Rating: 
Summary: A Bit TOO Esoteric
Review: -One of the golden rules I go by when watching a DVD is this: I eventually look aside at the DVD player's timer. I do this because the movie has disconnected with my brain; it's more of a visceral reaction, not something I do consciously. So, I make a note of the time on the timer. If the number is low, say a 7 or an 8 minutes, then the movie usually gets kicked out - it won't hold my attention and I have better things to do with my time than watch a bad movie. If it's high, 25 or 30 minutes, then the movie has surpassed my expectations. This movie rated a 16 minute-glance. Not great, really. Not "terrible", either. The things I enjoyed here are the glimpses of rural Iranian life. A couple things struck me: 1. the old lady knew what telecommunications was. Maybe the average rural arab is not the middle-ages barbarian most westerners think he is. 2. We in the west have this image of the typical Arab as a wholy devout Muslim, spending all their time talking about God and praying, and telling the world how much they hate Americans. God was only mentioned a couple times in this film, and the people wpent most of their day eeking out a life from the soil. This made me think that maybe these people really aren't very different than us in the west: America calls itself a christian nation, but the majority of American's don't believe in Christianity or don't exercise their faith. Maybe the same is true of Arabs. 3. What a rich yet simple life they lead. The small village was beautiful - it wasn't filmed as well as it could have been, but still the atmosphere came through. I wanted to move there. And what gorgeous land they lived in! Absolutely breathtaking! The story was simple enough - I think the crew (whom we hear but never see) is a TV crew, not a film crew (some people use the word "film" interchangeably for both video and film). Since the event they have arrived to document never happens (we never see the old lady), the "engineer" spend weeks in this village killing time (since the entire movie plodded along, we never really got the sense that he was there for weeks rather than days). There were many interesting "polt" points. I particularly liked the engineer's interaction with the man digging the hole. And the woman milking the cow. But, I have to say, the phone gimmick really got to me after a while. I'd hear the thing go off, see him pick it up and say, "Allo? Allo?" And I'd say to myself, "Not again!" About 1/6 of this film is footage of the guy driving his car. Foreign films are great when they give you glimpses of cultures quite alien to our western culture. It's usually for this reason that I watch them. Being a great film is icing on the cake. The film succeeded as a glimpse of Iran, but failed as a story. So I got the cake without the icing. I should say here that the movie would have rated 3 stars were it not for the absolutely horrible DVD pressing. All images that moved quickly past the frame tore along their edges. This is not a high-quality print, so buy with caution. -
Rating:
Summary: A Bit TOO Esoteric
Review: - One of the golden rules I go by when watching a DVD is this: I eventually look aside at the DVD player's timer. I do this because the movie has disconnected with my brain; it's more of a visceral reaction, not something I do consciously. So, I make a note of the time on the timer. If the number is low, say a 7 or an 8 minutes, then the movie usually gets kicked out - it won't hold my attention and I have better things to do with my time than watch a bad movie. If it's high, 25 or 30 minutes, then the movie has surpassed my expectations. This movie rated a 16 minute-glance. Not great, really. Not "terrible", either. The things I enjoyed here are the glimpses of rural Iranian life. A couple things struck me: 1. the old lady knew what telecommunications was. Maybe the average rural arab is not the middle-ages barbarian most westerners think he is. 2. We in the west have this image of the typical Arab as a wholy devout Muslim, spending all their time talking about God and praying, and telling the world how much they hate Americans. God was only mentioned a couple times in this film, and the people wpent most of their day eeking out a life from the soil. This made me think that maybe these people really aren't very different than us in the west: America calls itself a christian nation, but the majority of American's don't believe in Christianity or don't exercise their faith. Maybe the same is true of Arabs. 3. What a rich yet simple life they lead. The small village was beautiful - it wasn't filmed as well as it could have been, but still the atmosphere came through. I wanted to move there. And what gorgeous land they lived in! Absolutely breathtaking! The story was simple enough - I think the crew (whom we hear but never see) is a TV crew, not a film crew (some people use the word "film" interchangeably for both video and film). Since the event they have arrived to document never happens (we never see the old lady), the "engineer" spend weeks in this village killing time (since the entire movie plodded along, we never really got the sense that he was there for weeks rather than days). There were many interesting "polt" points. I particularly liked the engineer's interaction with the man digging the hole. And the woman milking the cow. But, I have to say, the phone gimmick really got to me after a while. I'd hear the thing go off, see him pick it up and say, "Allo? Allo?" And I'd say to myself, "Not again!" About 1/6 of this film is footage of the guy driving his car. Foreign films are great when they give you glimpses of cultures quite alien to our western culture. It's usually for this reason that I watch them. Being a great film is icing on the cake. The film succeeded as a glimpse of Iran, but failed as a story. So I got the cake without the icing. I should say here that the movie would have rated 3 stars were it not for the absolutely horrible DVD pressing. All images that moved quickly past the frame tore along their edges. This is not a high-quality print, so buy with caution. -
Rating: 
Summary: Kiarostami Is Not Kurdish!
Review: A review praised this film by Kiarostami as being a "nice Kurdish movie." Kiarostami is not Kurdish. He is Iranian and may be one of the most important cultural figures in contemporary Iran. This film, like his Taste of Cherry, is a profoundly simplistic exploration of existential themes that the director so calmly and passionately considers. Visually, it is extraordinary. Using natural light only, Kiarostami expresses a great deal of emotions. The language of the film is visual purity. The key to this cinema is gaining an understanding Kiarostami's subtelty.
Rating: 
Summary: Atmosphere carries this movie.
Review: Abbas Kiarostami's *The Wind Will Carry Us* is about a small film crew from Tehran who station themselves in a remote village That Time Forgot. Their mission? To capture on film the ancient, savage funeral rites of the villagers. The object is a 100-year-old woman on her death bed. Everyone, including the bored film crew, commences to hurry up and wait for the woman to expire . . . and there's your plot. Typical Kiarostami. This director has taken his oblique, deflective style to pedantic extremes in this movie. Amusingly, Kiarostami allows only one member of the film crew to get any screen time -- the other two are always off-camera. The old woman is never seen. The ditch-digger that the filmmaker befriends is always in his ditch, and never seen. (At one point he's rescued after the hole he's digging collapses on him . . . but we never see the rescue.) The savage funeral rites are only alluded to (well, there's one detail about face-scarring, but that's it). And the ending is your typical Kiarostami anticlimax. I can't imagine that American audiences are going to avidly take to this approach of filmmaking. (Never mind that the movie is from Iran. You know -- Point B on the Axis of Evil.) Indeed, it's a fair criticism to say that the director simply dawdles too long in this static world. 20 minutes could have been easily shaved without any serious harm done to the film: for instance, there's at least two scenes too many of the Tehran filmmaker having to jump into his 4x4 and drive up to higher ground in order to receive his cell phone calls. (His "Hallo? Hallo?" starts to grate after about the 50th time.) But if you're willing to suspend your impatience, the rewards are very ample. For instance, you're completely immersed in rural Iranian life. The village, with its uneven architecture, nooks and crannies, and pitch-black underground basements, is made truly unforgettable in a way that only cinema can achieve. Same goes for the staggeringly beautiful environs of the town, which include shimmering fields of grass straight out of Paradise. The movie's mundane incidents and rhythms make you feel as if you're actually there, as a member of the main character's film crew. And by taking such a long time in this setting, by refusing to neglect the tiniest detail, Kiarostami makes his themes -- Man's interaction with both his environment and his fellow-man -- rise naturally to the surface without having to resort to strained "point-making" or "lesson-teaching". (In other words, Preaching.) It's the old Show-Don't-Tell approach -- and it works every time. *The Wind Will Carry Us* reminded me of *Local Hero*, in terms of the stranger-in-town element, combined with the don't-exploit-the-locals element. The comparison is high praise.
Rating: 
Summary: Where is the script besides a Jeep and a cell phone?
Review: Except the beautiful long shots of the village, the mountain, the field, I'd like to ask a basic question: "Where is the script? The screenplay?" Yes, you could try very hard to be natural and peotic in shooting a picture, far away the madding crowded Hollywood production, but you still have to deliever something in the least meaningful way, not by dragging the viewers to follow that skinny and baldy guy again and again, held a cell phone running toward his jeep, again and again rush to the highest point of that area to have the same obscure going-nowhere conversation. What is the beauty of this movie besides that simple and kind boy always with an innocent smile? The whole yellowish countryside? What else we got, even I have tried very hard, very patient, very understanding, and very, well, very very DEEP with a big heart? Nothing, man, absolutely NADA!... I've received a mail from afar with lot of stamps on a big envelope, but with nothing in it all all! Do I miss something, or nothing at all?
Rating:
Summary: of arabs and iranians. and a review of the film too.
Review: First, this film does not give an insight into the Arab world. while there are a multiplicity of possible interpretations, this simply is not one of them because the above interpretation results on a complete misunderstanding. This movie is set in iran. it is about rural iranians interactions with an outside more westernized iranian. iranians, it is true, live in the same general part of the world as arabs. however, they are not arabs. I repeat again to ward off this rather highly insulting practice of lumping together all brown people in one region into the generic and false term 'arab'. an arab is someone that lives in say, saudie arabia, iraq, pakistan (excluding afghanis that may live there). iranians, and also their close cousins the afghanis, are of a seperate background than the rest of the muslim world. this is mere fact. it is indisputable. iranians are not arabs. saying they are is like calling all white folk in the west germans, or americans, or north americans. or like calling someone chinese because they live in say, japan or some other 'eastern' (i.e., far eastern) country. Second, it is not true that all iranians are muslims. just because a film takes place in predominantly muslim country does not make it any more or less a film about muslims than does the fact that trainspotting was made in the west suggest it is a film of and by and about catholics and protestants. it is not. it is racist to suggest otherwise. Kiarostamis characters generally are not all that religious. they may indulge in poetry and certain mystical traditions, but for the most part the main characters in his film are not muslim, indeed, they often reject the main values of the society around them. assuming then that this movie is an insight into those arab muslims is a double insult.
Now that i've dispensed with all the claptrap, let us move on to the actual movie. here is my take on it.
Kiarostami underdetermines his films because he believes the audience will thus be drawn nearer to interpreting it themselves in many possible ways. the idea is that a movie is borne out of an interaction between audience and movie, and that the meaning does not just reside in the movie. however, he is no formalist. he does this not because it is postmodern or in fashion or whatnot, rather, he does it simply because he wants to create open-ended movies that draw the audience near. This does not work for a large portion of the audience because they expect other things for a movie. that is fair, i recommend such people do not watch kiarostami movies as it would just be boring for them. However, there is a target audience that appreciates this kind of film because the movie decidedly does not manipulate you or draw high handed moral messages. it makes a movie, presents you with an underdetermined situation with underdetermined meaning, tries to do so in a faithful nondramatic nonexaggeraated way, and in so doing allows the viewer to see for themselves what the ordinary drama is in life, and how it connects with deeper philosophical, lyrical, and poetic meanings. However, it is up to the audience to do this. Audiences that do not want to do this should not watch these movies. And, they should not see the movie as a failure because it did not conform to their biased narrow expectations of what a film is supposed to be. Let us just say some films appeal to certain audiences and some to others. A movie should be judged more internally on its own terms rather than on whether or not it is in accord with the levelled and levelling pop cultural understanding of what a film is suppossed to be and what an audience is supposed to be.
Rating:
Summary: A very beautiful film.
Review: I first saw this film at my university's international cinema. I quickly fell in love with Iranian filmmakers. Kiarostami is the greatest among them. When I saw the Wind Will Carry Us was released on DVD, I nearly threw up. I bought it. Watch this film. Rent it, buy it, whatever. Never show it to a bunch of people or they'll punch you in the face for wasting their time. Watch it alone, or with someone who makes you feel like you're alone. If you can't figure out why it's so good, remind yourself every day when you wake up, that you aren't an imaginative person, and you should check out that job offer for pouring concrete foundations. Kiarostami is shocking in his simplicity and achieves a reality very close to Mahkmalban (I think I spelled that wrong) and other Iranians, without a self-conscious and intentional destruction of the audience's suspension of disbelief. Instead, the story remains intact, albeit a story most will be bored with. I wasn't bored with it. Others weren't bored with it. But invariably, there will be those who are bored to tears, like the reviewer who prefers schmaltzy, if not quaint, Iranian films like Children of Heaven.
Rating:
Summary: Swept Away
Review: I have never seen the dividing lines so closely drawn as is the case with director Abbas Kiarostami. It really is a case of either you appreciate his work or you don't. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground. If you were to ask someone what they thought about Kiarostami they might say he is a boring filmmaker. He makes films that don't seem to move. They are flat and lifeless. Now on the other hand another person might say he is a filmmaker of an almost unmatched talent. He creates subtle and absorbing films that are for a selected audience. And many call him a genuis filmmaker. I feel I belong to the latter group only not a strongly. I think Kiarostami is a talented filmmaker. But, what really captures my attention when watching his movies is his style. I think he directs with a tremendous amount of style. I do also feel that his films are very subtle in their delivery. But, I've also noticed from talking to people about Kiarostami, those that don't like him or his films always say they don't understand what he's trying to do. I take a minor offense to this. Just because YOU are unable to see what Kiarostami is trying to do, I don't feel one should stop others from watching his films. I myself ALWAYS feel dumb when I watch movies by Andrei Tarkovsky. I understand his films up to a point. But, I would still say he is a talented filmmaker. A first rate storyteller. "The Wind Will Carry Us" is a story about a film crew travelling to a small village to film the death of the oldest living person. She is at the very least 100 years old or maybe older. The crew lead by Bohzad Dourani is lead to believe to woman will die soon. In a matter of days. Well, soon, the days past, and then weeks! The woman is slowing recovering. Funny scenes take place inwhich we see Dourani become frustrated what the fact the woman is living. So then the movie is now one about life. I can't fully give you my interpretation of the message behind the movie. To do so would ruin the experience of absorbing yourself into the story and coming away with your own message as to what the film is about. But, please try to give the movie a chance. I realize many will say it's slow. Most foreign movies are considered slow when compared to American movies. "Wild Strawberries", "Floating Weeds", "8 1\2", "400 Blows", & "My Name Is Ivan" would also be considered slow moving stories by most American filmgoers. Just try to relax and just enjoy the simple things the movie is trying to offer. The landscape, the cinematography, and the simplicity of the story may, as corny as it may sound, reach you. If you enjoy this movie I'd suggest watching "Taste of Cherry". Another film by Kiarostami. Sadly my knowledge of his movies is rather weak. I've only seen these two movies but I do know where I can find "And Life Goes On". Bottomline: A subtle movie with a powerful moving message about life. A movie I actually like more than "Taste of Cherry". A rich film by a very talented and stylish director, Abbas Kiarostami.
Rating:
Summary: visually aesthetic
Review: i just finished watching this movie, and after it ended there was a period of about 10 minutes when i was trying to decide what the heck just happened. i went into the film cold, so i had no idea what to expect. throughout it i thought i caught several subtle allusions to camus and kafka, but that might just be me. after collecting my thoughts, i will say the primary value of the film is the photography. the location is beautiful, and the cinematography was so adept i felt like i was in that village waiting along side the frustrated protagonist. that being said, the plot is full of needlessly obscure and mysterious deviations. simplify, man. but if you pay attention and don't get bogged down by the contrived complexities, the message is loud and clear. it is a long and subtle film that will scare away those movie-goers with the attention span of a manic goldfish, thank you hollywood, but for me, the visual aesthetics made it worth the while.
Rating:
Summary: Having a wonderful time with time
Review: I knew nothing about this film, other than what I read on the back of the case, when I rented it this past weekend. I was in the mood for something other than a mainstream "Hollywood" film, and boy did I get my wish! After I "got it" that I was watching something that would not meet my "Americanized expectations" I sat back and truly enjoyed it! Becoming immersed in the pace, my whole day slowed right down and I began to notice small details that I wouldn't ordinarily get from mainstream movies and it was these small details that became immensely interesting and important. I agree with one person's suggestion that each person watching it will take away their own unique "understanding" of it. I feel that there is a reason for every act or decision we make in our life, and that we are personally motivated from within, from a core part of us that "connects" with the great "out there" to get us what we need to grow and move forward. The movie ended in no way that I expected it to, but I loved every moment that I didn't expect....in other words I was still extremely entertained and moved and educated and I would recommend this film highly. It's got a certain something that we find we need only by watching it. Terri
| 
