Reviews & Ratings for
Five Dedicated to Ozu More at IMDbPro »

27 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
Contemplation, 12 December 2004
Author: (sprengerguido@hotmail.com) from Taipei

SPOILER ALERT! Nah, just kiddin'... There's no plot here anyway. Well, I seriously think the world would be better if there were more films that show nothing but landscape. Of course you need some formal twist or concept to turn it into art. And Kiarostami does this: Even in this film, with its five long takes and no dialogue, he manages to address some of his central concerns: What is "real" and what is "directed"? Where does the director come in? So each shot makes artistic decisions - like to fix the camera on a small piece of wood that broke off of the larger piece of driftwood, until the letter moves outside the frame. Or the seaside avenue: As soon as the four old men gather, no other passersby appear, although there have been many before - was that arranged by the director? The take with the dogs fades out into white very very slowly... Then: Ducks. Many ducks! Walking to and fro. This is comedy! Ducks are funny beasts, anyway. And their footsteps are dubbed: As Tati once remarked, legwork is the clue to good comedy. Then, Kiarostami cheats in the last shot: This is edited. True, the moon on the water is wonderful, and Kiarostami is right in showing it for half an hour. But there is also a rainstorm, and in the end, after a cock's call, it becomes light in undue haste - everybody who ever spent a night outdoors knows it's not that neat. But well... It's still wonderful. Only the Betacam quality of the images is a bit off-putting; HD would have been more effective.

12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
charming, 13 April 2007

Author: HoraLucia from Romania

I found it charming! Nobody else but Kiarostami can do so little and, yet, get so much. You might think I'm weird, but I was so charmed that I couldn't speak during the movie. While during other movies I comment a lot. The short movie made by him for Lumiere et Companie, the one with the eggs, that one is unbeatable in my heart, but this is wonderful, too. I liked it better than Ten. Kiarostami is, maybe, the best director in my opinion, because he can see things! He doesn't need to use a lot of stuff "brought from home" to illustrate his images, he simply grabs a camera. Not many can do that.. Maybe I don't know to much about movies but I don't care about complicate stuff, all someone has to do is touch my soul. Kiarostami does.

8 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
the worst Iranian film I have ever seen, 1 April 2005

Author: pinkpab from Montevideo, Uruguay

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, I generally like Iranian movies, and after having seen "10" by Kiarostami the night before, I was expecting a great movie. I was very disappointed. This is by far, the worst Iranian film, and one of the most boring Asian movies I have ever seen. If you have never seen a Kiarostami movie before, watch "Ten" instead. If you want some good Iranian movies, you may also try "Sib", aka "The Apple". This movie is divided in 5 parts, and only the fourth, featuring some funny ducks, is worth watching. If this is the first Iranian movie you see, you probably won't want to see any more. I don't blame you, but you will miss some great movies.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Boring like hell, 17 June 2011

Author: svaksp from India

Don't know why Mr.Abbas Kiarostami directed such a boring movie. It gave me the impression that anyone with some camera and tripod can make a movie if one can accept this as movie. Total disappointment, from the director of 'Where is my friend's house'. This movie don't deserve any ratings. And who is this 'Ozu' anyway ? Nowhere there is any clear mentioning of this character either. These kind of movies shouldn't be made for public view. My expectations of another marvelous movie went thin after watching this piece. I wonder how the Iranian censor board accepted this movie !! Felt sad wasting my time watching this. Please don't waste time on this movie. its a disaster.

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
A tribute to Ozu???, 9 August 2010

Author: jbright-4 from United Arab Emirates

No-one so far has tackled the awkward question: what has this to do with Ozu? By using the great man's name in his title, this director has invoked certain expectations which he comes nowhere near to fulfilling. Where is Ozu's social commentary, his humour? Ozu was strongly motivated by telling stories: about post-war Japan; about troubled youth; about generational change. Kiarostami in his own words has said that he doesn't believe in narrative cinema. Let's move on. How can leaving scene composition to luck compare to the strictly composited (one might even say 'Japanese') cinematography of Ozu? Experimental, yes, creative in any true sense, no.

Ozu used fixed camera positions and arranged his actors deliberately and aesthetically, also he invented a tatami-level eye view, intensely personal. Kiarostami has employed static cameras for his audio/visual experiments (without being overly inventive). There the similarity ends. Hardly worthy to be called a tribute, a bit of coattail riding perhaps?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Make up your own narrative, 7 April 2010

Author: Ash512 from Quebec, Canada

Five is by far Kiarostami's most perfected film. His art has reached a level of maturity that very few directors can ever dream of reaching. This is what minimalism really is : saying nothing yet expressing everything.

In a nutshell, Five is an experience for the sight. There is a strong narrative in every shots. Suspense is created from these Deleuzian pure optical/aural situations, you watch every wave hit the shore and suddenly your mind awakes. All of the elements of narrative films is right there, albeit being in their most absolute minimal form : suspense, tension, relief.

Five, unlike Hollywood films, works only if the viewer submits himself entirely to the experience. It takes cinema back to its very beginning : unipunctual "views", like Lumière films. One might argued that it's a film about cinema in many ways.

Five is actually a very entertaining film, as long as you walk in open minded and keep your brain active. Food for thoughts.

11 out of 23 people found the following review useful:
Too much minimalism! or..., 18 January 2005
Author: Nima Behnoud from nimabehnoud@yahoo.com

No story-line which is OK, no Plot which is OK, no dialog which is again OK - NO concept! which is NOT auk. Many people have argued that this film has therapeutic and meditative qualities rather than entertaining! Really? would you like to sit in the theater chair with 200 other people around you and try meditate? There are five long shots of Beach, Ducks, Moon, blank screen and each stay for about 10-20 minutes with some background sounds. It's dedicated to Ozu and I think it's similar to Ozu's work as far as LOOK but definitely not similar as far as concept and storyline. I happen to love kiarostami's Taste of cherry, and slowly starting to wonder if he is being maybe alittle pretentious about certain things! Maybe!

6 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
If your patience needs stretching, this film will do it, 30 September 2007

Author: rasecz from United States

Coming from Kiarostami, this art-house visual and sound exposition is a surprise. For a director known for his narratives and keen observation of humans, especially children, this excursion into minimalist cinematography begs for questions: Why did he do it? Was it to keep him busy during a vacation at the shore?

"Five, 5 Long Takes" consists of, you guessed it, five long takes. They are (the title names are my own and the times approximate):

"Driftwood and waves". The camera stands nearly still looking at a small piece of driftwood as it gets moved around by small waves splashing on a beach. Ten minutes.

"Watching people on the boardwalk". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon and a boardwalk. People walk across the camera frame, their faces too far and blurry to make them interesting. Eleven minutes.

"Six dogs at the water's edge". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon with a sandy stretch of beach nearby. Far away at the water's edge, six dogs not doing much, just relaxing. Sixteen minutes.

"Ducks in line, gaggle of ducks". The camera stands still looking at the ocean horizon near the water's edge. Dozen and dozen of ducks stream in single file from left to right. I assume that Kiarostami released them gradually. The last two ducks stop dead on their track and suddenly a gaggle of ducks rolls quietly from right to left. I assume Kiarostami collected the ducks and re-released all at the same time. It is not the first time that he deals with the contrast between organized and disorganized behavior. Eight minutes.

"Frog symphony, oops, I mean cacophony, for a stormy night". The camera stands over a pond at night. It's pitch black except for what appears to be the reflection of the moon on the undulating water. It is a stormy night and clouds race to cover the moon. The screen goes dark. What remains for us is the cacophony of frogs, howling dogs and, eventually, morning roosters. Hit me on the head if this was done in a single take. I saw this segment as a sound composition put together in the editing room and accompanied by a simple visualization. Twenty seven minutes!

Except for the mildly amusing ducks, this exercise in minimalism left me cold. A nonessential film for Kiarostami admirers.

I thought I would rate "Five" a five, but four is what it deserves.

The film is dedicated to Yasujiru Ozu.

8 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
Who can consider that as an experiment?, 29 November 2006

Author: maurazos from Varna, Bulgaria

Can this "film" be considered as a film? Imagine the situation: somebody puts a handy cam over a tripod and in front of a sea promenade and film people walking or jogging along it. Then, he places the camera in a beach, buys some ducks in a pet shop, open their cages and let them run in front of the camera. Later, he just films the water surface and the sound of birds and insects in an absolute darkness. Is it an experiment or just an insult to the audience intelligence? What would it happen if any unknown director did a film like that? Would we mark his job with 10? I always disappoint directors who believe that can do everything they want once they became famous.

Add another review

Related Links