Through the Olive Trees (1994)

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

This film is a masterpiece, and can easily be seen and understood without the two previous films.It revolves around a scene in which Hussein, a very low-class, insecure person, has to play the groom of Taheren, the girl whom he loves in real life. The fictive scene in which they are married, and Hussein's dreams and hopes of marrying her, mesh together and develop as the film goes on. It's all very moving, sensitive, even mesmerizing.There is a constant reference to something or someone 'behind the trees,' perhaps a pointer at something beyond the film's scope and ability of description. In the end, the stubborn and proud Taheren also disappears behind the trees, and Hussein is left standing alone.A very sensitive and moving film. Hussein's character, always dreaming and fantasizing about things that cannot be, is touching and endearing. The issue of fiction vs. reality, imagination vs. real life, is dealt with great wisdom and subtlety. One of Kiarostami's best.

Following a film he made a few years backs, a director returns to the area where it was shot to try and find the actors who he used. The area has been hit by a large earthquake and the film is designed to help the area as well as follow up on the people. Among the cast is a young man, Hossein, who has fallen for one of the other actors and seeks to marry her – but her grandmother refuses to consider any such offer; ironic perhaps, considering Hossein's character in the film is married to the very girl he loves in real life.While making the sequel (or follow up) to "Where is the friend's house?" Abbas Kiarostami met a man who told him that he was married 5 days after the devastating earthquake (50,000 dead) that is the foundation for that film. A few years later Kiarostami decided to use this man and his story as the basis for this rather intriguing film within a film. The dual plots are interesting and work well in contrast to one another to fill out a plot that is not the easiest to get excited about or really engaged by. In this regard many viewers may feel bored or distant from the material as it doesn't quite build a story that well. The "film within a film" concept is interesting but it produces many scenes that are replayed over and over (different takes) without the repeats adding a great deal – in fact they seem to take away from the rhythm of the film more than give to it. As with other Kiarostami films, it is slow and requires work, but even if you are willing to put yourself into it, it is still not easy work.The characters and place are interesting and it does feel like these are over and above the material itself. The film will be of greater interest to those who have seen the other films in the trilogy as the places and people have history to them, but they are still well enough done to avoid it being key to the film. The cast do pretty well throughout; Rezai steals the show with a good performance; Ladanian is totally absent and her performance will be hard (was hard!) for a Western audience to appreciate. Keshavarz does pretty well in the role of the director.Overall this is not a film to come to unless you have seen at least one of the other two films (ideally both. It is watchable without this knowledge but even with it, it is hard work at times. The narrative is slow and not that important apparently and, although the characters and places are interesting, I did struggle to really get emotionally involved in the film. Interesting enough to be worth a look but don't expect too much from it.

I fail to understand the praise that this film has received. The locations, the scenery, and the people are very interesting, and I suppose one should be grateful to be afforded a glimpse of a great and ancient nation. Most meaningful for me were the simple sequences in which non-actors spoke seemingly unscripted or improvised dialogue. But from a cinematic standpoint, I found sitting through this to be a numbing experience, a chore. And from a country with some of the most beautiful music on earth, the director could not even put a little bit of music in this film.

This is the art movie in its essence. Every single minute of this movie is complexly detailed. It was considered by the critics a masterpiece but it could not be nominated for the Academy Awards in the 'Foreign Language Category' because of political problems between Iran and USA at the time (but in 99 'Children of Heaven' was nominated).It was written by Abbas Kiarostama, who also wrote 'The White Balloon' (another great film) and 'Taste of Cherry' (not so good, although it won the Cannes Palm D'or).This is a must see for any fan of artfilms. Simply fantastic, amazing and everything else, this movie is a 'sea of creativity'.