To speak of "bare-bones" cinema is too reductive. This is cinema sans bones, a cinema of the flesh. Stripped of all the elements that should hold a film together, it nonetheless breathes, feels, and dances. It surges with a subtle vitality at the possibilities of life, even of a life lived in quiet transience. In a way this is one of Kiarostami's most experimental features yet, and consequently one of his most vital.
A seemingly empty film, that functions almost solely on suggestions. This abstract way of storytelling, combined with the abrupt beginning and ending, lends the viewer the impression of being an outside observer who is unable to properly judge the characters or their actions. But that is the beauty of this and many Kiarostami films. We have no choice but to respect them as human and allow them to keep their secrets.
Not saying that they couldn't be a couple (bcuz of devilish society or whatever), but that disliking the same things and persons is a poor basis for attraction bcuz tastes aren't truth-bearing statements and it is difficult to find strict opposites to animus-triggering issues. If green isn't my color, do I like ochre or vermilion? I don't overanalyze, I've been there: we allied against common foes, but our Apollonian
Maybe the peak of Kiarostami's recurring themes. Perception, Identity, patriarchy, and cars as a public place for private matters. It's feels almost claustrophobic at times.
Throughout the film the outside world is always trying to penetrate the frame and in the end it finally does. 5/5
A film about identity as merely a social construct. The true nature of the main characters' relationship isn't allowed to bloom because, both as spectators and as members of society, we intrude on it with our own expectations and biases. Kiarostami once again proves how he can use restraint as a means to artistic flourish.