Load of rubbish!!

Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

A film about an invasive film crew invading a rural village filmed in a rural village, well even in English this might be tricky to sort of the levels of exploitation. Add in the fact that the crux of the film is likely delivered in a poem in a cave underground, and I felt far, far away from the Farsi here in the U.S.So while I can say I appreciated aspects of the film, I really think I did not understand it. Is this a cautionary tale of how outsiders don't necessarily help a situation, but they cannot turn a blind eye as people fall ill, or are trapped in holes they have dug themselves. It feels like something significant along those lines is being said, but then there's the notion that this is a comedy? Really? I guess the constraints of technology, and those wild rushes to get to a higher ground for a satellite phone that in turn merely debase the user of said phone has its laughs? There was some humor also with the tea lady and the bickering surrounding her husband and her. And what of the young boy, his teacher and the school.If this film is the wind, it moved through me more than it moved me. My loss I sense...

Maybe I just don't get it, but it seems as though I should. I usually like slow, sensitive, moody films with a deep human message. I'm usually the guy who sticks with a movie and finds it interesting when my more action minded friends have impatiently abandoned it. I love Eric Rohmer, and Ozu, for example. The setting of this film is exotic, the values and customs of the people are interesting. I thought this film would be something I'd love.It wasn't.Partly, I think it was the acting. The lead was good, but the acting of everyone else was - well, I don't like to criticize amateurs. It looks like the director used local non-actors for most of the roles, and while this did give the film a certain reality and authenticity, the non-professionals "acted" as if they were reading from a card. Scared and wooden, they seemed to be hoping they wouldn't goof up on the words. The only exception was that the child would occasionally seem natural, but in situations where he was still and before the camera, he usually acted as wooden as anyone else. This sort of thing tends to break the suspension of disbelief that is necessary for an audience to get involved in a film. Many people are too busy reading subtitles to notice this, but then many people do notice it even though they are reading subtitles. I am one of the latter. Then there was the script. For a while it was difficult to figure out what exactly was going on and why the engineer was there. I don't think that was the director's intention and it may be the fault of the subtitle translation. However, the effect is to confuse the viewer for far too long. In fact if I hadn't picked up the case and read the liner notes during the film I may not have figured it out at all.The pace is slow. Many great films have a slow pace, but slowness doesn't necessarily make a great film by itself. Great directors can build interest in a slow film with mood, a slow but steady accumulation of details and other interesting things. But without considerable skill at film-making, slowness is just - slow. There are scenes that just seem to be endless for no real reason. A long sequence of a dung beetle pushing a ball of dung, for example. There may be a symbolic meaning here but after a bit you either get it or you don't and there is no point in letting the scene continue to run.Too many films today are superficial, and any director who tries to make a film with a deep human message, deserves some credit. However, just because a director has this as his theme, does not mean the movie will be a great one. Unfortunalatly, in comparison with films by great and highly skilled directors such as Rohmer or Ozu, this film does not measure up. I believe the director had a good idea but he overreached beyond his skills.I hope that Abbas Kiarostami will continue to make films. Perhaps he will develop into a great director. Hopefully he will continue to tackle difficult themes, but more successfully. There are seeds here that could develop. Perhaps one day this film will be viewed as an imperfect early effort by a now great director. Perhaps.

Have very much enjoyed Iranian films but was lost with this one. Starts out with a long ambling conversation from within a jeep but no faces. Some persons are traveling somewhere for a dark reason that was never revealed that I could tell. The setting was outstanding and the cinematography very good. The main protagonist was neither fish nor fowl but rather aggravating. One little boy was very cute. One woman was memorable. One dramatic event seemed unrelated to the story which seemed to end when the camera ran out of film. I may try it again sometime. At least it is not the dreary stuff from the movie factory with cardboard cutouts for characters. I came to IMDb tonight to see what it was all about, but still don't know.

This film really broke a lot of molds, and one can certainly find this film to really challenge you as you watch it, to kind of find your own place as a viewer, and know how to watch the film. Usually one does not have to think so much when watching a movie, and usually by the end of it the viewer feels that they have some semblance of what happened, and what was going on, but this film breaks the mold and really is the exception to the rule.At times I did not like the film because I was left in the dark, but as I grew to accept it I found it to be very stimulating in many ways. I merely resigned myself to the happy ignorance of looking at the beautifully shot scenery of Iran, and following the Engineer through his routine that became quite repetitive. I feel as if the symbolism was running too deep for myself, and that Abbas Kiarostami was reaching too deep into the story and expecting the viewer to make too many inferrences and to take away more from the film than was obviously presented. This is one of those films that perhaps was too artsy for me to like. However, it was well-acted, well-shot, and well-produced. At times, dragging on, and overly challenging, and too repetitive. Not something that I would encourage somebody to watch, but if you have an interest in this sort of film or Iranian film in general, I would not discourage you, either. It was a decent look into a slice-of-life of Iran. I do say it was very new, poetic, and fresh, but a little too much so. It was overly challenging. Abbas Kiarostami tries to be a poet, but I do not think I (or many others) were able to read this poem he recorded.