings. Notice that the two depicted are relatively intelligent young men, not mindless robots.

I share with Abu-Assad the belief that if all the facts about what is happening in the Middle East become widely known and understood (in so far as it is possible to understand the lives of people living in different cultures thousands of miles away) this knowledge and understanding would help to bring about positive change. Ignorance is our only real enemy.

In short, Paradise Now is a work of art and an excellent film that clearly deserved its Golden Globe Award as the Best Foreign Film and its nomination for an Oscar as Best Foreign Film. Kais Nashif who plays Said, one of the bombers, and Ali Suliman, who plays the other, both do an outstanding job, particularly Nashif who manages to combine the look and feel of a disadvantaged youth with the strength of character of a young man who is determined to follow what he ultimately determines is his fate. His motivation goes beyond the ignorant and indoctrinated suicide bomber who is hoping to be rewarded with virgins in heaven. He has personal reasons for becoming a suicide bomber. He is the son of a man who collaborated with the Israelis, and consequently he feels that his fate is to compensate for what his father did.

The film was shot in Nablus and Nazareth and captures some of the atmosphere. The editing is crisp and the story unfolds clearly with a nice tension. The sense that the bomb around the bomber's waist could go off at any moment is one of the devices in the film that maintains that tension in a unique way.

All in all this a film very much worth seeing regardless of how you feel about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

I saw this movie at Telluride, with the director present. Yes, it is a good movie, but it hardly rises to the level of "a plea for peace". The actors find fault with Israel, but never look at their own behavior an how that has led to tragedy for all. It is the usual blame game, multiplied by 10. The constant refrain that all their troubles stem from the occupation, their inability to take any responsibility, left me feeling tired, bored, wanting more. Yes, it does show third world conditions and compares this with glitzy Tel Aviv. One could do the same thing in New York City, or Los Angeles, but suicide bombing is not the preferred way of moving ahead in those places. THe characters are well drawn, but the story line relies heavily on propagandistic statements, many of which are absurd.

At one point, the director attempts to show an ethical side to the bombers, when one of the men sees a young child and as a result does not board a bus. Yet this same bomber has no compunction about killing other young innocents. The director does not understand that morality relies on such principles as do no harm, do not take away someone's freedom (the victims of bombings have no choice), be fair, etc.

This is a movie that needs to be made, but a more nuanced fully-developed story would be appropriate, more informative, and most important a more compelling and absorbing film.

Last night the Palestinian movie "Paradise Now" won the Golden Globe award. The movie shows the route that two young Palestinians take to become suicide murderers, up until the minute they board a bus in Tel Aviv filled with children.

The movie looks professional. It was made with great attention to detail, but it is extremely dangerous – not only to the Middle East, but to the whole world.

My son Asaf, almost 17 years old, was a high school student in the eleventh grade who loved computer science. One day after school he boarded a bus home, as usual. Along the way, a suicide murderer from Hebron, 21 years old, a computer science student at the Hebron Polytechnic, exploded on the bus.

17 people were killed, 9 of them school children aged 18 or less. My son Asaf was killed on spot.

I watched the movie "Paradise Now" trying to understand what it is trying to say, what message it carries? That the murderer is human? He is not. That he has doubts? He has none. After all, he is willing to kill himself along with his victims. That the Israelis are to blame for this brutal killing? Are the Israelis to blame for the Twin Towers in New York, the night club in Indonesia, the hotel in Egypt, the shop in Turkey, the restaurant in Morocco or in Tunis, the hotel in Jordan, the underground in London, the train in Spain? And the list goes on and on.

What makes this movie award-worthy? Would the people that awarded this movie the Golden Globe do the same if the movie was about young people from Saudi Arabia who learn how to fly airplanes in the USA and then use Islamic rituals to prepare themselves for their holy mission, crashing their airplanes into the Twin Towers in New York City? Would this movie get an award then?

This movie tries to say that suicide murder is legitimate when you feel you have exhausted all other means. But a suicide murderer who boards a bus kills 15 or 20 innocent people, so how about a suicide murderer who walks into a city with a biological bomb and kills 10,000 people or 100,000 people? Is that still legitimate? Where does one draw the line?

I believe that the world should draw the line at one person. The killing of even one person is not legitimate. My son was almost 17 years old, he loved surfing, he loved loud music. Now he is gone because a suicide murderer decided it's legitimate to blow himself up on a crowded bus.

Granting an award to this kind of movie gives the filmmakers a seal of approval to hide behind. Now they can say that the world sees suicide bombing as legitimate. By ignoring the film's message and the implications of this message, those that chose to award this film a prize have become part of the evil chain of terror and accomplices to the next suicide murders – whether they kill 17 people or 17,000 people.

PARADISE NOW, like THE WAR WITHIN, educates an American audience on the tragedy of the complex battle of "Arab vs. Jew" and does so in a film that brings this struggle home to the West Bank and gives us a picture of two friends selected to carry out revenge for the death of fellow Palestinians. Well constructed, realistic, informative and yes, even humanistic in presenting us with characters that we would immediately disregard with hatred and contempt.

The journey taken by the friends is painful, personal and disturbing, in that the killing of Jews will only extend the bombings and killings of more Palestinians within the West Bank. PARADISE NOW shows us that the historical roots of hatred between Arab and Jew is one that will never go away, and the film points out this factor visually in building to the final scene on the bus in Tel Aviv. When the camera narrows down to the eyes of the bomber, surrounded by healthy, happy Israeli soldiers, the intense moment of self destruction is inevitable.

The shots of Tel Aviv, the West Bank, the excellent cast, direction and writing and development of the characters makes PARADISE NOW a very important film to see in 2005.

This film was so interesting. I am not a big fan of subtitles usually, but there was many points when the movie was so captivating that I forgot they were there.

I was shown from a terribly unique viewpoint in compared to any other movie I have seen on the topic. It approached a very difficult subject with brazen honesty and straight forwardness.

I really loved it. The director was brilliant. The use of certain symbolism and the comparison to the last supper was amazing I thought. I loved how it took something from a different religion and how their beliefs while so different in so many ways comes to a basic belief.

The camera work and the portrayal of so much at times where there were no words was awesome.

This movie is definitely worth it. Even if only to gain a viewpoint that is different from your own. I think that you will come away with a lot more then that.

--quote--

"Paradise Now" won the Golden Globe award. The movie shows the route that two young Palestinians take to become suicide murderers, up until the minute they board a bus in Tel Aviv filled with children.

The movie looks professional. It was made with great attention to detail, but it is extremely dangerous – not only to the Middle East, but to the whole world.

My son Asaf, almost 17 years old, was a high school student in the eleventh grade who loved computer science. One day after school he boarded a bus home, as usual. Along the way, a suicide murderer from Hebron, 21 years old, a computer science student at the Hebron Polytechnic, exploded on the bus.

17 people were killed, 9 of them school children aged 18 or less. My son Asaf was killed on spot.

I watched the movie "Paradise Now" trying to understand what it is trying to say, what message it carries? That the murderer is human? He is not. That he has doubts? He has none. After all, he is willing to kill himself along with his victims. That the Israelis are to blame for this brutal killing? Are the Israelis to blame for the Twin Towers in New York, the night club in Indonesia, the hotel in Egypt, the shop in Turkey, the restaurant in Morocco or in Tunis, the hotel in Jordan, the underground in London, the train in Spain? And the list goes on and on.

What makes this movie award-worthy? Would the people that awarded this movie the Golden Globe do the same if the movie was about young people from Saudi Arabia who learn how to fly airplanes in the USA and then use Islamic rituals to prepare themselves for their holy mission, crashing their airplanes into the Twin Towers in New York City? Would this movie get an award then?

This movie tries to say that suicide murder is legitimate when you feel you have exhausted all other means. But a suicide murderer who boards a bus kills 15 or 20 innocent people, so how about a suicide murderer who walks into a city with a biological bomb and kills 10,000 people or 100,000 people? Is that still legitimate? Where does one draw the line?

I believe that the world should draw the line at one person. The killing of even one person is not legitimate. My son was almost 17 years old, he loved surfing, he loved loud music. Now he is gone because a suicide murderer decided it's legitimate to blow himself up on a crowded bus.

Granting an award to this kind of movie gives the filmmakers a seal of approval to hide behind. Now they can say that the world sees suicide bombing as legitimate. By ignoring the film's message and the implications of this message, those that chose to award this film a prize have become part of the evil chain of terror and accomplices to the next suicide murders – whether they kill 17 people or 17,000 people.

Yossi Zur www.Blondi.co.il

--end of quote--

Greetings again from the darkness. "Paradise is only in your head". I cannot pretend to comprehend what it must be like for anyone living in the Israeli occupied Palestine nation. The poverty and desperation amongst the rubble and burned/bombed out buildings must suck the spirit right out of even the most dedicated Muslims.

Writer and Director Hany Abu-Assad brings us the story of two close friends who believe themselves to be "already dead". To understand one's willingness to become a suicide bomber, we must understand this concept. Giving one's life for a cause is heroic, but when the cause is a terrorist act, can the act still be interpreted as such. Some Muslims accept the Koran notion of martyrdom to include this "death for the cause".

Kais Nashef and Ali Suliman play best friends Said and Khaled. They have been "chosen" for this mission and are to feel honored. The obstacles that prevent them from succeeding on their first attempt alternate between comedic and sad. Both have doubts and Said even discovers another reason to live ... an attraction to a lively young lady played by Lubna Azabal.

The movie is powerful and insightful until the final 15 minutes when it lapses into propaganda and preachiness. This does not wreck the brilliance of the film's first hour and its earnest attempt to help those like me to understand. You will not believe some of the shots of the city and the contrast with Tel Aviv is again almost comical.

Placing this film's political agenda aside. It is still a film that fails plot-wise. It tries to portray childhood friendship, love, self sacrifice, commitment to ideals and justice, but...

The bonding between the two would-be-martyrs is never fully exploited. It reveals itself in the end, but we don't see this relationship being developed. So we don't really care about their friendship.

The female character (romantic interest?) is very weak. Again we don't see a deep relationship that justifies the extent in which she gets involved.

The one element that gets scrutinized is one's characters commitment to the cause. We get a very convincing and heart breaking reason for it. But the failures at character development, only lead us to believe that this young man's lines are only placeholders for propaganda.

We get tension, and a light of hope, it does make for a very interesting movie. But it would have been much more thrilling if the time that is gained by a certain plot twist, had been spent intensifying the human side of those labeled as just 'suicidal fanatics'.

Being Pro-Israeli, I was not expecting to like the film. However, I was pleasantly surprised at this funny, well-paced political thriller. It made me think but not necessarily change all my views. Being open-minded, I will watch other movies by this talented director. it deserved all the awards that it received and was nominated for. Especially the 2006 Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film. I did not feel like the movie was one-sided. The director does not sugar coat what the characters do. Controversial just like Monster and Syriana among others. I have never seen these actors before but it was some of the best acting I've seen. What initially got me to see it was the great reviews that it received and the controversy.

Paradise Now was the Palestinian film which won the Golden Globes this year for best foreign language film, and it's no wonder to see why it did. Touching on very real, contemporary and the sensitive issue about the relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians, it takes on the much talked about and feared weapon of terrorists / freedom fighters, that of the suicide bomber.

And for that, I applaud the movie's take and narrative, which treads the very fine line and provides the audience aspects from both ends of the spectrum. The introduction is nicely set up, that the Israelis view the Palestinians with suspicious eyes, while it is the case of contempt the other way around. It doesn't set out to glamorize dastardly deeds, but presents a more intimate look into the making of a martyr, the motivations behind those who have willed themselves to political suicide, as well as presenting arguments for a more peaceful resolution through negotiations.

Said (Kais Nashef) and Khaled (Ali Suliman) are childhood friends living in the city of Nablus. They're essentially the working class, and on the surface, your average Joe with non extremist views, living in a city where explosions are common everyday events. But before you know it, it's revealed that they are freedom fighters living a life of normalcy, and beneath the happy-go-lucky facade, they're ever ready to die for their cause. This movie humanizes the anonymous faces we often see in the news, thereby drawing flak from certain circles.

A chance presents itself, and the two of them are assigned to an unnamed group's latest and largest operation in 2 years, a bombing in Tel Aviv. Here's where things are interesting, as rituals are presented as the duo prepare themselves for their appointment with Paradise.

And this movie doesn't hold back in making fun of precisely this sacred promise of going to Heaven after the violent act of murder is committed. Watching it being presented through dialog by their chief operative, makes you wonder how gullible and easily manipulated would-be martyrs can be. But just as you're ready to generalize the simplistic behavior of suicide bombers, the movie's third act will arrest you with a twist that deeply explores the agendas, personal vendettas and the likes, which transcend all reasons and logic, providing more than enough fuel for motivation.

Worry not though that the movie will be heavy in theme. There are adequate light hearted moments to break the seriousness, and interesting visual details like the handless bomb- maker, puts things into certain perspective. Or that tongue-in-cheek reference to The Last Supper as well.

The ending was superb. My guess is many weaned on Hollywood will not come to appreciate it as it yanks the carpet from under your feet. Those who are accustomed to big, loud explosions might find it puzzling. But I thought it was a brilliant way to end it, a silent purposeful statement that continues throughout the end credits, stripping away any glamor of violence, whatever the cause, reason or rationale used to justify it.

Paradise Now is a film rooted in realism despite its fictional storyline. It is without the usual glitz associated with recent films touching on the subject (Syrianna comes to mind) and makes perfect use of its smaller scale to tell a more intimate, but no less powerful, story.

"Paradise Now" is not an Arab film. This is a film in the style of the Western hemisphere, clearly made according to the genre principle of "a film of protest". The Terror of Suicide is all the rage in the market. This is not the right time to generate the real picture or to make risky experiences in a quest for new cinematic tools. The first one to produce a film on the terrorists in Nablus will sweep a fund. If you won't catch the niche swiftly, somebody else will.

It contains all the prerequisite components to insure its inclusion at festivals where awards are given. Scenes of Nablus are filmed from a mountain range in the soft light of the setting sun. Young people struggle to find their way while laboring in a garage. Thrown in are ideological indecision, a little love, simple food and the hospitality provided by a poor family. A bespectacled teacher worries for his students and their studies. The opening scenes show an arrogant soldier examining the identity documents and suitcase of a nice-looking girl, while his cynical and leery gaze rests upon her.

The spectators are meant to understand the film. For this to happen, the film should talk to them in understandable language and in well-known imagery. The writers know that in order for the spectators to believe them, they must cheat them gracefully. The film does not deal with the details of war and the different meanings of the "occupation" concept that is in use by various population groups in the Middle East. That would be adverse to the idea of a film planned to be as shallow as poster paper.

Indeed, bellicose Islam is featured, but as the story develops it is pushed into a remote corner. It is the bespectacled teacher who informs Haled and Said that they must go and wreak revenge. He talks with them about paradise, but excludes embarrassing references to the 72 virgins. They pray and swear on the Koran that they will avenge in the name of Allah, but then they don't execute "the action" until they have first been deterred from doing so and return from it. This provides the opportunity for the spectator to be served up with the required portion of suffering, a hatred of the enemy and speeches about freedom.

Spectators love the kind of film that serves them a universal, easily digestible, story. It expands their horizons and creates empathy. The commander of the terrorist group, who embraces the destined martyrs, has every appearance of being heroic, one that wouldn't embarrass his colleagues in any underground film around the world. This is not Raad Carmi , the ruffian terrorist from Tulkarem, who sent his people to execute attacks in order to exploit their wives in their absence. Here, we see a typical popular film hero, superior and pure.

Two of the suicide terrorists shave, put on black suits and adopt the look of young lawyers, indistinguishable from any young lawyer anywhere. They are excited about the oncoming "action", like before receiving their diploma at the Bar.

We do not see in the movie a woman who was given the choice to die as a martyr or be butchered with a knife as a "desecrator of family honor". We also do not notice any teenager being forced to be a suicide-bomber amid threats that his family will be harmed should he refuse.

Of course, we also don't see a young boy with an education deficiency who struggles to read his premartyrdom speech, which must therefore be dictated to him; let alone the fact that he does not understand the mysteries of Islam and Jihad. Nor are we to expect that the hero will search for a bus full of families returning on Saturday night from prayer at the Western Wall, as it happens in the real life.

By contrast, a young eloquent fellow is presented. His friend Sa'id does not explode the first bus he encounters. He notices, among the Jews who get on the bus, a mother with a little boy and decides to withdraw.

Sa'id, the main hero, returns to Nablus, visits his father's tomb and has proper cinematic doubts. In front of the commander of the terrorist group, he gives a pensive but ardent speech against "the occupation". Israel is not mentioned by name; this is a universal speech against all "occupations", real and pseudo. Only then he finally decides… Haled, the friend of Said in the movie, decides at the last moment to return and search for a "different way." And miracle of miracles, his operators come to collect him without delay. They don't tell him what a girl named Shafika was told by her handlers in a real and similar situation: "Many people expect you to explode yourself, so you had better do it." The finale scene: a bus, the majority of the passengers are soldiers, no children are seen. Next to the terrorist sits a toll soldier with a parachutist's badge, talking with a woman soldier. The camera focuses for a long time on the sad eyes of the terrorist and then, the white background fills the screen, apparently to symbolize the detonation.

Cut… There are no human limbs beings spread on the asphalt and no rescue team with covered plastic shoes, collecting burned shreds of human flesh. The film sends metaphors meant to win the spectator's heart, and it has to be clean, full of gorgeous heroes, foolish enemies and sublime feelings. Spilled bowels and dying spasms cannot be seen. There is only clean death, fast and without suffering. It's like opening a door to a world of complete immaculateness.