User Reviews

The film follows the ways of Mr Badii on what is probably the last day of his life. We can see him drive around in his jeep, in a wasteland near Tehran. He stops from time to time, in order to ask people if they would like to do a little job for him. But even the money he eagerly offers does not help him to inspire their confidence: People are on their guards against this queer middle-aged man, who is obviously just looking for a homosexual pick-up.

It takes a whole while until he finally reveals his secret: He is determined to commit suicide and has already dug a hole in the earth where he wants his body to be buried. The only thing that worries him now is that he needs somebody to fill up his grave.

Now that we know what he is after our interest must inevitably concentrate on the reasons for his death wish. But, strangely enough, none explanation whatsoever is offered.

Such a contravention of audience expectation has led to a massive rejection of the movie. Even renowned critics like Roger Ebert find it "excruciatingly boring" and rather helplessly ask themselves whether it wouldn't help to know more about Badii.

But doesn't the mere fact that, for most of the movie's running time, we just see a "car driving in the wasteland" give us a clue about its signification and therefore the answer we are looking for?

This wasteland is a barren landscape, its dusty vastness inspires nothing but sadness. Its dryness is the opposite of life; fertility seems impossible in such an arid and joyless desert. It is therefore the ideal background for any suicide attempt.

As we do not get any psychological information about Badii and the reasons for his death wish are not revealed, we must look for other means of expression. The significance of a true work of art is not necessarily to be found in explicit words. If the main character does not speak we therefore must have a closer look at the landscape that surrounds him in order to find a hidden meaning.

In the first part of the jeep's journey we can only notice its utter desolation. Then, when Badii has finally found a man that seems to be willing to cooperate, a surprising change takes place: Green trees and bushes emerge and, along with the now audible twittering of birds, give sign of life. At the same time the man in the car, who only accepted Badii's offer because of economic reasons, sings life's praises in order to make Badii discover not only "the taste of cherries" but also renounce his suicide plan.

The portrayal of landscape seems to reflect the inner state of the characters: the desolate hopelessness of a suicide candidate is followed by an uncompromisingly positive attitude to life. And, significantly, this replacement is actually provoked by the picked-up man, as it was him who told Badii to take the detour.

The same contrast is also present in the penultimate scene. We see Badii lying down in his grave, and then the screen is invaded by complete darkness. This must definitely be the end, we feel, Badii's death wish after all has triumphed. But once again Kiarostami wondrously succeeds in surprising us. We hear the noise of rain, it is flooding down upon the dry wasteland. And although the movie in the end does not offer a clear answer, there is at least a ray of hope: This rain may come just in time to instil new life into a dried up human soul.

Quiet and unassuming, Abbas Kiarostami's meditation on connection and charity has a lulling rhythm that becomes so hypnotic that any sudden movement--and there's only one--jolts you almost as much as a fright in a horror film. Kiarostami uses a simple cinematic style consisting of real-time long takes and basic cutting between two characters (the only conversations are between two people at a time) but his camera always seems to be in the exact place it needs to be, capturing both the close-up nuances of the actors and their smallness against the Iranian landscape. (Many of the exterior shots are of a lone Range Rover driving on the outskirts of an unnamed city.) The elegant story concerns a man (Mr. Badii, played with a haunting lyricism by Homayon Ershadi) wishing to commit suicide and trying to find someone who will assist him by arriving the next day to see if he is alive or dead. He selects only men he determines to be in a state of financial crisis and who are dedicated to their families or their religion and to whom payment will bring relief. Each man rejects the notion of suicide, representing, in turn, fear of the unknown, religious and moral conviction, and faith in the goodness of life; and although Mr. Badii gives no reason for his desire to die, irregardless of his unhappiness it's clear he wishes to return to the earth which has borne humankind. Kiarostami refuses to pass judgment against his gentle characters' decisions, giving each person respect and dignity even when they're unable to put their convictions into meaningful words: they're good men asked to assume an enormous responsibility they do not understand. The film concludes with subtle, beautiful ambiguity (we never learn Mr. Badii's fate and the coda is an odd excerpt of the filmmakers at work) and its power is a result of the reflection that comes afterward. A unique experience, not to be missed.

One of the best films in the history of the big screen. Full stop. A man, preparing to kill himself for reasons we shall never be told, is looking for help. He won't find any by the army, for no manifestation of strength shall be able to solve any problem permanently. Nor will he find help under the wings of religion, based as it is on faith, a principle too abstract to heal concrete suffering. Help will come, instead, from nature, its colors and smells. An old man, who shared the same unhappiness as a youngster, shall show the aspirant has-been that nothing deserves such an extreme decision: even the sight of a happy couple crossing the road can change your attitude towards life. Shot on the bare but wonderfully colored hills of Iran, which often recur in Kiarostami's environments, I felt dizzy looking at the scene where the protagonist tries to foresee his underlife by projecting his shadow under a fall of sand and stones unloaded from a camion: this scene alone is worth the Oscar!

3 drastically different stories unfold from the same scenario, kind of like Rashomon. It takes until towards the conclusion of 1st "story" for us to know what Mr. Badii's intent is, and when we find out he wants help from somebody to bury him the dialogue becomes very deep and thoughtful.

There are plenty of good lines in this film, such as "you cannot use the spade, but you can use the gun," questioning the difference between two methods of going about killing somebody. There is definitely more of a cowardice behind the use of a gun, and the soldier embodies this by fleeing the car before answering if he will help Mr. Badii.

The film has a brilliant structure, making it seem like three stages of life. We have the young soldier, representing that we fear death in youth. Then we have a slightly older man who has a religious background who explains the problem with suicide. This represents an awareness of death, but the man trying to convince Badii that suicide is a sin shows not necessarily coming to terms with death just yet.

The final conversation is the longest, and it revolves around an older taxidermist. Not only is he closer to death than Badii, he is familiar with death since he is a taxidermist. He is also extremely wise and has a lot to say about why Badii should reconsider, but he also accepts the job, showing an acceptance of death. It is also important to note that the film takes place over one long day, and with night coming at the end of this day it represents the ending of life in a sense.

This is a really brilliant movie with such a strange ending that I still do not quite understand. I would have liked if the film had ended when they day ended rather than the ending that reflects on filmmaking. In my opinion, this is a near-perfect film.

Abbas Kiarostami has not only been critically lauded by film critics and theorists, but also by some of the greatest directors, from the late Akira Kurosawa and Atom Egoyan to the legendary 'Film God' Jean-Luc Godard. This is probably of his fresh use of ideas and spiritual/humanism way to directing and writing his films. His work, according to the director himself, is reminiscent of Andrei Tarkovsky (who had made the most spiritual films ever made), Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Theo Angelopoulos and Frederico Fellini (although I would also add directors like, Yasujiro Ozu) who want the audience to let the film live in their minds soons after, letting them fill some details of the story. This technique reminds me both of the short stories of Anton Chekhov and South-Asian Minimalism, such as the 'Palm-Hands Stories' of Yasunari Kawabata (Nobel-Prize laureate), where less is more. His methods of rubbing the line between fiction and nonfiction is an excellent way, a common theme in his films. Taste of Cherry is one of his best films (then again, I have only seen four of them). It is also very demanding, especially the ending, which might be a disappointment (he did made a alternate ending, though, without that video thing at the end, as an experiment in one festival screening). There are many things to notice in this film: (1) The helicopter sounds in the background (some spiritual metaphor?) (2) Earth and Naturalism (there's a lot of earth and dust in this movie, and the far shot of the grave reminded me of a painting by Manet). (3) The acting. The actor remainds almost stone-faced throughout the movie, again showing by concealing. Trivia: The actor, Mr. Badii, was not actually face-to-face with most of his passengers. For the first passenger, the soldier was face-to-face with Kiarostami himself for the whole segment (you never see Mr. Badii and the Soldier in one same shot). In fact, none of the passengers, at the beginning (except probably the taxonomist) knew that he was in a movie. Kiarostami revealed that only to them later (except for the soldier, who actually did ran off). The seminarian actually believed truly that Kiarostami was going to kill himself. Overall, this is an excellent movie. But, it is not the sort one can compare its quality with others (just like one cannot compare the works of David Lynch with others), since it has its own style to it. However, I was confused at one point when the taxonomist said 'Mulberry' instead of 'Cherry', but then again, perhaps he wasn't actually refering to the same thing.

SPOILERS (starting second paragraph), but I think you should read it anyway. I've wrestled with this film since the moment I saw it three days ago now. Initially, I thought it was a very artful and well made film that flopped at the end (and not, mind you, at the infamous final scene, but a bit earlier). I liked a lot of it, but was frustrated and downright angry over a good bit of it, as well. I broke down and read the review of my arch nemesis, Jonathan Rosenbaum. I actually liked what he said quite a bit, to my surprise. Although he couldn't convince me that A Taste of Cherry was good, he did a lot to interpret the film, especially its odd final sequence. But even though Rosenbaum's review originally raised my appreciation for the film, the more I thought about it the more it shrank in stature.

Taste of Cherry is a sort of a humanist allegory. Mr. Badii is unhappy and wants to end his life. We never know why, because Kiarostami wants him to stand for anybody. The audience is supposed to see themselves in the role. Mr. Badii drives around a landscape, barren of everything but some bits of construction equipment. He is looking for someone to bury him after he commits suicide by overdosing on sleeping pills. First he picks up a young soldier, who is frightened at the proposal and ends up fleeing from his Range Rover. His second passenger is a seminary student who reminds him that the Koran preaches against suicide. Badii is unconvinced. "Is it not a sin to be unhappy?" he queries (I don't think it is in any religion that I know of, but we'll leave that alone).

Up to this point, I thought it was a very good movie. Then a third passenger enters the film. He agrees to do it because he desperately needs the large amount of money Badii is offering. But as he is driven to his workplace, the man desperately tries to convince Badii that life is worth living. He tells a story: in 1960 he, too, decided that life was not worth living and tried to take his life after a big argument with his wife. He was going to hang himself from a mulberry tree. But, after he tastes one of the mulberries, he decides that life is too sweet to end it like that. If you die, Mr. Badii, you will never taste cherries again. How can you go through with it? For me, the film's potential greatness died at that sentiment. "Cliche!" I shouted. Well, the more I think about it, the more the word "cliche" doesn't fit. Of course, I was reminded of the Chinese parable of the man who was chased by a tiger. He escapes by climbing down a steep cliff. But on the ground below there is another tiger, so he's screwed either way. But on the cliff he finds some wild strawberries, and they turn out to be the sweetest he's ever tasted. You see, it's not quite the same thing. So the word I was looking for, the one I should have shouted, was not "Cliche!" but "Trite!"

Kiarostami isn't so shameless that he has Mr. Badii immediately decide not to kill himself. In fact, we never really find out if he does or not. However, after listening to his third passenger, we see sparks of the will to live appear in Badii's manner. If not the will to live, the notion that existence is beautiful. Even if Badii dies, he dies with the thought that the world contains much beauty. This is too easy. I mean, it's very easy to depict a character whose problems are deliberately left unspoken and then give him this kind of revelation. If this film brightens your day, fine, but realize what it's saying and how morally simplistic it all is. You might prefer Taste of Cherry to It's a Wonderful Life, which has more or less the same message, but that says more about you than it does either of those films. One of the biggest reasons that Taste of Cherry fails is that it is so figurative. It asks us not to identify with a character, but with, I guess, ourselves. It's a Wonderful Life depicts a man who sees that life is worth living because of all of the character's accomplishments. We can see ourselves in George Bailey, but he himself is, without a doubt, a fleshed-out character. We understand exactly why George Bailey's life is wonderful.

But life is not wonderful for everybody. Troubles have a scale, and sometimes nonexistance looks like it might be a whole lot sweeter than the taste of cherries. Take Leaving Las Vegas, for instance (perhaps renamed Taste of Liquor?). Unlike Taste of Cherry, this film - and it's American, Lord help us - pulls not a punch. We have only the vaguest idea why Ben Sanderson has decided to commit suicide, but we know he's decided and he's not turning back. Leaving Las Vegas is about an individual. He actually finds what might be happiness, but he knows it's as fleeting as anything else in his world. The film isn't an allegory, so it doesn't presume to tell us how to feel. I'd also point to Louis Malle's masterpiece The Fire Within. The main character in that film, Alain Leroy, having decided on suicide, visits all of his friends one last time. The more he talks to them, the more he is convinced that he is right in his decision. Again, the film is about an individual and is not interested in sentimentality. It's an argument for suicide. What it depicts is an individual's choice. It is not interested in the kind of sentimentality of Abbas Kiarostami. Both The Fire Within and Leaving Las Vegas realize that it will take a whole hell of a lot more than a bowl of tasty fruit to make life worth living. What Taste of Cherry represents is cheap, esoteric art movie sentiment. 5/10.

I assumed this Iranian made Persian language film that I found out about from the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die would be about something chipper and cheerful, the subject was not what I expected at all, from director Abbas Kiarostami (Close-Up, Through the Olive Trees). Basically middle aged Iranian man Mr. Badii (Homayoun Ershadi) is driving through Tehran in his car looking for someone to help him, and he is offering a large sum of money for whoever will do the job he is asking, he wants to commit suicide, and he is looking for someone to bury his body after he is dead, in a spot he has already chosen. He picks up random people as prospective candidates, starting with friendly conversation, getting to know more about them, and then eventually one by one he reveals his plan to them, all he needs them to do is cover him with earth in the grave he has dug, their reactions all seem different. The young and shy Kurdish soldier (Afshin Khorshid Bakhtiari) is quickly shocked by the proposal and refusing to do the job runs away from the car, the Afghan seminarist (Mir Hossein Noori) is against a man killing himself for religious reasons and also refuses to do the job, but the third man, an Azeri taxidermist (Abdolrahman Bagheri), does not object. The taxidermist is willing to do the job, because he needs the money to give to his sick child, but he tries to persuade Mr. Badii not to kill himself, because he attempted suicide himself and only stopped after tasting mulberries (this is obviously the meaning behind the title), but he agrees he will cover his body if he finds him in the grave and dead in the morning. That night Mr. Badii leaves his car and walks in the darkness to the grave, a thunderstorm is beginning, but he lies in the hole, and he presumably kills himself, as the film blacks out, and the final shots of the film are behind the scenes camcorder footage of the crew making the film. In the leading role Ershadi gives a compelling performance, it is interesting you do not find out why the character wishes to kill himself, but on the other hand it adds to the intrigue of him trying to find someone willing to put him in the ground after he's done himself in, based on morality and mortality it is a fascinating story and most watchable drama. Very good!

I was prepared to dislike this film. Instead, I wound up fascinated. The state can't help Mr. Badii, the church can't help him...and even though nature, in the form of Mr. Bagheri, tries, we do not know if it succeeds. Absolutely fascinating. It shows that a director doesn't need $200,000,000 and a raft of special effects and explosions to make a good film.

As for the shot-on-video ending, it's entirely possible that it's there to appease the Iranian censors. "Look! Here's Mr. Badii! Alive and well. It's just a movie!" Another subtle commentary on the state of affairs in Iran today, I'll wager. At least, that's how I chose to see it.

It seems to me that the title reflects Douglas Adams' techniques for flying--fall, and then distract yourself so that you don't hit the ground. It's not that the taste of cherry makes life worth living, per se, it's that simple things can distract you from your cares.

This movie was well-shot, well-directed, well-acted, and well-written. Highly recommended.

Abbas Kiarostami: Legendary Iranian filmmaker world renowned for making artistic cinema. What do you expect from somebody of that calibre when you watch a movie of his for the first time? Certainly something cinematic ally classy and encyclopaedic, and inspiring for an aspiring filmmaker. But if you get a pseudo show of art, it is discouraging.

The film's cinematography is brilliant. The reddish tone given throughout to maintain the graveness of the matter, and the greenish tone at the end to depict wellness, is excellent! Of course, the director has due contribution in it.

Homayon Ershadi has done such naturalistic acting that it is a lesson of acting for actors and directors. This is mainly the genius of Kiarostami. Most of the scenes were improvised, as mentioned in the trivia section.

Kiarostami has maintained the tempo of the film in a very beautiful way. His use of voice overs is unique. But most of all, the best part about the film is the way he reveals characters' faces at the climax of a conversation/scene. He is a directors' director.

Now getting down to business. The movie is too slow. Such long shots with so many pans and tilts, so many similar looking shots, too many voice overs, the monotony of a car just driving around the hills, same angle of camera inside car etc. The saddest part of the film is when the protagonist leaves home in the night and is standing on the hill. It's so dark that you can't see a thing. And God! That scene is so long. Why do you take a shot if you aren't showing anything? But the let down of the film is the ending. It is a smart move, but it seems contrived. Seems like he ran out of ideas, or may be his character base wasn't strong enough to give it a better conclusion.

Yet, I'd say this movie is a learning experience for a student of cinema. But an average audience would be wasting their time/money.

In the same way that actors refer to Macbeth as "The Scottish Play" to avoid the taboo of mentioning the title, I like to refer to this as "The Iranian Film". It's a movie of such unparalleled tedium that to pronounce its name may drive people to enter a monastic order in search of stimulus. It is like watching paint remain wet.

Astonishingly, A Taste of Cherry (as it translates) won the Palm D'Or at Cannes. It was a decision motivated by politics and pseudery that exemplifies the worst Cannes jury decisions. ("Zut alors. Zis film, it was made in Iran." "Mon dieu, what's it like?" "Well, it's quite boring, but it could be the start of a Middle Eastern renaissance.")

Critics have fawned over the film for its simplicity, but the 95 minutes is a vacuum of Proustian proportions and was, for me, substantially less stimulating than watching the back of the head of the man sat in front of me at the cinema.

No one can argue that this film is not boring. It's possible to contend that boredom was Abbas Kiarostami's intention, but if you're going to make that argument then you need to justify it. Does the uneventful nature of the film provide a useful backdrop to the subject? Absolutely not.

The plot - a parable depicting a man's quest to find someone who will bury him after he commits suicide - moves with glacial speed. Each candidate explains at length the metaphysical problems with being complicit in such an act, but the monologues are no more sophisticated (and a great deal less articulate) than a pub conversation with a clutch of philosophy students.

The most depressing thing is the way it is filmed. At the beginning of most of the shots, you see the main character's jeep trundling from one side of the screen to the other. "Nothing interesting is happening now," you think to yourself as the protagonist explains yet again what he wants his passenger to do, "but perhaps we will reach a dramatic moment at the end of the shot." The jeep duly reaches the end of the frame, only for the film to cut to a near-identical shot of the same jeep crossing the same drab and dusty landscape with the same uneventful monologue.

Even if you strip away the boredom, there is precious little underneath unless you engage in the most polo-necked type of film criticism. I have read one review that claimed that the protagonist's stone-faced performance was "showing by concealing". Another suggested that the failure to explain the character's motivation for killing himself made him an "everyman". There is, I suggest, an element of the emperor's new clothes about this.

A Taste of Cherry deals with metaphysics, but that does not make it profound. Viewers who can sit through it are open minded, but that does not make them intellectual. Don't go and see this on the say-so of an impressionable pseud. Don't go and see it at all.

SPOILERS, but I think you should read it anyway. A very painful movie. It is quite good for about two-thirds of its run, then falls into a pit of cliches, then cops out, THEN ends as vilely as imaginable. A man wants to commit suicide for reasons unexplained (a total gimmick, but I can except it). He picks up three strangers, asking them to bury his corpse for a large sum of money. For a director who is supposed to be so far out of mainstream, his view of morality is offensively common. It's a lot like It's a Wonderful Life, except less honest with the audience. The first man is afraid of the duty, so he simply runs away when the chance arises. The second man is a man of religion, and attempts to explain why suicide is wrong. The third man is the Arabic version of Forrest Gump. He agrees to do it because he needs the money, but when the main character gives him a ride home the third man does his utmost to convince him that life is worth living. He tells how he went to hang himself on a mulberry tree but decided life is worth living because he tastes how sweet the mulberries are. YES YOU READ THAT RIGHT. How cloying can you get? I guess in Iran life is less like a box of chocolates and more like a bowl of fruit. At least the main character doesn't succumb instantly to this man's annoying ploys, but we can see his determination shrinking. Does he do it? We don't know. I guess it's up to us. I don't complain about this, really, but it's a gimmick, as well. After the film fades to black, it comes up again on scenes of the film being made. This does nothing unless you're determined to make it do something. I'm sure one can masturbate some meaning out of this, but that would just be playing into the hands of Kiarostami's chic fans. Look, if you want a film about suicide that really pulls no punches and actually has a modicum of thought to it, see Louis Malle's excellent The Fire Within.

As much bad stuff as I can say about it, I do have to admit that the film is stunningly directed and made, if not at all well written. Well, actually, it is fine until that third passenger. The landscapes are beautiful and the setting is used to perfection. The script is so offensive that that can only help so much. I give it a 6/10.

*************SPOILERS AHEAD**************

This movie reminded somewhat of Jim Jarmusch's "Night on Earth," only the characters in that film were much more interesting. Don't get me wrong, the characters in "A Taste of Cherry" are interesting as well, but the majority of the film takes place within the confines one setting (the interior of an automobile), almost like a stage play. And if you're gonna have nothing but talking heads throughout, the characters better be so interesting that it'll cause us to transcend the claustrophobia of one setting. I felt the concept was interesting--a man who's down on his luck searching for someone to kill and bury him. Sounds like a very difficult task, since whoever does it (if they get caught) will be charged with homicide. Whether or not it was the victim's consent, murder is murder. But there were two thoughts that kept running through my head throughout the film. The first was why did he want to commit suicide in the first place? We know nothing about this man's backstory, so how are we able to feel sympathy for his anguish and connect with him? I thought it might've been a gimmick to create tension and cause a gasp in the audience when we finally learn why he wanted to do it. But that wasn't the case. The second question was why did he lack the guts to kill himself? Sure, many people--no matter how serious they are about suicide--would lack the guts to actually run the razor across their wrists or shoot themselves in the head. It's not uncommon. But I wanted to know his reason. Without previous exposition of his character, the audience is left in the dark.

I did not hate the film, because for the most part it held my attention and some of the dialogue (which I later found out was improvised) was quite colorful. I also liked certain shots--for example, the shot of the sun rising at dawn. The sun is a bright shade of red, which probably symbolizes the cherry that the old preacher was talking about. And then the plot twist came. Some audiences might have a detailed explanation about what it was supposed to mean and symbolize, but I simply felt it was a cop-out. It was as much a cop-out as showing someone waking up from a dream. So by the end I was totally baffled, and not in the good way. And before I conclude I must commend the main actor for his fine performance which was rich in emotion, even during the scenes in which he had no dialogue. The other performances were good too, but his stood out the most in my mind.

My score: 5 (out of 10)