I cannot help but wonder why's this considered a good movie? I also wonder, did Siddiq Barmak at that time even know what a real movie is supposed to be?
Let's not get sidetracked into the "true story" aspect, please. Yes, the situation there was outrageous, all those destroyed lives due to religious fanaticism etc. Living in the enlightened Europe during the Internet age, I already knew all this, so while touching, I cannot say the images truly surprised or shocked me.
Thus, while waiting for the story to crawl along, I couldn't help but be annoyed by the obvious flaws. Bland plot (to the point of non-existence), no interesting characters (except for Espandi, who at least managed to look alive during his screen time), poor pacing and uninspired scenery - they all point in a single direction. Writer, director and editor Siddiq Barmak just didn't have anything personal to say. And thus stands my question: why waste 80 minutes, if the story could as well be told in five?
Let's not get sidetracked into the "true story" aspect, please. Yes, the situation there was outrageous, all those destroyed lives due to religious fanaticism etc. Living in the enlightened Europe during the Internet age, I already knew all this, so while touching, I cannot say the images truly surprised or shocked me.
Thus, while waiting for the story to crawl along, I couldn't help but be annoyed by the obvious flaws. Bland plot (to the point of non-existence), no interesting characters (except for Espandi, who at least managed to look alive during his screen time), poor pacing and uninspired scenery - they all point in a single direction. Writer, director and editor Siddiq Barmak just didn't have anything personal to say. And thus stands my question: why waste 80 minutes, if the story could as well be told in five?