City of Ghosts (2017)

Phillips calls the documentary a triumphant, potentially definitive account of Syria and citizen journalism. He praises its intimate portrayal of activists’ trauma and the chilling detail of their media war with Isis.

Turan finds the documentary powerful and unnerving, emphasizing the grave human cost of reporting on Islamic State. He praises Heineman’s intimate access to the citizen-journalists and their dangerous work.

Lowry gives the documentary a strongly positive verdict, calling it an important and moving film. He singles out the courage and quiet professionalism of the Syrian citizen journalists it follows.

O'Sullivan finds the documentary harrowing yet visually beautiful, tender and often funny, ultimately treating it as hopeful. She praises the journalists’ resilience and resourcefulness as they risk everything to expose Islamic State.

Turner calls the documentary vital and upsetting, arguing that its disturbing imagery is justified by the urgency of its story. He singles out its personal account of the activists’ courage and the devastating impact of ISIS’s violence on their families.

Ehrlich finds the documentary harrowing and urgent, though it struggles to shape its material into a coherent whole. He praises its vivid illustration of how media can help resist ISIS.

Gray finds the documentary urgent and compelling overall, though its final act falters. He praises Heineman’s intimate relationships with the journalists, which sustain the film’s emotional force.

Debruge finds the documentary powerful in its humanizing account of Syrians resisting ISIS, though he notes it does not feel as urgent as the journalists’ own work. He especially praises how it brings the members of Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently and their suffering into focus.

McCarthy finds the documentary deeply sorrowful and effective, and welcomes it wherever political and current-events documentaries are shown. He singles out its unprecedented footage of Raqqa under Islamic State rule and the visible devastation of its exiled survivors.

The page identifies this as a Sundance review, but the critic’s verdict is unavailable in the visible text. The review’s specific praise or complaint is also unavailable because the article body is behind a registration prompt.

Johnston sees the documentary as a significant, compassionate account that makes the Syrian catastrophe more immediate. He singles out its intimate portrayal of the citizen journalists’ grief and resilience under threat.

The critic finds the documentary harrowing and makes a passionate case for the importance of its subject’s work. They praise its empathetic portraits of Raqqa’s residents and the citizen journalists documenting ISIS atrocities.

Brightmore calls the documentary compelling, humbling, and essential viewing. He praises its humanizing portrait of the citizen journalists and the heavy personal cost of their work.

The critic calls the documentary vital, searing, and a brutally effective argument for compassion toward refugees. He praises its intimate, tense portrayal of Syrian citizen journalists risking their lives to report from Raqqa.

Kozak praises the documentary as an informative, pulse-pounding account that keeps its subjects’ humanity at the center. He singles out the brothers watching footage of their father’s execution as especially devastating.

The headline presents the documentary as a wide-eyed, jaw-dropping look at the battle against ISIS. The page itself was blocked, so the critic’s detailed verdict and specific praise cannot be verified.

Wilkinson praises the documentary as a powerful reminder of the human cost of violence in Syria. She singles out Heineman’s restrained editing, which conveys the horror without always showing death.