Lack of good storyline.

Absolutely Fantastic

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

This movie actually does a really good job of introducing a subject to the American general public to at least remember that Israel and Palestine exist. That the conflict is not just a forgettable world news story you hear in the background on television while getting something to eat and ignoring the information. It's not the movie version of a book or a non-biased documentary, but it's entertaining enough to keep unaware viewers watching and hopefully remembering, if not researching further. I think a huge key to the success of keeping people's attention was the wondering if it's a mockumentary or documentary aspect.I will say the 100 minutes of movie gave me a better overview of how this conflict was related to myself versus the countless hours of world news I did watch, while living in San Diego, that was difficult to discern bickering opinion from what was actually happening and why it should be important to me.For all of you disappointed academics out there, just remember, baby steps; getting people to remember is the first step to future awareness.

I'm not going to write too much as I'm not experienced in reviewing and am simply studying film and happened to attend a Documentary Festival to view this documentary without knowing the context of it. I personally found this documentary to be very educational and interesting, the story being told by the real subjects, not actors, as many people think, really makes a difference. It was highly informative but has been described as one sided by many viewers, I suppose you could say so but as John Battsek stated in an interview 'You cannot satisfy both sides'. After watching this documentary there was a debate about it between a Palestinian and an expert in Palestinian politics and history, they described this documentary as 'Israeli Propaganda', however I feel that their reasons for this were more personal than simply critiquing the film. I found it enticing and was drawn into the story with its original footage and narration. It didn't focus on anything but the Hamas movement and the involvement of the Shin Bet, things like the lack of information on certain events such as assassinations etc. but that was not meant to be the focus of this documentary and therefore I find the little information given justified.

I had very high expectations. I mean, what a story? The son of a Hamas leader turned informant was openly talking about his involvement with the Shin Bet! Waw. Unfortunately, The Green Prince didn't deliver. Instead of understanding the psychology of an informant, the reasons for turning against his family so easily, we are left with a recounting of events, that is incomplete in providing us with a full picture of such a political and personal move. Mosab, the informant, gives the impression to be highly disturbed, in need of attention and recognition, and ready to grab any opportunity that would give him such comfort. The way the character was presented offered no depth, or thought-provoking arguments. The handler, Gonen, is the hero, the one who went against the shin-bet, or what he called "his family" to save the Palestinian, his "friend". No further explanation as to why he felt the urge to go against the rules for the informant, and the film-makers were largely satisfied with the "it was my duty" answer, instead of digging further into his personality. Not a complete fail, but feels like a partial recounting of events, that does not offer any emotional or contextual depth which would have made it one of the year's most astounding story told.

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?