The Face of an Angel is a film about a journalist and documentary filmmaker that chase the story of a murder and its prime suspect.

Now, I went to a Q&A of this with director Michael Winterbottom and writer Paul Viragh. I was particularly interested in what they had to say about the film since the film centred around such a well know case of Amanda Knox that was covered by the media extensively over the period of two or more years. That and also the fact that the film was nothing like I expected. I was confused, especially by Thomas' (Daniel Bruhl) hallucinations, and strangely dissatisfied. They had such a chance to cover something that us as an audience had some insight into but failed to make anything out of it and we were left as confused and alone as our lead. There wasn't much semblance of a story and introduces unnecessary oddities and fantasies to somehow "guide" us through the film.

From the documentary filmmaker who rabidly turned to alcohol and drugs, constantly snorting cocaine in attempts to help him write a script, to the disjointed storyline incorporating mythical creatures that were totally unnecessary and hardly helped the story at all. And not to mention the CGI was an awful mess too.

There was so many loose ends and unanswered questions with sensationalist journalism that there could have been a serious movie to be made here but it fell on its back.

I left to question why this film was made in the first place if it had nothing to say about the Amanda Knox story.

I have absolutely no idea how I came with the idea of watching this movie. As soon as it started I immediately understood that it was about the Amanda Knox case even though they use different names. So I thought it would be interesting to watch a movie about that. But what a disappointed that turned out to be. The story goes back and forth between the life of the journalists and the case itself. Difficult to follow and also extremely boring. Not that the actors were bad or so. They were all believable in their roles. But the story was just too boring and badly written. At one point I was battling not to fall asleep and at the end I just lost the battle. In a case like that I would normally just rewind until the part I fell asleep but with this movie I could not care less. I don't even want to know how it ended, too boring to waste anymore of my time with it.

This is by far the worst movie I have seen in a long time. Throughout the whole thing I was waiting for something to finally start happening. Anything. I compare the experience to being forced to listen to someone whining for hours without an end... There were too many side stories, most of which were utterly boring and only shallowly touching upon the issues of cheating, drug abuse, family problems, psychos, depression. It seems they would throw 'anything' in there but they really failed to find an angle for the story. And this is what the story is about - failure. The main character is a failure, the story is a failure, the fact that murder is not solved is a failure. But the biggest failure of all is this badly directed movie. I have never been so agitated by watching a movie and while in the cinema I was thinking ''why don't you drown now'' about the main character... at least it would make this movie interesting in some way. I wish I could get a refund for watching this.

There is a serious movie to be made about the trial of Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher. So many loose ends, so many unanswered questions, and so much sensationalist journalism. Whether it be a documentary, or dramatization is a moot point, but there is a serious movie to be made. Mike Winterbottom's calamitous and self-indulgent effort isn't it. To tackle this subject properly would demand a very courageous film-maker, but Wnterbotton ducks all the issues.

The irony is that the book it is based on – Angel Face by Barbie Latza Nadeau – is, I think, a courageous attempt to cut through a subject which polarises opinion like no other. Although part of the media scrum, Nadeau, an Italian speaker, was at the time bureau chief in Rome for Newsweek and the Daily Beast and had the merit of understanding the labyrinthine Italian police and justice systems, as well as the psyche and culture of the people. She attended every day of every court hearing. Like everyone else she has a theory, but even if one doesn't find that credible, one cannot deny that she has made a reasoned and reasonable attempt to get to the heart of the case.

The great mystery, then, is why she has allowed Winterbotton and screenwriter Paul Viragh to even claim that their sub-Antonioni nonsense is based on her book. And to add insult to injury, the character of Simone Ford (Kate Beckinsale) in the story is a less than flattering portrait of Nadeau. I guess there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Nadeau's book affords some sympathy and respect for the family of Meredith Kercher; this movie on the other hand, whilst ostensibly being dedicated to her, is an insult to the Kercher family. Why? Because Winterbottom shamelessly uses the case as hook on which to hang a rather shabby and unedifying story about a director going through some sort of mid-life crisis whilst researching his latest movie about an English student murdered in Sienna. Not Perugia? No, because this movie fictionalises the whole case, changing names and places but keeping enough parallels as to leave us in no doubt. Insulting because the director is too lily-livered to confront any of the issues thrown up by the real events. Insulting because the movie centres around the fictional director Thomas (Daniel Brühl) who is equally lily-livered in his ham-fisted and half-hearted attempts to get to grips with the case. Insulting because at one point we are invited to see a parallel between Thomas missing his daughter who is alive and well and Skypeable on the other side of the Atlantic, and the awful void left by the death of the Kercher's daughter.

What a self-indulgent mess this movie is. The central character, Thomas, appears to have had a personality by-pass. He seems to be haunted and pained by something, but what? Is his marriage on the rocks? If it is, we have little sympathy for him as he manages to bed at least two of the female characters during his stay in Sienna. He hangs around the place, snorting line after line, getting everyone's backs up, and interacting with Siennese lowlife characters straight from Central Casting. Just about every character in this movie is not only one dimensional but either unsympathetic or unlikeable. The one ray of light is the acting debut of Cara Delevingne as English ex-pat student Melanie. One suspects that she is not so much acting as just being herself. If so, she must be great fun to be around. The fact that she looks so child-like imbues the relationship between Melanie and Thomas with a touch of the Humbert Humberts and makes one feel slightly uncomfortable.

I have no idea what this movie is trying to do or say other than urge us to read Dante's Divine Comedy. The references to this text in the movie are, frankly, ludicrous as are the CGI effects that accompany them. Mike Winterbottom was at the preview I saw for a Q and A, but unfortunately the tendinitis in my left knee which had been playing up all evening became just too painful and I had to go. Opportunity for enlightenment missed, I'm afraid.

This film tells the story of a film director who sleeps with one of the hottest women in the world while on a trip to Italy. After which he decides to get totally wasted on coke, marijuana and alcohol. Then he ditches one of the hottest women in the world for one of the other hottest women in the world who is half the age of the first one. Meanwhile he stumbles from party to party stoned and drunk, ignoring the other not so hot women characters that he encounters. He also has an annoying not so hot wife who pops up from time to time. He finally settles for the younger hot one but I imagine it not lasting too long. There is a side story about the murder of one super hot chick by another hot chick. Not all is lost though because Cara CAN act!

This must be the biggest load of tripe I have seen in ages.The so called story of Amanda Knox is embellished and confused introducing unnecessary anomalies and fantasies.

From the cocaine snorting journalist to the disjointed storyline incorporating mythical creatures the story does not stack up at all.

If they were going to tell the story of Meredith Kercher why did they feel it necessary to change people's names.

I cannot see the purpose if this movie and why it was made - totally pointless, boring and uninteresting .

There is simply no redeeming features that can recommend this movie

Do not waste your money in watching this rubbish

Only one-thirds into the movie did I realize what it was supposed to be: a multi-layered, poetic piece with lofty characters. I should've gotten the hint from the opening scene and the narrative prose throughout the movie. Unfortunately it all ended up as too pretentious and cannot even be filed under the pool of psychological thrillers.

It's got a lot of lost potential; we've got some good actors caught in their bad moments, as if they couldn't afford another take. It was difficult to empathize with any of the characters. Eventually I got tired of watching Thomas (Daniel Brühl) going on impulsive snog fests with Simone and sniff cocaine because god knows why... it's hard to figure out what kind of character he's supposed to be. The only two characters true-to-form were Edoardo (Valerio Mastandrea) and Melanie (Cara Delevingne), and I'd have to give a special mention to Delevingne mostly for actually doing well in her first speaking part in a feature film.

I'll be honest I think seven years is quite a short gap to make a film based largely on the tragic death of Meredith Kercher in 2007, I cannot imagine what the families of all concerned must think, the remainder of my review won't in any other way be clouded my opinions on that fact, tasteless though I find the format.

Thomas, a British film maker travels to Siena in Italy, with a view to making a film based on the famous murder several years earlier of Elizabeth, a young student. Elizabeth's friend Jessica and her boyfriend Carlo were arrested for the crime. Thomas meets journalist Simone Ford who offers her advice and help. Jessica was convicted, but a re-trial is set to occur. Thomas begins exploring, he catches site of beautiful young waitress Melanie and forges an acquaintance. Thomas constantly snorts coke, possibly to help him be creative with his script.

I know it's a film, but it is stretching the realms of reality, I cannot believe the Police would be keen to speak to any journalists, it would never happen. Plenty of scenes intended to shock, sex, drugs etc.

The standard of acting is good on the whole, Daniel Brühl is a wonderfully talented actor, there doesn't seem to be a single role he cannot turn his hand to, the material is sadly a bit lacking for his talent. Cara Delevigne I've grown rather fond of based on her first few performances, I think she's proved a few people wrong, the girl is very good, there's just something about her. I am a fan of Kate Beckinsale, but I have to be honest I found her a little anonymous in this film, she didn't stand out. It is always nice to see Sara Stewart.

Some of the imagery really just didn't work, as you get into the film and he starts with the drugs he begins getting some disturbing images, they aren't particularly well realised, none of them work on the whole, the effects are poor.

(For any Doctor who fans, do I hear the Ood singing??) The music doesn't seem to be in tune with the film somehow.

Overall I think it's a disappointing film, the storytelling itself is largely the issue, it just doesn't flow very well, it's disjointed, and the actions of leading man Thomas somehow feel at odds with the character, through no fault of Daniel Brühl, he battled hard with the script. 4/10

Firstly, I wish to extend my condolences to the family of Meredith Kercher.

It is unfortunate that the film gives very little concern to the ongoing trial almost as an afterthought.

The film spends too much time on Daniel Bruhl's character or more accurately lack thereof.

Daniel Bruhl can act but in this role he seemed so detached that maybe it was the drugs or maybe there was a lack of empathy for the role.

Then again Daniel Bruhl was too busy inspecting bedroom furniture in the company of Kate Beckinsale's character and then chasing after (for research purposes for the new movie - there's a line for the gullible) model turned actress Cara D(thick eyebrows). Conveniently placed English 21 year old who just happens to be working in a bar within earshot and walking distance of the crime scene. (cue the source music from the Human League - Don't you want me 1982 either that or Kraftwerk - the Model may be more fitting.) The movie goes off into another pointless tangent, perhaps an advertisement for the Tuscan Tourist Board, where Cara D and Daniel Bee(ruhl) frolic on a little beach.

When watching this film you wanted to get a picture or idea of who Miss M Kercher was like. But you feel let down that it is just a few scenes that don't really establish that. Perhaps it was a ploy by Winterbottom to highlight the fact that she was murdered.

Furthermore you wanted to discover more about the accused and the background of the investigation but the audience was only given second hand anecdotal quips and hearsay from characters garnered from meetings in public houses (gosh for a minute I thought I was watching Eastenders or Coronation Street there.) I was really looking forward to seeing this, but if you enjoy movies where the main protagonist (who really only gets that title by mere screen time rather than actually doing anything) goes to bars, nightclubs, restaurants, cafés and office meetings, then you will probably love this film.

However if you are not in the habit of seeing movies that are just blatant advertisements for the Tuscan Tourist Board for Club 18-30something then do yourself a favour and avoid this movie at all costs.

It's such a shame that there was so much talent and production values (including Kate Beckinsale's faking fake orgasms but not in the style of when Harry Met Sally more like when Katy met Danny). That there may be a good movie in the all of the footage that was shot but they probably forgot to include it.

I really hoped that this film would get better but it didn't.

It's time I have wasted watching this movie that I can never get back. I could have watched something more interesting like varnish dry.

Some will say that t is still too soon to be making a film about a murder case that shocked the World and they are arguably right. I did not know this was about that until I started watching it and will judge it as a film in its own rights. Anyway Daniel Bruhl plays a film maker who has had a run of bad luck and wants to make a film about the murder case and he teams up with a journalist played by Kate Beckinsale; she has been following the case from the start in Sienna.

The case is ongoing as the film develops and Bruhl's character gets completely immersed and for those that followed the case there will be moments of déjà vu through out. There are many references to Dante's 'Divine Comedy' too and some rather awkward dream sequences.

Is it any god though? Well I was not disinterested at all but it was still not riveting. Everyone puts in a good performance although some are a bit stereo typed – especially some of the journalists. So it is above average but I could not get away from the fact that for some people this case is still a living hell and that cast a pall over any 'enjoyment' (if that is the right word) that I could get from this production – hence my rating but I would not try to dissuade anyone from seeing this especially if you are fan of either of the leading actors as they both serve their trade well.

Having, previously to seeing the film, read all four of the user reviews on IMDb.com - all of which expressed some degree of negative criticism of the film - I went to see The Face of an Angel somewhat apprehensive about what to expect. What had peeked my interest was that I'd also heard that this was more a film about a filmmaker struggling to discover what he believed to be an underlying 'truth' about the main female characters involved in the murder, as opposed to the 'good girl' / 'bad girl' sensationalism which he saw the tabloid media as focusing on. This, to me, sounded to be of far more interest than a movie merely purporting to solve or throw further light on the crime would have been. And, happily for me, that's how it transpired. As I watched I was fascinated by how the main protagonist (Thomas) had to wrestle with decision making in aspects of his personal life as well as in finding some way of telling the murder trial story as he thought it should be told. I found the acting and directing to be more than adequate and that there was more than one 'face of an angel' to add to the film's appeal. I enjoyed the film so much I saw it a second time the next day. Recommended. 7/10.

So at first I thought this movie was going to bring some insight on what truly happened to Elizabeth (based on the murder of Meredith Kercher in 2007), but then... no. Nothing is said about the case, not even discussed, just merely presented in a conversation inside a car (that seemed pulled out of an article from Wikipedia).

Then I started wondering if the movie was about the deterioration of the filmmaker's (portrayed by Daniel Brühl - meh.) mental health, but then... also no. He just has these weird dreams about killing and being killed, and that's pretty much it.

Then random things start to happen, such as the dull appearance of Cara Delevingne, and a mysterious Italian writer who seems to know too much of what happened at the night of the murder, and the filmmaker's relationship with a journalist who wrote a book about the case. But nothing really happened and none of theses things become the focus of the plot.

This movie is about nothing. It isn't even intriguing, or makes you wonder about the truth. It's just plain boring and makes you stare at the clock as the minutes go by.

'The only way to really tell what happened is to fictionalise it - that's the only way to get to the truth' - Words to this effect are said at the beginning of the film (I can't be sure of the exact quote and would never want to see it again) so I thought okay, I see where they're going with this. Change the names so we can explore everything that needs to be said about this case. What we got however is an incoherent, uneven, self indulgent piece about a coke sniffing delusional film maker who fails to connect with either the story or the people around him while trying to write a script about it. Maybe that is what happened as a result of the director trying to make this film, but then okay, don't make a film about that! The memory of Meredith Kercher is lost here and becomes almost as irrelevant as the title of the film which tries to have a clever double meaning and fails on every level. When I heard this film was in the works under the stewardship of Michael Winterbottom I thought it was going to be in safe hands. He is a brilliant film maker. No stranger to the world of true life drama stories but something went really wrong here. The film feels like it became a parody of what a film maker goes through when trying to make a film of this type - which is complex and difficult to get to the truth of, while that is as maybe this is completely the wrong subject and material with which to explore those issues - For one thing its about a true life murder case when an innocent girl with her whole life ahead of her was brutally murdered and those responsible appear to have got away with it. I was expecting a film with real balls which was going to take on the known facts of this case which captured the media attention of the world and work through them methodically and give some much needed clarity to areas of the case which have been portrayed with ever increasing conflict in the media. If the Kercher family were hoping this film would in anyway give them a sense of closure or at least bring some light to the darker areas of this case, how disappointed they must have been. I find it hard to understand what attracted the cast to the material though Daniel Bruhl is on form in the leading role and redeems himself well but do we really need to dodgy CGI monsters induced by this drug taking? An extremely badly misjudged film which hopefully will be forgotten very quickly.

The movie failed utterly because it had nothing to do with either the events of the crime nor with the trial involving Amanda Kercher and Meredith Knox so viewers who are expecting any enlightenment about these events (and who wasn't) are left short-changed from the start. The characters are clumsy in their purpose to display some sort of point or message for the film so we are let down even more.

I would blame this more on the script and directing than the actors but if the actors did a good job then it did not show in the way this story was presented.

If I had to guess then I would say that it tried to tell us that the truth of the story was not the thing that people should be focused on but that a beautiful young girl who was loved and had a happy life was lost. Try watching it with this concept in mind and it makes all the poorly presented scenes a little more tolerable.

I wonder if Thomas' pursuit of the truth to the murder (as he gets more directly involved with the solution to the case by trying to locate the knives) is what inspires the drug use and silly CGI scenes as a reflection that he was falling into the same unimportant issues that everyone else is. I think his longing for his daughter also parallels the loss that the Kercher family was feeling. Thomas' strife with other journalists may also be a sign that he did not like the opinions of other writers because they were focused on the case and the girl on trial but not on the girl who died ("Strange... when I think of Face of an Angel I always think of Elizabeth. But you all mean Jessica." - Thomas)

After writing this review I watched a Q&A by Mark Salisbury with Michael Winterbottom (director) and Paul Viragh (writer) and right off the bat they confirmed what I struggled to believe was the message of the film. I'm sorry that they missed the mark so egregiously and that they used such a high-profile trial in a way that fails its potential as a who-dun-it.

It boggles my mind how studios pay money for movies like this one. Even worse, because it's not a typical account of the events surrounding this story and more about finding an interesting angle around it, they even have scenes with studio executives that have looks of horror on their faces when the Director talks about how he wants to make it into the trash that it became. Still, they went ahead with it. They must feel like complete fools and I'm guessing such a high valued actress like Kate Beckinsale has her regrets as well.

It's just a pretentious pile of poop in the end. Hypocritical as well since it tries to put itself above the trash journalism surrounding this story but ends up putting in the same sensationalistic crap that 'sells' stories. So lame.

I was even more disheartened when I saw a few of the UK Utopia actors, Alistair Petrie and Nathan Stewart-Jarrett in the film. They must be gutted being in this one after being in such a great one like Utopia.

Thank you for wasting my time BBC Films, Cattleya, Multitrade, Revolution Films, Vedette Finance and Ypsilon Films. There's obviously not a sensible one in the lot of ya.

Barbie Latza Nadeau's novel based on a true event has been transformed (or mutated) into a screenplay by Paul Viragh and the result as directed by Michael Winterbottom is a fine scenic tour of Sienna, Italy – and little else.

The story is based on true events - a journalist (Kate Beckinsale) and a filmmaker (Daniel Brühl) lose themselves in a notorious murder case they are covering – the controversial case of a American student accused of murder (the victim in truth, one Meredith Kercher) in Italy. Somehow the story gets lost in translation but if you can get past the fact that this is more of a fantasy film than reportage portions of can be entertaining. It does allow a primarily Italian cast to look great and decorate the already visually stunning sites of Sienna.

I never write reviews, but actually signed on to this site to post a review after watching this movie. I feel like I just wasted two hours of my life. It takes a lot for me to not like a movie... I can usually find something to like....but not with this movie. I thought this movie would be about the story of the murder. It's not. It's really a movie about the writer's experiences while researching this murder. The whole movie is a bumbling mess, focused more on the writer's life, than on the actual murder case. It should not be advertised as being about the murder. It's really like this writer used this story as a platform to write a story about his own life, which by the way, is not interesting enough to carry a movie. To make it even worse, the very few moments they recreate the trial....it's all spoken in Italian with no translation.

The Face of an Angel: A film about a guy making a film about a book about a headlining controversial murder of a student studying abroad in Italy that points suspicions toward her roommate and the roommate's lover.

In reality, the 'headlining' murder is that of Meredith Kercher, more well known to the public as the trial of Amanda Knox. The Face of An Angel is not a reenactment of the media's coverage of this case, rather a creative interpretation told through the eyes of a journalist Simone and documentary maker named Thomas as he chases the story as it unfolds.

Within the film are several quotes that reveal the true errors in the film's ways, even if its intents were commendable. Firstly, it is more fictional than fact and is not a true crime investigation of the murder, as one character states: "If you're gonna make a movie, make it a fiction. You cannot tell the truth unless you make it a fiction."

This is true of the murder of Meredith Kercher. No one truly knows what went on in that bedroom. So much hearsay has transpired that to claim to tell the truth through a creative interpretation would lead to certain failure.

It is like the director Michael Winterbottom and screenwriter Paul Viragh were aware of the obvious tropes that would certainly damn the film. As one piece of dialogue uttered by the journalist of the film, played by Daniel Brühl, reveals: "It's not about 'whodunnit'…there are so many angles, how to organize it in a meaningful way, it's important that its a story based on truth, but i want to do something that transcends that, that its not just a simple reconstruction…"

In trying to avoid those cliché ideas, The Face of an Angel fails in an unexpected but admirable manner. It is unable to grasp the true essence of the murder that captivated the world in being completely unstructured and focused upon Thomas.

There are aspects of the film that work well and reveal a softer more intriguing side of the investigation. The media's preoccupation with not-Amanda when the true attention should be on the victim, who the tabloid journalists in the film say 'fade into the background.' The focus upon sex and murder due to its innate ability to sell newspapers and compulsive way in which the press perpetuates the images of the key figures in the case. The protagonists frustrations with this simplistic mindset yields a more complete view of the girls as students and people, and does not reduce them to facsimiles.

It is an interesting attempt and the cinematography of the scenes had a certain mood that was effective. But ultimately it fails to showcase a greater message, and the pretentious desire to incorporate Dante Alighieri's source material is off-putting.

Please check out our website for full reviews of indies and recent releases.

After reading a short synopsis of this movie it certainly sounded worth a look - that was as close as it got. Why writers and movie makers feel it's their right to make movies about real life murders - then take ugly liberties with the facts in order to spin their own fantasies and selfish motivations go's well beyond any creative forgiveness.

Whatever the real life participants may or may not have been - they don't deserve to become an excuse for a fictionalized story about drug and sex abuse by somewhat superficial journalists, novelists, etc - all having nothing to do with the actual case at the center of the movie. This convoluted, sleep inducing, waste of valuable time and resources has earned its failure. BBC and others should have known better.

ALERT ALERT ! THIS IS A BORING AWFUL MESS. It bears no resemblance to the Amanda Knox story. It is soooo bad that I have been avoiding Daniel Bruhl movies...did he even read the script before signing up for this? Kate Beckinsale, a very fine actress, must feel ashamed for participating. Do yourself a favor. Count your ceiling tiles, watch some paint dry, view a yacht race from afar, or rearrange your sock drawer. ANY IF THESE ARE MORE EXCITING THAN THIS MOVIE!!

I like Michael Winterbottom. It's probably cheap to call this pretentious but it is about a filmmaker hanging around and sometimes sleeping with very beautiful women, writing a film about the Murder of the girl in the film, who has lots of interviews which producers and financiers in which he talks about what he's trying to say in the film and the structure of the film with is based on Dante's Inferno (one of Dante's books at least). I'll call it self reflexive

I don't know but I'm gonna say it's about Michael Winterbottooms life and divorce (it can't be another film about Steve Coogans life). The film director (Bruhl) makes reference to him needing a hit after his last film flopped... I wondered which film that was (in real life), because I didn't think any of Winterbottoms films made money. I've always wondered how he got films funded. I like his films a lot, but I just thought it was like funding Derek Jarman, you're always gonna lose money but you'd feel good about it. Like you've done something worthwhile, but not as gay maybe. I mean I didn't think he felt pressure to make money.....

I don't think this deserved to be as derided as it was. i was impressed with the accuracy to the real life case. The insanely dislikable daily mail columnist is Nick Pisa, who is insanely dislikable..The Police chief really reminded me of the actual chief and so did a lot of the cast. A lot of the seemingly small events are based on real events and are accurately portrayed. And despite me calling it pretentious I do like the self reflexive nature of this film. I think it worked and I enjoyed it more afterwards thinking about the three act structure (they talk about it in the movie) and its resolution and Cara being a sort or adopted daughter.

This would be a great film to talk about over a meal, because it has depth and because it will so obviously polarise opinion, getting under some people's skin and feeling painfully obvious and other people clicking with it.

I think with a semi autobiographical film like this, you're more likely to get away with a Woody Allen style approach (I.e. Comedy) and not be called pretentious and Winterbottom has done this before with 'The Trip' and 'A Cock and blah blah' and people found it easier to stomach. When you go later Woody Allen's serious stuff, you upset people. This is 'Interiors' but about a real life murder. So I can see it's pretty difficult for people to separate the art from the fact.

I clicked though!

Michael Winterbottom has a track record of telling stories in a different and interesting way. He adapted, along with long-time collaborator Frank Cottrell Boyce, the apparently unreadable novel Tristram Shandy into the outstanding 'A Cock And Bull Story'. This was after his novel approach to telling the story of Manchester music guru Tony Wilson in '24 Hour Party People'.

So you know not to expect a straightforward telling of the Meredith Kercher tragedy, or a proposed solution to what actually happened. Instead Mr Winterbottom concentrates on a director's artistic dilemmas in trying to make a film about the story.

An admirable intention, but unfortunately this film is more interesting when it is just telling the basic story from the viewpoint of the media covering it. I had high hopes forty minutes in that I would be starting my list of 'great Michael Winterbottom films not starring Steve Coogan.'

But it starts to drag and becomes less focused. The Dante references were lost on me I'm afraid, and they seemed to become increasingly important.

I'm a shallow guy, and I sometimes measure how much I've enjoyed a film by when I first look at my watch. I didn't look at my watch during 'Face Of An Angel', but I guessed a running time of well over 120 minutes and was surprised it was only 100.

A decent film, but could have been more. I did like the end though, and the poignant significance it gave to the title.

RIP Meredith Kercher.

Thomas (Daniel Brühl) is a film maker in Siena, Italy covering something that looks like the Amanda Knox story. It is almost a film within a film as the film Thomas wants to make has similarities to the one we are watching. Siena is filled with reporters with all kind of spousal issues, Thomas is using a book "The Face of an Angel" written by a journalist (Kate Beckinsale) who also has an angel face. His daughter (Ava Acres) has an angel face as does the waitress (Cara Delevingne) who aides Thomas. Thomas even tells us they changed the names.

Thomas relates the angel face with the victim (Sai Bennett) while everyone one else in the world associates it with the accused (Genevieve Gaunt). Thomas wants to make the film as a parallel to Dante's Divine Comedy. So unless you are heavy into the metaphor and symbolism, the film is boring. If you are into it, you will realize he missed the mark and it is just somewhat boring. It comes across as pseudo philosophical with lines like, "Look death in the face to understand life." I had to laugh as I thought of Warhol's famous line, "To know death Otto,...."

And remember, the book had two endings, like the Amanda Knox trial.

Guide: F-bomb, sex, nudity (Rosie Fellner)

The Face of an Angel, is first of all, not a very great film. It has its flaws, the pacing for example, is not griping enough for one to keep on watching even for a pretending-to-be crime thriller. But undeniably, it is unique kind of a film, and like Walter Raleigh says, "it is adulterated, sanded poetry that makes the best lectures". I never read the book though, so I only feel what the film lead me to. and i have to admit, it is pretty remarkable, give or take.

The story is centered around a crime solving: two roommates, Elizabeth the good angelic one is murdered and the public incensed by the media blames the naughty girl Jessica , making guilty and jail of her, which is a typical analogy for the biblical Eva-Lilith situation. The film goes through three genre changes till it ends. The crime thriller is only a pretend, that part is made clear as we are a quarter in the film where the writer-hero warns us that his film would be one of the exceptions of crime thrillers, which means there would be no crime-solving in the end, surely there is none as the film ends. The writer hero actually spends the entire time trying to figure out how to make sense of what he is now telling, constantly explaining his topology and originality in story-making, which can be quite tiresome and irritating to watch sometimes, i have to admit. But the suspense of the film at the same time shifts from a crime solving to a genre figuring: we wonder how the writer-hero is going to make out of this story-telling after all. In the process, the cinematic style changes as he teases us with the structure of Dante's Infernal, taking its semi- Gothic elements, making parallels of the plot: Beatrice guides Dante ascending from hell, as Melanie (Cara's character) guides the writer hero out of his gloom. Then Melanie lead the hero to read"La Vita Nuova", which promises another possible genre change.

By now, if any audience haven't abandon the film, they are about to witness the strong ending the film presents. It is strong not in the sense of plot, 'cause apparently nothing happened or is solved: Elizabeth is dead with no one to be blamed, Jessica is set free, but still not free from the blame of the public; it is strong ending shot in a series of melancholic montage, linking the hero's child Beatrice, the adolescent Melanie, and the deceased Elizabeth together, forcing the audience to see the inevitable affiliations between the three: apparitions of the same angel, in her different embodiment of ages. Thus, the film is eventually about a lamentation of beauty passing away, just like the father laments her daughter Elizabeth in her funeral, quoting Dante's lamentation on his beloved Beatrice, the same way the writer hero tries to get hold of her daughter via Skype, through image, but never does for real. It hints in the end, Melanie could be a figurative character out of the writer hero's creation, to let show the beauty's mysterious ways in the world before its passing, the imaginative figure that in reality passes without anyone sees, who also helps him work through his trauma to its lost, similarly as Beatrice to Dante in the inferno.

The great thing about this ending metaphor is that it is not explicitly showed,which makes sense given the main tone of the film is still realistic despite monsters appears occasionally in hero's nightmares, breaking the genre for a bit of a sec. The ambiguity of the real and fantastic in this film turns out a big win for me. It's subtle, and definitely requires some patience and overall working-through on the audience's part. When one does figure it out , it leaves you with this lingering sense, a sense of love as well as a reminiscence of the beauty in a general sense, as Dante's La Vita Nuova promises us.

Of course, that just might be the original novel telling, not so much about the movie itself. Might as well read the book.

The Amanda Knox saga, on which this is based, is an incredibly compelling real-life thriller. It has all the elements--xenophobia, exotic location, pretty people, legal saber-rattling, murder most foul, the irrationality of the enraged populace, wrongful conviction and a compelling heroine who wins in the end.

Now, how do you take THAT and make this incredibly dull, meandering film? I often criticize films that are "Hollywood-ed up," but here, they could have used some Hollywood attention to character development and pacing. The script is limp. The characters are laconic. Nothing much happens. The director has done better. The actors have done better. One day, someone will make a truly compelling film on this remarkable tale. This is not it.