User Reviews

I was tempted to do this comment in iambic pentameter and rhyming couplets, but somebody from the "New Yorker" has already done it, and of course I would have run the risk of doing an even worse job than Sally Potter has.

Not that this is such a bad film – it's different from the normal run of romantic comedies. At times it becomes quite didactic as "He" asserts the Muslim philosophical position and "She" replies for the secular West. The dying Ulster communist Aunt's story is also an unusual ingredient. Even the more conventional elements – the alienated husband (Sam Neil), the empty affluence, the troubled teenager (Stephanie Leonidas), are deftly handled. I say "romantic comedy" because the film ends like one, but it could have equally ended as tragedy. "He" and "She" are both missing something, and find it in each other, only to discover that love does not always conquer all. One could blow one's brains out. But then one can always high-tail it to Cuba instead.

This is a very artful piece of film-making with some very clever camera-work and adroit use of music, but we still have a very ordinary story. Joan Allen as "she" does manage to transcend the material and make us care about her character, which is quite an achievement as the character is a beautiful middle-class Irish-American ice princess scientist stuck in a dead marriage whose only real passion is in what's at the other end of her microscope. It's interesting how she manages to appear so radiant, 10 years younger in fact, after her first roll in the hay with "He".

"He", the French-Armenian actor Simon Abkarian, comes across to start with as a bit of a cliché, the handsome charming feckless foreigner. He is not helped by the aforesaid iambic pentameter, which was not designed for foreigners speaking English. He has to utter one of the most insincere-sounding pick-up lines I have ever heard: "If I was your husband I would be so jealous of your beauty I would not leave your side". As we see more of him, a serious side emerges, an educated Muslim who sees a lot wrong with the West and not much with his own society, despite its inability to live in peace. This he blames on the West. However, the dialectic is sidelined by the plot line, which as suggested above, winds up on a Cuban beach.

The novel "Orlando" by Virginia Woolf was a pretty weird property, and Sally Potter produced a weird and wonderful movie from it. Her "Tango Lesson" was semi-autobiographical, well produced and absorbing. This movie is ambitious – "let's see if we can make a romantic comedy about the clash of civilizations and the meaning of life" and although visually fascinating it not surprisingly doesn't quite make it. It has its moments though – Maid Shirley Henderson's disquisitions on the nature of dirt to the camera, Sam Neil's guitar miming to an Eric Clapton number and the restaurant orgasm to name a few. Sally Potter still has the ability to find a different angle on existence.

Not since Shakespeare's day have playwrights written entire screenplays in iambic pentameter, but writer/director Sally Potter might single-handedly start the trend again. However, it took me over a half hour to realize that the whole film was one epic poem – before then all I thought was, "This dialogue is horrible! People don't actually speak like this!" But that's the point. Poetry is not meant to imitate average speech. That's why it's poetry.

Joan Allen plays a lonely wife (whose name is never mentioned) trapped in a loveless marriage who has a fiercely passionate affair with a Muslim man from Lebanon. Because she was born in Northern Ireland (but raised, however, in America), she thinks she understands her lover's pain and suffering as an Arab man living in London. These two lovers fight about race, class, religion, politics, stereotypes, and identity, and with the recent bombings on the London Underground, this film is unsettlingly too relevant. Yes is a superb love poem that speaks volumes about what we, as a society, are afraid to mention in our post-9/11 world. But unfortunately, sitting through this film feels more like homework than pleasure.

Sally Potter's Yes premiered this evening at the Toronto International Film Festival before a 1300-strong crowd, with the director and star Joan Allen in attendance. I am so grateful to have been present at this extraordinary event (the film is still in negotiations for distribution). Yes is a love story between She (Joan Allen, stunning in the role of a lifetime) and He (Simon Akbarian). She is married (to Sam Neill, who manages to play both boorish and sympathetic), a scientist, and Irish-American, living in London - a city Potter loves to photograph and whose different, colliding cultures she conveys superbly. He is Lebanese, working as a chef in London. She meets He. Love ensues.

It sounds so simple, and in a sense it is. The film is luminous, elegant, ravishingly beautiful, subtly erotic. The love scenes feel so natural. And yet -- all the dialogue is spoken in rhymed iambic pentameter. Scenes are shot from canted angles, through glass or water, sometimes from CCTV cameras. Jump-cuts, motion blur, internal monologue, an unsettling score - all these elements challenge the simplicity of the idea of love. He and She are unnamed, but they have backgrounds, political and religious beliefs that take the narrative so far beyond the usual romantic pap of Hollywood cinema. Every frame and every gesture invites multiple viewings and multiple readings, partly for the precision and lush beauty (each city has its own colour scheme), and because so many other films and paintings are evoked (including an audacious nod to Orlando early on!) And because this is a Sally Potter film, the passion and the politics have a strain of humour. Or in this case, a frame, provided by Shirley Henderson as She's cleaning woman. Her opening and closing monologues in the whiteness of She's London house are immediately engaged, and totally unlike anything else you'll see or hear in film (at least English-language film). In fact, that's a good summary: Yes is totally unlike anything you've seen before.

Potter's idiosyncratic exploration of conflict is almost a diamond bashed into a cheap ring. The film's title is a clever intellectual device, an affirmation of the positive, explained in the ending by the narrator-philosopher cleaning lady, and in a conversation about numbers mid-film. As an anti-war film (post 9/11 and filmed during the early occupation of Iraq) it is rather less coherent, hinting at its theme obliquely through the love affair of an Irish-American woman and man from Beirut.

The most immediately distinctive characteristic is that the whole film uses a dialogue of iambic pentameter. In this it is brilliantly successful. The lines come naturally and I felt myself transported as if hearing Shakespeare in his own era. It runs the gamut of eloquent flights of poetry, unfurling like a woman's hair from a clasp, to the foul-mouthed language of a punk-rocker kitchen assistant. It never once seems forced.

The story follows a beautiful woman, maybe in her forties, played by Joan Allen and never named. She is a scientist, lives a luxurious lifestyle but in a cold, 'open' marriage to a politician (played by Sam Neill). She strikes up a passionate affair with a waiter/chef from the Middle East who charms her one night at an official function she must attend. But having played the wonderful (and sincere) Lothario, he breaks off with her when he realises he is only valued for the image she has of him. He has to struggle to fit in, living in a western country, speaking English, adopting 'her' culture. Yet she knows nothing of him, his background. Not even a single word of his language.

It is in the portrayal of different – and far from simplistic – gender stereotypes that Potter excels. All the characters are beautifully hewn and totally unalike, each justifiable to him or herself. We don't gain much insight into politics, but we do see interesting 'types' of women – and men. All portrayed with respect and highlighting our shallow understanding of anyone who might be of a different mental make-up to ourselves.

The film's shortcomings can be viewed sympathetically. The religious rants are just that, and lacking depth. But would we expect more of most people? Perhaps not. But as the cleaner is prone to comment on everything, a few words of insight might not have been amiss. Or is it that Ms Potter knows as little about Christianity, Islam and Lebanon as the characters she accuses? Some scenes would have benefited from jump cuts at the point where interest languishes. One might argue that they are consistent with the storyline of over-attachment to a love affair or particular point of view. That did not stop me wanting the scene to move on instead of saying the same thing again in another impressive (if redundant) piece of verse.

The sudden shifts of location – to Beirut and Cuba – are visually appealing (even if Joan Allen had to be in reality shot in the Dominican Republic due to U.S. restrictions on its citizens working in Cuba). But they also have the feeling of a cop-out for mainstream audiences. Potter claimed that, "Endings are notoriously difficult," and technical problems and time pressures added to the production worries. But this does not assuage the reality that the intended political comment is explored without being well thought out. And that the choice of ending seems to be more for appeasing audiences than adding to a consistent whole.

Yes is a proud addition to Sally Potter's highly personal and curiously successful work. Though perhaps not the masterpiece she might have wanted.

First off, you need to set your expectations. This is an extremely arty film. There are no explosions, chase scenes, or guns in this movie.

Instead, we have a film with metaphors, themes and relationships. There are few movies I have seen recently that attack such large and serious topics.

The major themes in this movie are God, love and politics. During the course of the movie, racism and war, terrorism and the Middle East, infidelity, atheism and Marxism are all brought on stage.

As if that weren't enough, the majority of the dialog is in rhymed verse, with perhaps occasional interjections of free verse. In fact, the entire very contemporary script has a vaguely Shakespearean feel to it, though there is no shortage of four letter words.

The entire cast of the movie is wonderful, but the centerpiece of the entire film is Joan Allen, who gives an almost supernaturally wonderful performance. The heart of the movie is a moving love story, but this is a serious romance with strong, deeply emotional scenes designed to reflect adult, rather than teenage, themes.

There are also major metaphors in the movie, such as the role of cleaning, which usually stands for an attempt to wipe out guilt or corruption, and the use of glass, and particularly glasses of water, to show the way different viewpoints distort a particular perception of reality.

If you are prepared to see a very serious, beautiful made, and extremely arty film, then this is an excellent way to spend your time. I simply loved the movie, and would probably enjoy seeing it again sometime soon. But please, don't bother to go if you are looking for something else. This is a very heartfelt and intense movie, which refuses to compromise.

Sally potters sumptuously photographed meditation on the cycle of life, love, identity, race and religion is told in Shakespearian style "iambic pentameter" prose. Not quite a modern take on Shakespeare - his writing would be more like Quentin Tarantino does the West Wing if he were around today - but a fascinating screenplay none the less and, if there is any justice in the world, it will surely be recognised at the Oscars.

She (performance of a lifetime from Joan Allen) is a scientist, dealing with the very stuff of life while stuck in a loveless marriage to her adulterous husband (Sam Neil). They live a house as spartan and sterile as their childless marriage, her only joy is acting as an adult confidant to her teenage goddaughter. A chance meeting with romantic Middle Eastern chef, He (Simon Abkarian), seems to offer the pathway to a more poetic existence…

These are characters dealing with life from opposite ends of the spectrum. While She examines sperm cells and eggs under a microscope, He, we later find, is a qualified surgeon from Beirut, now reduced to chopping meat in a restaurant. The couple's erotic and tempestuous affair examines cultural identity in post 9/11 London (significantly, filming started on 12th Sept 2001 and it was released shortly after the London bombings).

Ultimately, it's a film about saying YES to life and how diversification adds poetic substance to our otherwise stale lives. Even the microscopes used by She to examine our multiplying and mutating genetic code have a life of their own, the lenses appearing as bulbous alien eyes under their dust mask covers. Dirt here is not something that can be swept away, but is regenerative and needs to be confronted. Images of cleaners occur throughout the film, frantically trying to clear up the emotional mess the characters leave in their wake.

The ever-wonderful Shirley Henderson, as She's maid, provides a kind of Greek chorus commentary, her delightful monologues neatly top & tailing this lyrical film. The rhyming dialogue, far from being a gimmick, adds metaphorical clout to the script without distracting from the performances in any way. Praise also to Sam Neil for his air guitaring to BB King and Eric Clapton, one of the most memorable cinema moments of the year.

Patrick Bliss, 08/12/05

Writer/director Sally Potter's movie "Yes" gives us an inkling - at least in terms of style -of what it might be like if Shakespeare were alive today and writing screenplays (though one hopes that they would turn out considerably better than this one happens to be). The "unique" characteristic of the film is that the characters discuss the meaning of life and the complexities of relationships entirely in poetic verse. Pure rhymes, slant rhymes, internal rhymes - virtually every type of rhyme can be found in this film. The problem is that the novelty of the conceit wears off mighty quickly, so that all we are ultimately left with are a bunch of pretentious, whiney characters driving us crazy with their high-toned blathering. Allow me to propose a simple rule of thumb: you know you'll be needing a sturdy pair of hip boots to wade through any movie, play or novel in which two of the main characters are referred to simply as He and She.

I hope I won't be dismissed as a Philistine for objecting to this film. As a matter of fact, I am always open for anything even remotely novel and different in film-making, and I actually quite like the idea of a movie that plays like an extended poem. The problem is that I just couldn't stand any of the people we were being asked to care about in this particular work. Joan Allen and Sam Neill play a middle-aged English couple whose marriage has long ago become a hollow shell. They are clearly intended to be models of the enervated upper class - cynical, bored, filled with ennui and unable to communicate their innermost thoughts and feelings to one another - but we've seen these types of characters and marriages so many times before that Anthony and She feel more like caricatures than actual people (I'm not quite sure why he gets a real name and she - I mean She - doesn't, but no matter). And their speaking in verse only makes them all that more insufferable in their pseudo-profundity and monumental self-absorption.

Allen, due to her extraordinary gifts as an actress, is at least able to cut through the pretentiousness and create some feeling for her character, but Neill and Simon Abkarian (who looks distressingly like Borat), as a chef from Beirut who becomes her lover (he's the He to Allen's She), are not quite so fortunate. Moreover, to make matters worse, in a movie in which language plays such a crucial part, some of the accents are so thick that much of the dialogue is simply incomprehensible. That only compounds the frustration of watching the movie.

There are some genuinely lyrical moments when the movie seems to be working and we can see what the filmmakers were trying to get at. But, unfortunately, those wind up being too few and far between to keep us from voting a resounding "Nay" to "Yes."

Yes is possibly the most beautiful film I have ever seen.

Sally Potter began work on this film on September 12, 2001. The impact of the previous day's events can be felt throughout the film as He and She try to make sense of their lives and discuss both the meaning of life and the world around them.

Told in rhyming couplets, the comparison to Shakespeare is natural. Potter claimed that she would be thrilled if even one line of hers was as good as the Bard's. I believe much of her work is on par with his. The text is both witty and intelligent and addresses a plethora of modern day issues of conscience. The iambic pentameter flows very naturally throughout the film and is never a distraction - only a credit to the abilities of the writer! As with any Shakspearean production, the feelings and inner turmoil of the main characters are central.

The cinematography is excellent. The film is simply beautiful to watch and behold. As if the images were not enough, the music provides a perfect complement to all that goes on on screen.

Go see this movie. It is unlike any other. Everyone shines!

YES is film you want to love and most people who watch it probably know they are in for a Sally Potter ride, so little quirks like an iambic pentameter script shouldn't shock. There are so many gorgeous moments in this lushly painted canvas, so many isolated portions of dialog that are thought-provoking or just simply beautiful English poetry, so many scenes that are in the capable hands of Joan Allen and Simon Abkarian that are among the finest depictions of understated passion - that it is a shame the overall effect of the montages is not wholly successful. And I think the lack of cohesion must be returned to the capable but distracted hands of Potter's script and direction.

Joan Allen (who simply grows more beautiful and talented with every edgy Indie she takes on) is a biogeneticist, a woman whose loveless marriage to cold politician Sam Neill is tolerable only because of her infatuation with her work. At a (here is one of the choice visual pearls of perfection) formal dinner she notices and is noticed by a handsome Lebanese cook (Simon Abkarian) and her heart ignites. The two talk, meet again, and respond viscerally to each other in a degree of passion and need new to both. This union opens the platform for words concerning Catholicism/Western philosophy versus Islam/Eastern loathing for the imperialism of the Western world (read USA): it is the Muslim philosophy/secular West conflict that resounds so clearly in today's world. Other concepts bathed in iambic pentameter include marriage, fidelity, motherhood, racism, immigration, bickering among the kitchen staff where the cook works - all worthy topics. As the two glide along the plane of a sexual relationship the man reveals he is a surgeon/scientist who left his country because of philosophical reasons and yet defends his Muslim stance and homeland to the isolated woman who is unable to 'hear' his crumbled life. The woman has interchanges with her goddaughter (Stephanie Leonidas), her dying communist aunt (who in voice over technique relates some of the loveliest lines in the script) and with her husband who cannot find his center. The manner in which this all comes to an end is best left for the viewer to discover.

The problems with Potter's jewel-like film are many: much of the dialog (some of which is simply terrible writing) is buried with excessively loud 'background' music (ranging from Satie to punk rock) but worse is enunciated so softly by the actors that it is indecipherable. Yes, Shakespeare wrote his plays in iambic pentameter, but not a word is lost in performances because the actors enunciate with perfect diction and allow the poetry to flow naturally, making it become simply dialog of elegance. Potter's poetry is spotty, so perhaps it is as well that much of it is lost. When it works, it is stunning. Joan Allen is radiant in this role and gives us as defined a character as possible given the script limitations. Much the same can be said for Armenian actor Simon Abkarian. And despite the conflicts in their philosophies that threaten to crack the crystal of their affair, there is a true chemistry here. Some characters such as Shirley Henderson try very hard but simply swallow their lines in annoying and blurry accents.

Sounds like a lot of negatives? Well, they are there, but for this viewer the piece still gives the same satisfaction as hearing a new symphonic work or viewing a form of visual art in progress. There is much beauty here, enough to beg forgiveness for the shortcomings. Grady Harp

I suppose for some, this movie has some redeeming qualities. For me, however, I found myself hitting the fast-forward button through 75% of the film. First of all, the attempt at having all of the characters dialog rhyme was extremely distracting and so removed from real life that it made the already uninteresting plot even more unbearable.

Since I spent most of the time fast-forwarding through what seemed to me as the ridiculous and mundane, you should really watch the movie for yourself and make your own judgements. Maybe you'll get lucky and actually be able to get into it.

One word of advice, rent this movie first prior to purchasing. You'll be glad you did. I'll be putting my copy up for sale on eBay.

Sally Potter has in my view made a masterpiece.

To challenge every issue from racism to religion to cultural difference, let alone to the big question, the what's it all about question, and all in one film is astounding but to do this with such daring, the rhyming verse, structure, cinematography, musical score is nothing short of genius. Joan Allen is remarkable as She. Her beauty is second only to her delivery of the some of the most intelligent and profound verse that I have ever heard. Shiela Hancock's death speech sits on its own as an inspired piece of writing. There are so many great moments in this film, there is no point in trying to list them, but do look out for the wine bar scene!

Potter has reminded me why film is great.

Thank you Sally Potter.

Simon Abkarian made a huge impression in "Ararat," Atom Egoyan's 2002 film about the Armenian genocide. Abkarian played Armenian painter Arshile Gorky. Gorky had lived an incredibly hard life; he was a survivor of the Armenian genocide. His mother was not. She starved to death. Simon Abkarian's performance as Gorky was supernatural. He channeled Gorky. His scenes felt as if conveyed from a miracle camera dispatched, across restrictions of time and space, to Gorky's studio. The power and impact of Abkarian's performance was all the more amazing because, iirc, he never spoke. I resolved to see Abkarian in any other movies I could find. I was eager to see "Yes." Alas, "Yes" just doesn't work. The iambic pentameter and rhyming doesn't sound like Shakespeare; when it sounds like any other literature, it sounds like Dr. Seuss. Sometimes it just sounds like an incomprehensible series of syllables that, the listener expects, are condemning the West and encouraging us all to just get along. In addition to the stilted and unnatural dialogue, the film includes many Dutch angles, and characters address the camera. In short, this film really doesn't want you to experience any willing suspension of disbelief. It wants you to sit, spine straight, on needles and pins, aware at every moment that you are having an important, experimental, cultural experience, and that Sally Potter is behind that camera.

The two main characters – never named – never take on any life. This is remarkable given the fine talents Sally Potter has lured into this science experiment. Joan Allen is always sincere and lovable. Abkarian comes off less well, perhaps because he is given the goofier role. Given how utterly stereotypical and lifeless the main characters are, it's hard to know how seriously Potter wants them to be taken. Joan Allen plays a beautiful, icy, blonde, super wealthy woman who lives a loveless marriage in a monochrome apartment. Abkarian is a passionate Ethnic Other, dark, hairy, "a doctor in my own country, a waiter in yours" and always ready for luuuuv. He dances and recites poetry. At least Potter doesn't have him say, "Come with me to the Casbah," or sing "Sheikh of Araby." The film can't tell the small story of two people who may or may not be in love; it doesn't get anywhere near saying anything deep or new or heartfelt or important or even vaguely true about the bigger issues it wants to address: terrorism, East-West relations, Rich-Poor relations, or stem cell research.

I had the chance to see Yes when it in premiered at the Telluride Film Festival. I had no idea what to expect and that in turn was a good thing. Expectations more often than not ruin our perceptions of a film and that would be my advice for anyone seeing this film for the first time, do not expect to know what you are getting into. With that said, I believe this was a marvelous film because it was able to balance the seriousness of its subject matter with a nice touch of humor. This definitely was not a film for everybody and I say this because it does require one to think when viewing it and as we all know, a lot of people go to the movies to escape, not to think. Right away, the viewer will realize this is not your normal film simply by the dialogue, it was written in iambic pentameter and rhyming couplets. The rhyming of the dialogue might be a turn off for some, but I found it to be quite pleasing and very humorous almost in a mature Dr. Seuss sort of way. Anyone that is a writer will appreciate the time and care and difficulty that went into writing this script. Regarding the content of this film, I will only say that everything is not always as it appears and we interpret what we see...if you can appreciate this kind of thought, then see this film. If I had to compare it to another film, which I shouldn't do, I'd say American Beauty or Donnie Darko. On a technical note, I had the chance to talk to Mrs. Potter and her producer Mr. Sheppard afterwards and they informed me that it cost less than 4 million to make this film which makes it all the more magnificent.

I'd be lying if I said I weren't enchanted with the film in some measure even before ten minutes had passed. I've seen no few other pictures that came off with a vivid sense of theatricality, as though the filmmaker was porting to the cinematic medium some sensibilities that viewers would best recognize from the stage. Sally Potter goes further here, being especially plainspoken in the feature's influences - not least, of course, as the dialogue is mostly written in iambic pentameter. What a lovely turn! Like it or not, one has to admire the extra flowery, poetic flourishes in this regard, and the imagination poured into it. There's that, and also the delightfully classical choice of having a secondary supporting characters, the maid of "She" and her husband (Shirley Henderson, in a fabulous casting decision), approach and speak directly to the camera and the audience to observe and comment on the plot as it progresses. Even Potter's scene writing and direction readily seem geared toward that end as shots and scenes discretely center only one or at most two people, even when other figures are present, and still more so when dialogue is involved. The narrative, too, seems handmade for the stage, recalling the works of various playwrights, as it revolves around troubled marriages, love affairs, and the (re)surfacing of the past, personal problems, and interpersonal divisions and latent prejudices. In no small part it rather feels like Potter wrote and directed 'Yes' as if it were a stage play and not a film, and never more so than when the character and domestic drama is emphasized. I deeply admire that unconventional approach in and of itself, and makes for a rather bewitching viewing experience. I'm not saying that this is perfect, but it's hard not to get swept up in its fancifulness, and its strengths pretty well compensate for any flaws.

I'm of the opinion that the greatest faults here are simply those ways in which the picture's craft or storytelling are further embellished. Some of Aleksey Rodionov's cinematography reflects needless garnishes, with atypical angles and the like that just seem ill at odds with the tone that 'Yes' otherwise adopts. The same is true of Daniel Goddard's editing, especially where it chops up and slows down the image - presumably for dramatic effect, yet instead of amplifying the impact of a sequence, it only distracts. Voiceovers are employed semi-regularly to present characters' thoughts, an abbreviated echo of the monologue or soliloquy in theater; they are used here too often, however, becoming overbearing, and more so in multiple instances of overlapping vocal tracks. And possibly even more injurious than anything else, there are elements of the screenplay that come off as extraneous. The more the storytelling steps away from the core of She, He, and the central domestic drama, the less steady, interesting, and worthwhile it becomes. Her visit to Her aunt could have been significantly reduced without losing anything, as it almost feels like a total sidestep; scenes or dialogue revolving around Her job don't add anything; in general the writing could have been tightened, with some bits left on the cutting room floor, and the end result would have only benefited. It seems like the movie is ever on the verge of trying to Say Something, broach Big Ideas, and achieve profundity, not least when Henderson's character commentates, yet it never actually gets there. Its reach, toward broader notions, exceeds its grasp, the primary tale. Or let me put it this way: in no few regards there are times when 'Yes' feels like a romanticized conception of a "romantic drama," but without the utmost concrete definition and substance to be romanticized. Imagine, if you will, painting on a canvas, then removing the canvas such that the paint just hangs in the air.

None of this is to discount the ingenuity of the film, or the hard work that went into it. Even if I disagree with some choices that were made in the technical construction, I appreciate the effort. I very much like the cast, and I think everyone gives strong performances of range, personality, and nuance - Joan Allen, Simon Abkarian, Sam Neill, Stephanie Leonidas, and yes, even Henderson in her unconventional role. The production design, art direction, and filming locations are swell, and even if I weren't already familiar with Potter to some extent, I think her direction here is solid. While imperfect, more so than not I think the filmmaker's writing really is terrific, most specifically in the novelties adapted from the stage - and recognizing that Potter also seems to have composed her own film score, I can only remark that the themes are wonderfully entrancing, and possibly the most consistent facet of all. By and large I do like 'Yes.' I also wonder if there's not something I'm altogether missing, as my divided opinion is especially critical of the content within the somewhat whimsical structure; wherever the feature tries to go above and beyond the story of He and She, to me it comes up short. Maybe this will find more favor among those who theater nerds more than cinephiles; maybe I'm just not properly attuned to Potter's exact wavelength in this case. In any event, I do think this is worth checking out, with the caveat that, for different reasons, I understand why this met with mixed reception upon its release. As if to accentuate the point, at the same time that I want to like the movie more than I do, I also question if I'm being too kind in my assessment. By all means, please do give 'Yes' a look if it in any way sounds appealing; just keep in mind that in one way or another, it may not be completely satisfying.

Incredible achievement. One of the year's best.

The language is poetry. (I hope the DVD will include the script.)

Great Casting. The performances strike the right note, which leaves room for the story to paint the picture for us to enjoy ... It's like sitting with a masterpiece, this one. To be taken in.

An inquiry into our modern human condition ... it combines politics into personal intrigue.

I'm reminded of Baz Luhrman's take on 'Romeo and Juliet', the clash of worlds. I like Potter's unique style, however.

I recommend this film for almost anyone, even though it is challenging and some may not appreciate it. Hey, it's all personal, or is it?

Note: R. Ebert's review reflects Potter's intent most closely I believe.

I found the trip to Cuba unconnected with the rest of the film, not pertinent to what has come before and not congruent with the characters, their idiosyncrasies or backgrounds. The Cuban trip stems out of background reminiscences during the dying aunt sequence and, to me at least, is completely uncalled for. First world (the "she" character certainly qualifies as such, at least) traveling to Cuba seems apt to happen out of just plain tourism or out of revolution-inspired soul searching (hardly the case in the family background of the "she" character), the reasons behind "she"'s trip are inconclusive and unconnected, as I said, with everything that has come before save for the dying aunt's reflections.

Unless someone caught a different reason in the plot I overlooked ...

Just saw the movie at the LA Film Festival, had no idea what to expect, and was still disappointed. It starts off well enough with an engaging and entertaining soliloquy by the Cleaner (Shirly Henderson), but she quickly proves to be the best and most underused aspect of the film. If you've got this far looking for info on the film, you know what it's about, so I'm not going to do a summary. But I will tell you that the rhyming couplets are a distraction from the story. I found that the rhyming couplets did nothing to complement the story, only convolute it. They didn't seem to serve a purpose. Add to that way too much time spend just watching people sit and stare into space as music plays, a seemingly endless monologue from a dying character I know and care nothing about (which also describes every character in this movie, oddly enough), and a story that I simply couldn't give a rat's ass about, and you've got an hour and half of a painful movie to sit through. The movie feels much longer than it is, and probably should have been a short film. The gimmick of verse wears off quickly, and a lot of time could have been cut out.

Several reviewers mention Shakespeare... but what I thought back to, while watching this mesmerizing film was Dylan Thomas. Sally Potter is really his heir.

I missed this film in the theater because a friend who saw it didn't know what to make of the poetry, and was put off by it. The idea of such a film is audacious, but I was afraid it would terribly difficult to pull off, and likely come off like some kind of stunt. I was SO wrong. I had completely forgotten about the film by the time I pulled the DVD off the video store shelf.

Within the first few minutes I was totally focused and delighted. Occasionally I had trouble understanding the accents, but that got easier as the film went along. If it was only a stunt, then it would still be little more than just that, but Sally Potter has something strong and beautiful to say, and the two leads (along with the wonderful Shirley Henderson as the chorus) illuminate Potter's words before our eyes. This is strong stuff, the stuff of life. Watch it with your eyes, your ears and your mind.

Really well written, not sure about direction but still its good quality production. Also well performed especially that simon abkarion, his lady killer romantic dialogues are really touching. Although movie has some flaws but still its a good movie , with some good ending.

a science research wife also rich + rich husband but they both dont have time for each other and no feelings anymore, so she met some not soo good looking arab guy but he is damn good with his words n HANDS. and she fell for him, and she fell hard.

Joan Allen did an adequate job of acting, (although she was much better and more believable in "Upside of Anger") and the young gal who played Grace, Stephanie Leonidas, was outstanding. Hopefully, this job will put her out there for directors and producers of real movies to discover. Those are about the only positive things I can say about this dreadful film. The rhyming of the lines was extremely distracting and annoying. When I want to enjoy poetry, I read poems. That's not why I go to the theater. It was truly ludicrous with all the lines ending with a rhyme that I kept guessing which word they would come up with, and 95% of the time, I guessed it. What a waste of my time and money. I didn't enjoy this movie at all.

A long commentary could readily been written to adumbrate the following remark, but this would almost seem to be redundant.

This was a remarkable, even beautiful, drama composed in the authentic voices of enchanting, sometimes witty, verse, verse whose theatrical power consistently grows during the film in proportion to its philosophical sophistication. From its opening to its closing "chorus" expressed in the person of a humble housekeeper, this film offers the story of an arduous love between an unCatholic American woman, a castaway in her hopeless marriage, and her Moslem Lebanese suitor, "stranded" as an existential alien in America. The story ascends to sometimes Shakespearean levels of character development and twisting plot as the lovers evolve, a tale bearing the wounds of a tumultuous, irresistible personal struggle that is fraught with profound moral and psychological ambiguities, all within a post-modern social and political context that enmeshes and deepens the nature of shifting meanings expressed in human bonds and bondage.

Says the voice of the housekeeper/chorus, in the final crucible of perilous affirmation--

"In fact, I think I guess that

No does not exist, But only Yes."

Joan Allen's career reaches its pinnacle here, giving us the brilliant actress at her best.

OK, OK, so it was supposed to be artful in its use of Iambic pentameter. Unfortunately all I viewed was a a movie that thought it was Oh-so-clever. How these two people would have ever gotten together in REAL life, is beyond me.

The one clever bit was with Shirley Henderson, and her cleaning cronies, occasionally interjecting their views of the various relationships in the movie. Just some of the looks the cleaning folks shot to the cameras was well worth it.

I wouldn't compare this to "American Beauty" at all, as one earlier reviewer has. Don't know WHAT I'd compare it to, but I'm glad it was a free rental. 108 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

I saw this film at the Telluride Film Festival and cannot wait to watch it over and over again. It was by far the festival favorite for everyone I talked to (minus a few teenage boys).

Sally Potter does a wonderful job of turning what could be a cliché story about a white woman falling in love with a man from the middle east into a socially, sexually, and emotionally conscious film.

The style itself is truly Potter with breathtaking cinematography that plays color and costume together in a well choreographed filmic space.

The use of verse throughout the film only adds to the plot and the characters' intensity.

All I can say is go see it, you will not be sorry. 10/10