10 NAZA Reviews: What Critics Agree and Disagree On
Reviews of NAZA are overwhelmingly intense, but they do not all praise the same things or raise the same concerns. This guide summarizes recurring points without reproducing long passages from reviews.
1. The film is difficult to watch
Across positive reviews, critics emphasize emotional severity and the bluntness of insider testimony.
2. The rooftop form is widely discussed
Critics repeatedly notice the contrast between anonymous figures and Tel Aviv at night.
3. Some reviewers treat the testimony as historically important
RogerEbert.com’s review describes the film as an essential historical document.
4. Some question anonymity
The Guardian review explicitly notes the evidentiary weakness created when no source can put a name and face to the testimony.
5. The absence of Palestinian voices is noted
RogerEbert.com’s review notes that the film contains no Palestinian voices.
6. Some praise that narrow perspective as the point
Supportive critics argue the film is specifically about documenting the system through its operators.
7. October 7 context in the reviews
Time Out’s review says the interviewees speak of their initial rage and determination to exact revenge for the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023. The National’s review says one interviewee, reflecting on the attacks, admits they were outsmarted and says they were very angry.
8. The film is often described as journalism as well as cinema
Its relationship to earlier Guardian/+972/Local Call investigations is central to reviews.
9. Critics disagree about what the film proves
Time Out’s review calls the film an indictment and says it is inarguable as journalism, while the Guardian’s review says anonymity lessens the impact of the interviews as testimony.
10. The film has drawn political responses
The Guardian reports that Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have called for the directors’ citizenship to be revoked, while more than 1,500 Israeli film professionals have defended them.