This film defies almost every cinematic convention in the book. In many ways it reminds me of the style of Tarkovsky. Of course, as with Tarkovsky, this will likely leave those with conventional expectations confused, bored and thinking it makes no sense. It uses a lot of metaphorical and allegorical imagery and if people a. expect things to be literal and clearly spelled out with an obvious narrative or b. don't have the background or context to understand these metaphors they are probably going to find the film awful. It also lacks a clear moral position or message as we normally expect from movies. The atmosphere of the movie evokes the tone of Kosinski's book "The Painted Bird" to me in an odd way; another stranger in - the same - strange land.
The movie is surprisingly non-political and doesn't seem to ask the viewer to agree with or condemn the character (though sympathies are challenged). It reminds me very much of the old ink-blot tests and leaves A LOT for the viewer to fill in. The resulting interpretation *may* even be correct BUT not the only way it can be interpreted and I think people's predispositions very much effect how they see the movie and, like the ink-blot tests, the assumptions one makes can be revealing. If one is inclined to see the west's incursions into the mid-east as imperialistic or otherwise wrong-headed, they are likely to see the lead actor as a victim or as an any-man trying to escape the inescapable. If a viewer is biased to assume anyone that looks middle-eastern is likely guilty of being a terrorist, they will probably view him as a Taliban or Al Qaeda member and have little or no sympathy for him or his plight. (i.e. note the extremes in the reviews on this board.) And it is open for interpretations beyond these. Despite advertising, when we first see him he is unarmed it is not clearly indicated that he is a Taliban, a terrorist, or even a militant at all. Though he might be...
Excellent camera work. The music is jarring and angular but fits. Huge kudos to Gallo. Unlike anything else he's done and he seems incredibly right for the role.
A great movie but more for the cinephile and not for the mainstream. Definitely not a Hollywood movie.
The movie is surprisingly non-political and doesn't seem to ask the viewer to agree with or condemn the character (though sympathies are challenged). It reminds me very much of the old ink-blot tests and leaves A LOT for the viewer to fill in. The resulting interpretation *may* even be correct BUT not the only way it can be interpreted and I think people's predispositions very much effect how they see the movie and, like the ink-blot tests, the assumptions one makes can be revealing. If one is inclined to see the west's incursions into the mid-east as imperialistic or otherwise wrong-headed, they are likely to see the lead actor as a victim or as an any-man trying to escape the inescapable. If a viewer is biased to assume anyone that looks middle-eastern is likely guilty of being a terrorist, they will probably view him as a Taliban or Al Qaeda member and have little or no sympathy for him or his plight. (i.e. note the extremes in the reviews on this board.) And it is open for interpretations beyond these. Despite advertising, when we first see him he is unarmed it is not clearly indicated that he is a Taliban, a terrorist, or even a militant at all. Though he might be...
Excellent camera work. The music is jarring and angular but fits. Huge kudos to Gallo. Unlike anything else he's done and he seems incredibly right for the role.
A great movie but more for the cinephile and not for the mainstream. Definitely not a Hollywood movie.