aysar_s what is number zero in the movie. they mentioned to the numbers 1 2 3, then the number 0. i think that the number zero which is nothing can convert everything to nothing, also makes the numbers have enormous values.. the number zero is: the workers all about the world and all among the societies.the cleaners in the movie are the number zero, the king of emptiness but also the king of everything. maybe that referes to a communism idea or at least social one. in other word that referes to the divine power of the workers. i loved that movie it is easy to understand and can touch the heart tenderly. i recommend it to those who love the drama and people.

Danusha_Goska Save Send Delete 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.

dreammaniac I very much looked up forward to watching this movie. As soon as I could, I did. It was an interesting experience. I like the texts, I like the fact that they are in Iambic Pentameter, and even if sometimes it sounds a bit cheesy or pretentious in a bad way, most of the time it is handled very well and when it is good it is best, much more better than worse. He. Nonetheless, the movie is not perfect at all I feel. Even though the cinematography is cool, I think the production design could have been more lavish - there obviously wasn't much money to use up, in a project like this. Iambic Pentameter? Divided world and racial issues openly discussed? Risky project, yeah, but like all the good ones. It isn't politically correct (which is good for me), but maybe that expression is dead by now in the real world. I admire it for it's many ambitions and how also many of them are accomplished, because it is honest and brave and it got done in a good way. Nonetheless, I had artistic problems. First yeah, it was sparse, second the editing and music selection - I don't know if I like. What is Gustavo Santaolalla's charango music doing there? Doesn't fit in my ears. But it's me. And the editing - those transitions... just didn't feel good to me either.Apart from that, a very worthy movie to see, not majestic or really profoundly dramatic but certainly daring and true to it's view.And Simon Abkarian is BRILLIANT. Just watch him cry in the parking lot scene. (Everyone else is solid too). Certainly the film deserves a view - the deepest of themes, no, but thoughtful and nice in the end. The aunts monologue is also of worthy praise.I couldn't help thinking how it could be done quite well as a theater piece? Check it out, it's worth it.

jysidoro2000 This PIECE OF CRAP IS HORRIBLE. I was screaming at the rhyming verses. It sounded like Dr. Seuss Doing Shakespeare.Who does she think she is rhyming her script like it were a 100 minute song. Don't try to do Shakespeare. The writer sounds desperate. Who does she think she is, a poet???? The lines are so hokey and cheesy. I wanted to throw the DVD out the window. What a waste of my time. Id rather see a remake of Green eggs and ham done in farsi than suffer through another second of this crap again. It could have been a good plot but for gods sake stop the rhymed verses. this isn't the 1500's and this isn't opera. If your gonna make me suffer through this movie, at least let there be some hot naked chicks. That might give the move more credibility