Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

What Have You Watched Recently? [OFFICIAL THREAD]

Rate this topic


Chaotic Muslem

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

 

More than half of the movie is in Azeri.. And the other parts are in Farsi but simple..

So, it is the first time I understood every dialogue in an iranian movie with no need of subtitles..

the movie is simple yet so beautiful..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Just watched Primer. It is considered the most confusing movie of all time. Lol anyone who says they get the movie first time is lying (its impossible to understand after first watch and requires reading afterwards). A masterpiece. Give it a try.

 

try understanding revolver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Looked up the list of most confusing movies and don't find its name on it. Lol seems like it might be one of those movies that confused you. 

Try Primer and you will be like WTH.

trust me, watch revolver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Someone once recommended Revolver to me but I never got around to watching it. Thanks for the reminder.

I just finished watching World War Z. Violent, especially for a PG-13 rating, but fun. If the zombies come after me, I'm toast, but I did get an awesome compliment from a fellow who was watching with me: seeing Brad Pitt armour up with duct tape, he turned to me and said "that's just like you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Salaam all

 

It's time for IRANIAN MOVIE NIGHT.

 

Here is what is playing:

 

butcher_angels2-500x300.jpg

 

It is difficult to do what I am about to do. I mean, It is easy to make fun of Hollywood. To hell with Hollywood. They suck. They dump millions of dollars of resources into nonsensical, corrupt, cliched political propaganda. And then they gather multiple times each year to congratulate each other on how great they are and how much their presence blesses the world. Hollywood is c.rap. Making fun of their movies which you downloaded illegally from piratebay is the shar'i duty of every Muslim. But when you watch a bad movie and it is clear that the filmmakers had limited resources and good intentions, it is not morally right to make fun of their work and nitpick about it and suggest (from your armchair of ZERO film-making experience) how it could have been better.

 

But I'm Baradar Jackson: Superdouche. So I will do it with no remorse.

 

 

 

This movie was made by the Aviny Institute, which I guess is named after Seyyed Morteza Aviny, the war journalist and martyr who directed the epic revayat e fath (Narration of Victory); a documentary series which simply consisted of scenes of people during the war (mostly, soldiers on the front lines) and his eloquent narrations. It was a powerhouse of emotions, and that is why it is shown on Iranian television to this day.

 

Or maybe the name of the institute is just a coincidence, I have no idea.

 

Either way... according to the description provided in brother HamzaTR's link, the movie sparked a semi-controversy because of a hijabless Lebanese actress who plays the lead character (Kacey). It was eventually allowed on TV, because to be honest why was there a controversy to begin with? There are at least ten trillion foreign TV programs and movies shown on Iranian TV, and none of the actresses in those shows have hijab. And Kacey is wearing her helmet 90 percent of the time, so her hair is almost completely concealed; more than you can say about the actresses in Iranian movies (where they often have half-hijabs). Anyway...

 

 

The plot follows an Afghani couple; whats his name and whats her face, until a bomb goes off like 20 minutes in the movie and then it follows -- almost exclusively, a unit of American soldiers. Whats his name works for the UN as a translator, while whats her face is a school teacher. The US Army bombs the school she teaches in, and then whats his name rushes to the scene and then it turns out the Army is in the organ trafficking business and there is this evil Jew lady who is dressed like a nurse but actually she is an organ trafficker and there are some corrupt US soldiers who are in cahoots with her and they get a cut of her pay and then they kill whats his name and whats her face and some other kid but the other kid had an explosive and so they all got blow'ded up and then this other girl saw it from far away and was crying and then it ended.

 

So that was the plot.

 

Let me tell you what the movie does right:

 

The American uniforms are impeccable. The helmets, vests, camo schemes... I am glad they gave them M-16s instead of G-3s or Kalashnikovs or some nonsense like that. They even seem to have made some small aesthetic changes to the IRI Army's "Kaviran" light military vehicle to make it look like a Humvee. The attention of detail with regard to American uniforms and weapons was evident. The sets look good, too, although there wasn't much need for elaborate set design considering it mostly takes place outdoors in the wilderness. The special effects are good. You won't confuse it for a Michael Bay movie, but they had a limited budget so it's understandable. Too many slow motion scenes, though. It got kind of tiring.

 

What it does wrong:

 

Everything else.

 

I am sorry. I am very rude and inconsiderate. But it's the truth. And as much as I would like to forgive them and say it was due to limited resources, a lot of the wounds are self-inflicted.

 

Here are my problems with the movie, in list format:

 

1 - The American soldiers' faces. I am not upset that they didn't get real Americans; I understand that's hard. But why, when they ran out of light-skinned Lebanese, did they start using Somalians/Yemenis/South Iranians, or wherever those brown people were from? I'm sorry but there are hardly any brown people in the US Army. But there are many Latinos and blacks. Why not use Venezuelan actors, to depict Latino soldiers? Or to depict black soldiers, why not go to the hawzah and recruit some of the many west African students there? And you may say: but baradar, what if they don't know English? Firstly, a lot of the guys in this movie clearly knew little to no English anyway, and English is an official language of Nigeria. So no, that's not a valid excuse.

 

2 - The American soldiers' mouths. Maybe #1 can be forgiven. Maybe there were circumstances. But why, when you have a US Army filled with Somalian Yemenis, do you make them the focus of the story, thus drawing the audience's attention to how NOT real they are? There is even one scene where one of the Lebanese is telling one of the Somalians: "I would kill anyone for money. Iraqi, Afghani, niggers." Aside from the over-the-top line (which is a reflection of the common Iranian view that the United States is a giant gulag for black folk), it really is hard to ignore the fact that he is saying this line to someone with darker skin than most African-Americans. And there is an obsession with calling each other by name. By FIRST name. See, that's a cultural thing. Iranian soldiers commonly refer to themselves by first name. But in the US Army, they don't do that. They call each other by their last names, always. Cultural ignorance aside, why do their names have to be the ONLY AMERICAN NAMES THAT IRANIANS KNOW, like "Jason" or "David" or "Ashley?" And why do they have to repeat them so often, even in irrelevant conversations between minor characters? If they repeat their fake names enough times, will they become any less Yemeni? Their accents when speaking English are more heavy than the Afghani characters', and their commanding officer looks like he should be serving in the Egyptian Army under Nasser.

 

They could have side-stepped this whole affair by simply making the Afghanis the focus of the story. They have an entire army of trained actors who have mastery of the Persian language... but instead they choose to force Lebanese and Somalians with limited English skills, to pretend to be American soldiers. In fact, the language problem could have been a window of opportunity; it could have opened their minds to original ways of inserting the Americans and depicting their motivations and emotions. Take, for example, Ivan Drago's character in Rocky IV. Swedish actor, Russian character. So what do they do? They give him 4 short lines of dialogue. But not only do they hide this weakness, but they make this a part of his character!!! He isn't a human being with emotions; he is a machine, he is a weapon of mass destruction constructed by evil Soviet scientists. You may look at Rocky IV and see it as an over-the-top piece of propaganda, but they had more subtlety than given credit for.

 

The makers of this movie, by contrast, took their glaring weakness and shoved it into our collective faces.

 

3 - Weak-sauce story. Afghanis are a long-suffering people. Movies about Afghanistan write themselves. I guarantee you if you pick at random any Afghani family, their story of the past 30 years will be more interesting than 99 percent of movies ever made. But this story is not very compelling nor convincing. It just seems forced. "Look, US Army is evil, UN is evil, evil Jew lady is evil," and so on. (I will address the lack of subtlety in a bit). There is little effort at character development, so there is no emotional investment anyway. Nor does it feel like it serves any documentary purpose because the story seems implausible. Like the school bombing, for example: how did the bomb even go off? There was no indication it came from the air or from artillery shelling... so was it planted? Does the US Army go around planting bombs in schools and then detonating them and blaming terrorists? And why did they have to mix in the organ trafficking; so are the American soldiers trigger happy because they are selling the victims' organs? Does any of this have any basis in real events? If you want to make a movie about American atrocities in Afghanistan, why not use a story based in truth rather than pure fiction? An untrue story, even if trying to depict a general truth, is damaging to the truth, because it makes the very concept (in this case, American atrocities) seem fictional or abstract. Why couldn't they, perhaps (as an example), depicted the new American policy of cooperating with Taliban? This is a great absurdity; the US invaded to remove the Taliban. The war brought death and ruination upon the country, and now they are cooperating with the very same people they started the war to overthrow? This is absurd, and true, and deserving of theatrical depiction.

 

4 - Lack of subtlety. The evil Jewy Jew lady has a star of david necklace. I have no problem with making the villain Jewish; if anything, it is a positive thing. It deconstructs the Hollywood paradigm of Jews as the forever victims. But there is a more subtle way of depicting this than a necklace that shouts "I'm a JEWWWWWWW!" Also, the character was too much of a caricature to begin with. She was pure evil; pure evil characters like that are not believable. I am not saying that there are no truly evil people; but in a movie, where you are trying to depict the real-life suffering of a real-life country, you should pay as much attention as possible to make the story look and feel real. Part of this is using characters which seem very real. It would be better if the evil Jew lady was just a very prejudiced, racist, politically lost individual rather than the human manifestation of SATAN. My other problem is that there is too much dialogue. Dialogue between the Somali Lebanese Americans, dialogue between the SLAs and the Afghanis, dialogue between "Kacey" (our token "good American soldier") and "David" the Egyptian colonel. All of this is to depict these basic messages: Afghanis are innocent, Americans are foolish imperialists who invade countries willy nilly, and... that's all.

 

Do you really need to SAY those things? I mean, that's the assumption of the movie. Why do you need to tell us that over and over again? It's wasted time, and what's worse is that it highlights the fakeness of the actors playing the Americans. Film is a visual medium. You don't need to explain every message you are trying to impart. Compare this to lakposht-ha ham parvaz mikonand (Turtles can Fly; go look it up in youtubes, NOW), the classic Iran-Iraq collaborative movie depicting a Kurdish Iraqi village in the days leading up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. It was not a high budget movie, and the filmmakers used local people for actors rather than professionals, but it is one of the most powerful movies ever. And that is because it doesn't just stand there talking to us about how much people are suffering; instead, it SHOWS us (very skillfully), their suffering. It forges a bond between us and the characters. There are only two mentions of Saddam, and both of them are in passing. The Americans are just barely even depicted; the movie ends upon their arrival to the village, and there is no interaction with them at all; only a subtle hinting that the Iraqi people's suffering is a long ways from ending.

 

So, in conclusion: I like that there are such movies, I like that there is the intention to make such movies. It is important to show stories of the suffering of common people -- especially the suffering at the hands of imperialism -- or else the visual medium is just a nonsense distraction for people. But this movie fails. It does not do any service to the suffering Afghanis. It does not tell a story worth telling, and it does not tell its story effectively anyway. And unlike Hollywood garbage, I cannot get any pleasure out of watching it simply to mock it, because the people who worked on this movie had good intentions. Therefore, it was very painful to watch. So I would not recommend it to anybody, and I would conceal it from Americans and Westerners at all costs.

 

Baradar out

Edited by baradar_jackson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Salaam all

 

It's time for IRANIAN MOVIE NIGHT.

 

Here is what is playing:

 

butcher_angels2-500x300.jpg

 

It is difficult to do what I am about to do. I mean, It is easy to make fun of Hollywood. To hell with Hollywood. They suck. They dump millions of dollars of resources into nonsensical, corrupt, cliched political propaganda. And then they gather multiple times each year to congratulate each other on how great they are and how much their presence blesses the world. Hollywood is c.rap. Making fun of their movies which you downloaded illegally from piratebay is the shar'i duty of every Muslim. But when you watch a bad movie and it is clear that the filmmakers had limited resources and good intentions, it is not morally right to make fun of their work and nitpick about it and suggest (from your armchair of ZERO film-making experience) how it could have been better.

 

But I'm Baradar Jackson: Superdouche. So I will do it with no remorse.

 

 

 

This movie was made by the Aviny Institute, which I guess is named after Seyyed Morteza Aviny, the war journalist and martyr who directed the epic revayat e fath (Narration of Victory); a documentary series which simply consisted of scenes of people during the war (mostly, soldiers on the front lines) and his eloquent narrations. It was a powerhouse of emotions, and that is why it is shown on Iranian television to this day.

 

Or maybe the name of the institute is just a coincidence, I have no idea.

 

Either way... according to the description provided in brother HamzaTR's link, the movie sparked a semi-controversy because of a hijabless Lebanese actress who plays the lead character (Kacey). It was eventually allowed on TV, because to be honest why was there a controversy to begin with? There are at least ten trillion foreign TV programs and movies shown on Iranian TV, and none of the actresses in those shows have hijab. And Kacey is wearing her helmet 90 percent of the time, so her hair is almost completely concealed; more than you can say about the actresses in Iranian movies (where they often have half-hijabs). Anyway...

 

 

The plot follows an Afghani couple; whats his name and whats her face, until a bomb goes off like 20 minutes in the movie and then it follows -- almost exclusively, a unit of American soldiers. Whats his name works for the UN as a translator, while whats her face is a school teacher. The US Army bombs the school she teaches in, and then whats his name rushes to the scene and then it turns out the Army is in the organ trafficking business and there is this evil Jew lady who is dressed like a nurse but actually she is an organ trafficker and there are some corrupt US soldiers who are in cahoots with her and they get a cut of her pay and then they kill whats his name and whats her face and some other kid but the other kid had an explosive and so they all got blow'ded up and then this other girl saw it from far away and was crying and then it ended.

 

So that was the plot.

 

Let me tell you what the movie does right:

 

The American uniforms are impeccable. The helmets, vests, camo schemes... I am glad they gave them M-16s instead of G-3s or Kalashnikovs or some nonsense like that. They even seem to have made some small aesthetic changes to the IRI Army's "Kaviran" light military vehicle to make it look like a Humvee. The attention of detail with regard to American uniforms and weapons was evident. The sets look good, too, although there wasn't much need for elaborate set design considering it mostly takes place outdoors in the wilderness. The special effects are good. You won't confuse it for a Michael Bay movie, but they had a limited budget so it's understandable. Too many slow motion scenes, though. It got kind of tiring.

 

What it does wrong:

 

Everything else.

 

I am sorry. I am very rude and inconsiderate. But it's the truth. And as much as I would like to forgive them and say it was due to limited resources, a lot of the wounds are self-inflicted.

 

Here are my problems with the movie, in list format:

 

1 - The American soldiers' faces. I am not upset that they didn't get real Americans; I understand that's hard. But why, when they ran out of light-skinned Lebanese, did they start using Somalians/Yemenis/South Iranians, or wherever those brown people were from? I'm sorry but there are hardly any brown people in the US Army. But there are many Latinos and blacks. Why not use Venezuelan actors, to depict Latino soldiers? Or to depict black soldiers, why not go to the hawzah and recruit some of the many west African students there? And you may say: but baradar, what if they don't know English? Firstly, a lot of the guys in this movie clearly knew little to no English anyway, and English is an official language of Nigeria. So no, that's not a valid excuse.

 

2 - The American soldiers' mouths. Maybe #1 can be forgiven. Maybe there were circumstances. But why, when you have a US Army filled with Somalian Yemenis, do you make them the focus of the story, thus drawing the audience's attention to how NOT real they are? There is even one scene where one of the Lebanese is telling one of the Somalians: "I would kill anyone for money. Iraqi, Afghani, niggers." Aside from the over-the-top line (which is a reflection of the common Iranian view that the United States is a giant gulag for black folk), it really is hard to ignore the fact that he is saying this line to someone with darker skin than most African-Americans. And there is an obsession with calling each other by name. By FIRST name. See, that's a cultural thing. Iranian soldiers commonly refer to themselves by first name. But in the US Army, they don't do that. They call each other by their last names, always. Cultural ignorance aside, why do their names have to be the ONLY AMERICAN NAMES THAT IRANIANS KNOW, like "Jason" or "David" or "Ashley?" And why do they have to repeat them so often, even in irrelevant conversations between minor characters? If they repeat their fake names enough times, will they become any less Yemeni? Their accents when speaking English are more heavy than the Afghani characters', and their commanding officer looks like he should be serving in the Egyptian Army under Nasser.

 

They could have side-stepped this whole affair by simply making the Afghanis the focus of the story. They have an entire army of trained actors who have mastery of the Persian language... but instead they choose to force Lebanese and Somalians with limited English skills, to pretend to be American soldiers. In fact, the language problem could have been a window of opportunity; it could have opened their minds to original ways of inserting the Americans and depicting their motivations and emotions. Take, for example, Ivan Drago's character in Rocky IV. Swedish actor, Russian character. So what do they do? They give him 4 short lines of dialogue. But not only do they hide this weakness, but they make this a part of his character!!! He isn't a human being with emotions; he is a machine, he is a weapon of mass destruction constructed by evil Soviet scientists. You may look at Rocky IV and see it as an over-the-top piece of propaganda, but they had more subtlety than given credit for.

 

The makers of this movie, by contrast, took their glaring weakness and shoved it into our collective faces.

 

3 - Weak-sauce story. Afghanis are a long-suffering people. Movies about Afghanistan write themselves. I guarantee you if you pick at random any Afghani family, their story of the past 30 years will be more interesting than 99 percent of movies ever made. But this story is not very compelling nor convincing. It just seems forced. "Look, US Army is evil, UN is evil, evil Jew lady is evil," and so on. (I will address the lack of subtlety in a bit). There is little effort at character development, so there is no emotional investment anyway. Nor does it feel like it serves any documentary purpose because the story seems implausible. Like the school bombing, for example: how did the bomb even go off? There was no indication it came from the air or from artillery shelling... so was it planted? Does the US Army go around planting bombs in schools and then detonating them and blaming terrorists? And why did they have to mix in the organ trafficking; so are the American soldiers trigger happy because they are selling the victims' organs? Does any of this have any basis in real events? If you want to make a movie about American atrocities in Afghanistan, why not use a story based in truth rather than pure fiction? An untrue story, even if trying to depict a general truth, is damaging to the truth, because it makes the very concept (in this case, American atrocities) seem fictional or abstract. Why couldn't they, perhaps (as an example), depicted the new American policy of cooperating with Taliban? This is a great absurdity; the US invaded to remove the Taliban. The war brought death and ruination upon the country, and now they are cooperating with the very same people they started the war to overthrow? This is absurd, and true, and deserving of theatrical depiction.

 

4 - Lack of subtlety. The evil Jewy Jew lady has a star of david necklace. I have no problem with making the villain Jewish; if anything, it is a positive thing. It deconstructs the Hollywood paradigm of Jews as the forever victims. But there is a more subtle way of depicting this than a necklace that shouts "I'm a JEWWWWWWW!" Also, the character was too much of a caricature to begin with. She was pure evil; pure evil characters like that are not believable. I am not saying that there are no truly evil people; but in a movie, where you are trying to depict the real-life suffering of a real-life country, you should pay as much attention as possible to make the story look and feel real. Part of this is using characters which seem very real. It would be better if the evil Jew lady was just a very prejudiced, racist, politically lost individual rather than the human manifestation of SATAN. My other problem is that there is too much dialogue. Dialogue between the Somali Lebanese Americans, dialogue between the SLAs and the Afghanis, dialogue between "Kacey" (our token "good American soldier") and "David" the Egyptian colonel. All of this is to depict these basic messages: Afghanis are innocent, Americans are foolish imperialists who invade countries willy nilly, and... that's all.

 

Do you really need to SAY those things? I mean, that's the assumption of the movie. Why do you need to tell us that over and over again? It's wasted time, and what's worse is that it highlights the fakeness of the actors playing the Americans. Film is a visual medium. You don't need to explain every message you are trying to impart. Compare this to lakposht-ha ham parvaz mikonand (Turtles can Fly; go look it up in youtubes, NOW), the classic Iran-Iraq collaborative movie depicting a Kurdish Iraqi village in the days leading up to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. It was not a high budget movie, and the filmmakers used local people for actors rather than professionals, but it is one of the most powerful movies ever. And that is because it doesn't just stand there talking to us about how much people are suffering; instead, it SHOWS us (very skillfully), their suffering. It forges a bond between us and the characters. There are only two mentions of Saddam, and both of them are in passing. The Americans are just barely even depicted; the movie ends upon their arrival to the village, and there is no interaction with them at all; only a subtle hinting that the Iraqi people's suffering is a long ways from ending.

 

So, in conclusion: I like that there are such movies, I like that there is the intention to make such movies. It is important to show stories of the suffering of common people -- especially the suffering at the hands of imperialism -- or else the visual medium is just a nonsense distraction for people. But this movie fails. It does not do any service to the suffering Afghanis. It does not tell a story worth telling, and it does not tell its story effectively anyway. And unlike Hollywood garbage, I cannot get any pleasure out of watching it simply to mock it, because the people who worked on this movie had good intentions. Therefore, it was very painful to watch. So I would not recommend it to anybody, and I would conceal it from Americans and Westerners at all costs.

 

Baradar out

 

Sir allow me to buy you a tasty dinner for this beautiful post.

seriously bro,i literally forced myself 3 times to watch it.but i still havent watched it completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Sir allow me to buy you a tasty dinner for this beautiful post.

seriously bro,i literally forced myself 3 times to watch it.but i still havent watched it completely.

 

Why couldn't you watch it? The Somalian Lebanese were too much for you to handle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Why couldn't you watch it? The Somalian Lebanese were too much for you to handle?

 

hahaha yes,and the way the speak.oh my god.

 

and they did not let the viewer use his brain at all.They were telling everything about themselves and their motives.

 

i hope they will be more original next time.

 

 

Why, oh why, did you quote all that to post reply?

 

 

:shaytan:

Edited by AnaAmmar1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I love Hitchcock; lately late at my brother-in-law's we have been watching Twilight Zone episodes. From back in the days when Americans were conservative and spoke English.

 

Here is my favourite episode: Of late I think of Cliffordville

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgltNqtn-tE&list=PLlopxsJ2QSMb9L0aQ5gMCTMh7_C2lBiRm&index=13

 

I am, I admit, ambivalent about using demons or the devil in fiction. It is a very easy conceptual step from "Satan is convenient for fiction" to "Satan is a convenient fiction." All the same, among Hitchcock's strengths is his willingness to take vice and possible, though near-impossible, eventualities (aliens, time-travel and ectera) and engage them in the context of the Christian universe.

 

The writing for the demon is quite brilliant. Plausible, duplicitous, sweet, everything you want to hear put better than you could have ever wanted to hear it. It is not, however, better than Dostoyevsky's. The temptation of Ivan Karamazov is quite incomparable.

 

Anyway, here follow some of my favourite quotes from the demon in the episode.

 

"Who are you?!"
 
"Devlin, first name's not important."
 
"Time is of absolutely no essence."
 
"But mind you Mr. Feathersmith this is nothing more nor less than a gesture of [pause in visible discomfiture at saying the next word]...sympathy. [shudders] Hurts me to mouth the word."
 
"But frankly you are such a totally abject, unhappy looking creature I can't find it in my. . .[touches the stomach and looks vaguely confused at their own human form] where ever you find the heart, to leave you here."
Edited by Servidor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

 

I love Hitchcock; lately late at my brother-in-law's we have been watching Twilight Zone episodes. From back in the days when Americans were conservative and spoke English.

 

Here is my favourite episode: Of late I think of Cliffordville

 

I am, I admit, ambivalent about using demons or the devil in fiction. It is a very easy conceptual step from "Satan is convenient for fiction" to "Satan is a convenient fiction." All the same, among Hitchcock's strengths is his willingness to take vice and possible, though near-impossible, eventualities (aliens, time-travel and ectera) and engage them in the context of the Christian universe.

 

The writing for the demon is quite brilliant. Plausible, duplicitous, sweet, everything you want to hear put better than you could have ever wanted to hear it. It is not, however, better than Dostoyevsky's. The temptation of Ivan Karamazov is quite incomparable.

 

Anyway, here follow some of my favourite quotes from the demon in the episode.

 

"Who are you?!"
 
"Devlin, first name's not important."
 
"Time is of absolutely no essence."
 
"But mind you Mr. Feathersmith this is nothing more nor less than a gesture of [pause in visible discomfiture at saying the next word]...sympathy. [shudders] Hurts me to mouth the word."
 
"But frankly you are such a totally abject, unhappy looking creature I can't find it in my. . .[touches the stomach and looks vaguely confused at their own human form] where ever you find the heart, to leave you here."

 

 

I like Twilight Zone as well.

 

I have not seen all the episodes, but I really like the one with the girl driving on the highway and seeing that hitchhiker. I also like the one of the guy who doesn't want to fall asleep because there is a girl in his dreams who will kill him. Oh and the one with the German sub commander (although it was disgustingly self-righteous considering Britain's own war crimes, but nonetheless...)

 

Some are timeless classics, others are very much time-bound. Like the one with that futuristic totalitarian government. It was obviously an anti-communist propaganda from the peak of Cold War tensions.

 

Actually there was one episode with endless potentials; where a guy sold his soul to the devil for immortality. But I guess 20 minutes was not enough to explore all the possibilities because everything was dealt with abruptly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

^ Ha!!!

 

I remember that one.

 

What an epic fail of accents; the young mustache guy and the old man are the only ones who did the Yazdi accent well

 

Other than that, movie is OK I guess (by Iranian standards). The imagery is very beautiful and it is somewhat of a window into Yazdi culture but not really because I can't stand these characters. Where is the warmth, the collective spirit, the humility? That's what Yazd is all about. There is way too much color, which looks nice on screen but it not reflective of the simplicity of life in Yazd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...