Taste of Cherry

Kiarostami's diktat resonates today more than ever: we need to slow down and look for the pace that allows us to see life through the right lenses, rethinking our priorities, embracing sadness.

Taste of Cherry tackles the deep question of whether life is worth living, unlike many films that easily conclude it is by showing happy events like weddings or lottery wins. Kiarostami, however, avoids such clichés. He removes plot and backstory, creating a narrative that meanders, with the purpose of its concise ninety-nine minutes only becoming clear in retrospect. The film is meant to obscure and frustrate, leading to an ending that defies neat resolution.

This sudden break in the narrative leaves Mr. Badii's fate unresolved, leaving viewers to contemplate whether he chose to live or die. The ending challenges the audience to reflect on the nature of life, death, and the role of cinema in representing reality

The original title of the film is Ta'm e Guilass.

This feels like _Locke_ if it was written and directed by Kenneth Lonergan. Truly a beautiful, poetic film that despite its heavy subject matter isn’t as downbeat as you might expect. There are moments of wonder in this that would come across as cheesy or disingenuous in a Hollywood film, however here it feels so emotionally real. It’s very thought provoking, focussing on humanism and philosophy as the core of the story, meditative would probably be a good way of describing it. It has some really pretty cinematography (though the camerawork inside the car gets stale, which is probably my biggest complaint) and all of the acting feels understated and completely natural. The ending makes the right choice for the story, but I think that it could’ve been presented in a more natural way. I think I get what it’s going for, but stylistically it feels off to me.

8/10

Serene, philosophical masterpiece from the brilliant Kiarostami

there's dust in my eyes

File this under “really good movie I probably don’t ever need to see again.” Surprised by Ebert’s reaction, as I didn’t find it “excruciatingly boring.” It was certainly slow, but I don’t think it needed to be anything different. Homayoun Ershadi has a truly magnificent face, and the movie was well-served in giving so much of the runtime to a closeup of his profile. The moments where tears welled up in his eyes killed me.

It's not cherry it's Mulberry

The narrative is bold and reflects the complex cultural and religious issues of its context, giving it a remarkable density. With an introspective and melancholic tone, the focus is on the characters and their dialogues, whose performances are excellent, bringing naturalness to the interactions. The development of the plot is deliberately slow, featuring several scenes in which interaction is minimal, limited to observing the protagonist in his search for someone to help him achieve his goal. This repetition can become tiresome, especially considering the length of the movie. However, all the dialogues are well-crafted, highlighting the weight of religion in the culture of these individuals and its implications for their desires, feelings and decisions.

Another ‘masterpiece’ that is basically average.

I mean it’s ok but there’s nothing that stands out here. The idea is ok but isn’t done particularly well. The visuals are basic and basically just pointing the camera at people talking with seemingly no concern for aesthetics.

Pretty sure that if all the people who say this is so good just stumbled across it on TV one afternoon without knowing anything about it, they’d say it was completely bland.

Can’t go above 5/10