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.
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.