harihar90 What begins as a walk-and-talk with two middle-aged strangers at its centre, then turns into something much, much more intriguing. The reason for the intrigue is not the plot itself, but rather (my conception of) the point that the film raises. Should we go along in the ride with characters exploring their (possibly faux?) lives in movies, or should we try to assign a truth value to their story within the world of the film - considering that the world of the film itself is not an 'original' but just a 'copy' in the first place? Is there any point in doing the former, and does art lose it's intrinsic value if we do the latter? Does art have any intrinsic value to lose at all in the first place?...At the hands of a great director and supported by a mercurial performance by Juliette Binoche, the movie should have been something incredible. But sadly, it falls short as the perseverance with which it raises its points about truth distracted me from staying emotionally involved with the characters as I couldn't help but feel that all the interactions were nothing but a play staged to make the film's point about art and truth. A finely-crafted academic exercise, with some intriguing ideas, that left me a bit cold at the end.

maxi13 First i have to claim that i am aware of some works of Kiarostami and that i also like some of his works (especially "Taste of Cherry", but also "Close Up" was very interesting), so its not a problem that i expected a mainstream movie and got something else, even though someone could have believed in getting a Hollywood love comedy after seeing this mainstream DVD cover. But yes, though Kiarostami really took some steps in this "easier to digest"-direction it is still a non- mainstream piece of author cinema, but... not a good one! "Certified Copy" feels like the next, fourth part of Richard Linklaters "Before..."-film series. Two people are walking and driving around and are "just talking". The problem with Kiarostamis work is that these persons are not very interesting and that the dialogues are far away of being that clever as those in Linklaters last work of his series in "Before Midnight" were. The whole story and the dialogues are based on the old controversy about original and copy in art history, cause the male protagonist is an book author, who has written about that. the problem is, that Kiarostami and (subsequently also) his characters don't have any idea what "fine arts" is. The book, his character has written, must be the most unnecessary book in art history, cause everything he is talking about are the most easy basics in philosophy and in art history, which western university students learn in their first semester, if not already during the high school years (in Europe). Every philosophy student will read or hear Plato's ideas about art very early and so are Duchamps ideas even more than common places since nearly 100 years (Duchamps fountain, dated 1917). Kiarostamis characters are not only unable to specify the correct sources, they are also not able to add a slightest minimum to these very old ideas. Though Linklaters earlier works "Waking Life" and "A Scanner Darkly" were somewhat incorrect and also influenced by bad esoteric and new age, he had his own way to interpret things and add his own ideas, which were not all good, but at least somewhat interesting. Kiarostamis characters pretend to be professionals but are dumb freshmen with no clue at all and so the whole movie - which is based on these ideas - slides around, is pretending to be clever, but tells just another unfortunate love story of two adult people at the end. The intellectual background doesn't work at all and even the plot twist, relating to the question about the mysterious relationship, crepitates quite early without any good idea. At least the characters could have been likable, but even a great Juliette Binoche wasn't able to get more out of her annoying character, which she had to play. Richard Linklater will show how a wise RomCom with adults will work in his next part of the "Before"-series, Kiarostamis attempt was a big failure and just mediocre, if not even worse. 4-5 points out of 10.

richievee "Certified Copy" is true to life, from first frame to last. It plays like two very real people trying to re-explore their abandoned relationship, while leisurely walking through a charming Italian villa that serves as a backdrop. I'm not sure how the film was shot, but it does seem as if non-speaking roles among the supporting cast were taken by extras who just happened to be strolling about town. Some bystanders even appear to be gawking at the camera. This gives "Certified Copy" the look of authenticity, for the viewer becomes a witness to the filmmaker's travelogue while also deeply caring for what happens between Elle and James (Juliette Binoche and William Shimell). I won't give away the end, but my sympathies went to Elle, a sweet single mom who is willing to invest her soul in a man she loves, while the object of her affection, James Miller, finds no one quite as interesting as himself, fascinated by his own wit and intelligence. At one critical point, he puts his arm on Elle's shoulder, and we hope that he is finally learning to open up his heart and share his emotions rather than secluding them within. But "Certified Copy" is never that easy. It is unpredictable and will keep you guessing. I liked this film quite a lot for its sensitive depiction of the vulnerability of love, but don't expect to see quick cuts, fancy camera work, or special effects. "Certified Copy" is a faithful observation of life itself.

wandereramor What's really remarkable about Certified Copy is not that it's great, but that it appears to be great effortlessly. The story plays out like an extended tangent, the kind of unexpected lingering that makes up a real courtship, driven by well-observed dialogue and a smoothness of direction that carries you along without making you realize how much time goes by. The entire film is basically a conversation between Shimell and Binoche, and the two actors prove themselves more than capable of carrying a dialogue across ninety minutes without it ever becoming tiresome.The twist, of course, is that there are two parts of the film: one in which Shimell and Binoche are newly-acquainted and obviously infatuated with each other, and another in which they're a married couple who can't forget the kind of grudges built up over a decade. Neither of the two stories are really satisfying in themselves: the new lovers are devoid of conflict, and their tour through the countryside could be mistaken for a very well-shot tourist video, and the married couple are all sturm un drang, conflict bordering on melodrama, about pretty standard-issue problems. Together they make something really unique. Certified Copy poses us the question not just of which one of these narratives is true (if either is), but which one we want to be true, and whether or not the distinction of truth even matters. Conceptual brain-twister plot lines like this are usually done in garish sci-fi spectacles like Inception or eXistenZ, but Kiorastami manages to do it without ever breaking the quiet art-house aesthetic.This is definitely not a movie for everyone, and won't be a blockbuster anytime soon. Its slow pace and lack of exposition may grate at even reasonably seasoned cinephiles, and this can't entirely be excused with the justification of art. But at the same time it's a truly unique movie with an interesting perspective and a lot of charm. Everyone should at least give this one a chance.