Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) "Die Reise nach Kafiristan" is a German-language film from 2001, so this one had its 15th anniversary last year already. It was written and directed by the Dubini Brothers from Switzerland and it is maybe their most known work. This may have to do with the time when the film is set or the real people references, but also a main reason could be that some people mistake the Barbara Marx credited as a writer here for the very famous recently deceased American show girl of the same name. Anyway, this 100-minute film is about two women traveling through Iran for very different reasons, personal and professional, and they decide to travel together to make things easier for both of them. The film is set during the 1930s and that time and area certainly weren't very suitable for women back then. Then again, is it anymore suitable today? The two protagonists and their endeavors existed in real life too, which makes the film slightly more interesting, not too much though. I honestly think lead actress Hain is/was stunningly beautiful, but never a really gifted actress. As for Petry, I don't think I have seen her in enough roles to make a definite statement. But in here she is equally forgettable as Hain. This is a major problem because the two characters are supposed to have a love affair, but the actresses had very little chemistry with each other. They are also the only known names in terms of the cast. Even gigantic German film buffs like myself will probably not recognize any other names/faces. This is one reason why the supporting characters / side plot also did not add any spice to the film. Oh yeah and if they really love each other as they want us to believe (not really historically proved either), then the ending is also not really making sense. Real love trumps personal goals and missions, also during a time when homosexuality was frowned upon. The filmmakers' attempt near the very end to add important historical context to the film (the radio report) felt rushed and for the sake of it. Not very much about this film is working to be honest, the only aspect I somewhat enjoyed are the beautiful sceneries and cinematography. Obviously far from enough for over 1.5 hours. Watch something else instead.

shashemi14 All I can say is, before watching the movie I did not have a hint indication who Annemarie Schwarzenbach was or what was her life story..and I have to confess that the movie was hardly a help to reach these data.. and even it was not successful to persuade me to do some research by typing few words on google website; however, all I can say is that the actress Jeanette Hain was great with her mute facial expression she really played well and showed a deep depression mental status, as it is in real.After all , based on the script the movie has happened in turkey and Tehran as well as Afghanistan.. but believe me I am familiar with the area , it was all about an Arabic desert in morocco.. Turkish people and persian people are completely different in face and culture as well as in language which is not arabic..I suppose for making a film like this- documentary type- a thorough research about all these minor elements is mandatory..

dirkjot I quite liked this movie. From what I read before seeing it, I expected more beautiful scenery. But the Dubinis clearly wanted to show us a psychological journey more than a physical one, so the camera glides over the most picture-perfect hills, ruins etc, only to swiftly return to our actresses. And this, I think, is good: The film could have become a National Geographic style documentary and that would have left the interesting topic of what moves these two very different characters, who are doing something much out of the ordinary in the 1940s.Rather then spell things out for you, the directors choose to hint at feelings, to leave dialogs uncompleted and to move on at the point where you would expect a conclusion to be reached. There are pros and cons to that: There is no preferred interpretation and the actresses can use expressions and body language to suggest much more than could have been put into words (and Jeanette Hain is very good at that). But the film seems to move slowly because nothing unexpected can happen this way and in the end, it all was a bit *too* subtle for me.This said, there are plenty of very moving scenes. Especially the flirtatious side of Annemarie gets well depicted (the dance at the ambassador's house) and at the same time it stays constrained and half-hidden, as you would expect for a woman in that period of time.The real dramatic moment of the film comes near the end, when the women have to part their ways. Even then, things are very quiet and stilted. Is this a flaw of the Dubinis' film or did they want to show an era in which you didn't discuss your most intimate feelings with others? I really do not know the answer, I think the film could have improved from a little more ``say what you mean and say it mean''. But it still ranks as a good 8 on my scale.

Luuk-2 This film is probably not to everyone's taste. Yes, it is slow, yes, the plot is paper thin, but ... it is a film to day-dream about, it transports the willing viewer to far-away lands on a wonderful journey made by two women on the eve of WWII. The exteriors provide a nice backdrop to the inevitable journeys of self-discovery of the two protagonists. The fact that the tension between tends to stay below the surface is never fully expressed only adds rather than distracts from the interest. In fact, I would say the subtle way in which possible storylines are suggested rather than made explicit only enhances the movie, and this is reinforced by its lack of closure. Strongly recommended.