kimiarsh This movie might remain my favourite even if, by my own admission, I have not yet explored even the tip of the iceberg called 'Cinema'. Watching the movie was a cathartic experience for me because the thoughts that the protagonist goes through, I have also felt many a times, maybe not because of difficulties that one faces rather the sheer overwhelming nature of Life itself. The whole Nietzschean saying about being able to sleep many a night with the thoughts of suicide ring harrowingly true. The details in the movie are so flawless that it almost stings you. The conversations, the thought process, the scenery, all add to the tragic finale we all expect to see. But here, the Director surprises us. The end may disappoint us but it also makes us think 'Why'. And this is perhaps the most important question-answer that one can take from the movie. I have only watched it once but I don't think subsequent viewings will help much in telling me what the movie is about- Life, Death, Suicide, Choice or is it all a Mirage. Hope you 'enjoy' the movie and are able to find something meaningful.

zhuber13 After reading about Iranian culture and cinema I have to admit I was intrigued and pretty excited to see Taste of Cherry. However to be perfectly honest I found this film incredibly boring and tough to sit through, mainly because of the cinematic strategy used throughout. The film implements a lot of long static takes, most of which are in the same location, which elongates the time and space of this film to give it what I would describe as a real life pace. That combined with very little to no extreme time jumps makes it feel like we are simply watching a complete day of this man's life, which in terms of making this film feel real helps a lot, but making it entertaining, however, hinders it quite a bit. It seems obvious to me that the director, Abbas Kiarostami, wanted to draw importance to his messages by making the situation they're framed in as real feeling as possible, but when you sacrifice entertainment value to do so it's my belief that you're only preventing your message from getting across to the audience.The film has a pretty ambiguous ending; we as an audience are left to wonder whether or not Mr. Badii really killed himself followed by behind the scenes footage of Kiarostami and his crew making the movie. While it's my belief that he did kill himself, I can honestly say that at the end of the movie I couldn't have cared less either way. Kiarostami does little to nothing in terms of characterization to get us to sympathize with Mr. Badii, and the fact that we as an audience aren't made out to root for Mr. Badii as a character is what fuels my belief that he did indeed kill himself. It also keeps the audience from wanting to engage in any discussion over the material, which I'm sure is not what Kiarostami intended on. I assume the behind the scenes at the end was some sort of reminder from Kiarostami that we are indeed watching a movie (maybe as some sort of disclaimer?). However I agree with Roger Ebert in his review of the film when he said, and I'm paraphrasing, something along the lines of "we don't need to be reminded at the end that this is a movie because the slow and boring pace throughout is reminder enough." At the end of the day I understand what Kiarostami was going for and applaud him for trying to make his film feel as real as possible, but it's the lack of entertainment value that kept me from truly enjoying it, and after all we are in the entertainment industry.

Boba_Fett1138 Is there even such a thing as a bad Iranian movie? Seriously, I have seen a whole variety of movies from Iran by now, each from different decades as well but I have never seen one that I could call being anything beyond really good.And this movie is being a great one as well. It's great in all of its simplicity. It's a movie that is taking a humble and honest approach to its subject and doesn't ever goes overboard with anything. The story remains small and simplistic at all times and none of the emotions or story developments feel forced.It's also being a small and humble movie with all of its settings and characters. Most of the movie is set at the same location and it only features a handful of characters in it.The movie is being also especially great with its cinematography and storytelling. It rather not shows or tells you certain things, so that the movie almost constantly forces you to use you our mind to make things up and put certain things together. Sometimes the camera isn't even focusing on the person talking, or the person is off screen entirely. It's a special sort of approach that worked out just great for this particular movie.It's also being a quite interesting one with its themes. The movie focuses on a man that wants to commit suicide and is searching for a man to bury him, once the deed is done. This is however a movie set in an Islamic country, in which suicide is considered to be a mortal sin. This, amongst other things, provides the movie with some provocative moments and exchanges of dialog between the man and the different characters he meets on his search. And it luckily is not a movie that tries to have a moral in it or tries to teach you anything about life. It's instead being one that really allows you to make up your own mind about its subject and the themes it handles.Truly one great and provoking movie, that doesn't ever gets pretentious or overdoes certain things.8/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

jhall-4 I watched A Taste of Cherry when recently televised on Turner Classic Movies and felt that part of it was left out. The main character meets two men he asks for assistance with his suicide, both of whom refuse. Then there is a scene where he comes across a big piece of road construction or rock crushing equipment, where he parks his vehicle and sits for a while. A worker asks him to move his vehicle so the construction vehicle can perform it's work, and the man gets up, apparently to move the vehicle. The next moment shows the man in his car talking to someone, who is not seen for a few minutes, but is clearly the third man he picks up to help him with the suicide. But what I assume would be the first part of that sequence, where he meets the third man, is not shown. I wonder if TCM omitted that part, since otherwise the film moves in a perfectly linear fashion.