Boba_Fett1138 This is being a pretty good and different war movie but it does start loosing some of its power after a while, once the movie starts repeating itself, over and over again.I always enjoy watching movies, concerning history, which I don't know all that much about already. This is a movie centered around the Yom Kippur War and tells the movie entirely from the perspective of a rescue crew. This means that the movie itself isn't focusing on the fighting but more on its aftermath. This is an interesting approach for a war movie to take and of course also works effective as an anti-war movie.Well, mostly effective, since the movie does start to wear out after a while. It seems that there is only so much you could do with this concept, before you start repeating stuff. Half way through I was waiting for the movie to take a different turn or do something unexpected or original. It doesn't do any of this really, which did left me a bit disappointed, especially since I was quite liking the movie at first.It still remains a very well made movie. Visually there is very little wrong with this movie and it gives a pretty realistic and detailed view of a battlefield. Even though you'll hardly see any fighting in this movie, it does indeed feels like a true war movie, that obviously cost some bit of money to make.Also because of its subject and its approach, this still remains a good watch but it's just not as effective as it potential could and perhaps also should had been.7/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

ynhockey While I can appreciate the message that the director was trying to get through with this movie, while watching I was constantly reminded of how boring the movie was, and how I could be doing something better than watching it, for instance, watching fish in a tank.The camera work was bad, the story... what story? And the little character development that was there didn't make any impression on me at all.Being from Israel myself, I had very high hopes for this movie, but Gitai flat-out blew it.Back to the point of the movie - I believe it was trying to portray how war is terrible, especially for the common soldier. However, Gitai failed on all accounts: firstly, the viewer never feels sorry for the main characters, because they're never in danger and never lose anyone they really care about. Secondly, in his crusade to portray war as terrible, he completely destroys the image of the Israeli army. Thirdly, and this is probably the most important, the main characters (Russo and Weinrub) don't die, but return home safely. It's as if, right at the end, Gitai spit on his message, and decided to create a new one: nightmares happen, but eventually they're over and life returns to the way it used to be.Whatever you do, don't see this movie. Not only is it bad, but it's also plain boring. Movies are meant for entertainment, or for provoking thought, or both. This film provides neither.

kwhatever55 This is not a Hollywood film, and not an action film by any means. Its an art film, just look at the opening love making sequence. Two characters making love sopping in paint on Yom Kippur while everyone else takes part in religious activities. You dont get much more sac-religious than this. So we know this is not a propoganda film. Despite its boredom and such, when compared to other "anti-war" films like platoon and such, this is king. Why? Because there is nothing glorifying about it or the characters, its boring, there is not a single gunshot in the whole film. Rather we spend 2 hours following a medical rescue team in a chopper hauling dead and wounded bodies into a chopper. No heroic sacrifice, no barely dodging bullets and RPG's, no cool action sequences at all. Israel needs more films like this, to see the futility of fighting wars like this. The use of long shots puts us on the outside looking in on the film, and the use of long takes helps us observe these events in real time. Specifically with the stuck in the mud scene. THe one character ironically says "this earth, this sH^&*^" When the Israeli ideology is so focused on a spiritual connection with the land, the land they feel entitled to. Its about time that Anti-war films actually institute a feeling of real social change, and not pretend to be anti-war films conveying sacrifice and a "it was worth it" ideal. Real anti-war films do not just show the horror of blood and guts and death, they show the futility of it completely. And they are very difficult for the viewer to accept for the first time.

chimeira Kippur was a big disappointment for me, to see such an experienced director like Gitai come up with such a poor film like this. The opening scene -the boy running in the deserted streets during war time- was really very beautiful. The shot was very successful, with great direction talent. Then, after this scene, little waves of disappointment started to flow through me. Firstly in the scene where the boy and his girlfriend were making love in the paint, the music was so inappropriate and annoying and the scene took too long. Having seen the same guy in these first two scenes, I thought ''ok, he is the leading guy''. And in all movies, you feel the need to sympathize with a character in order to be able to get yourself in the movie. This is how you can feel for the people in the film, and how you can get into the director's head. Anyway. What I felt all through Kippur was not a sense of sympathy for any of the actors, but rather that the film was like a parade of people wandering around. No one was the leading character. One character comes up and says something important and you never see him again. One character begins telling a story in one scene, yet he does not continue with it in the rest of the movie and you try so hard to figure out where that should belong in the film as a whole. Dialogues were very poor. The sentimental side of the war was trying to be conveyed to the audience obviously, but the words used were so poor at describing soldiers' feelings. Most scenes were so unnecessarily long, long silences didn't carry any meaning, and editing was very bad %90 of the time. As for the ending, it was so plain and so poor. Not only could I not sympathize with a character, I also could not get that feeling of relief when the guy returned to her girlfriend and they started making love again. At the start they made love, in the middle he made war, and at the end, love again. This was not such a unique idea and especially when it's tried to be given in such unsuccessful and wrong ways, a great disappointment is caused for the audience. I had hoped to ''feel'', but I couldn't unfortunately. The film lacked that emotion and philosophy.Having seen an excellent movie like Thin Red Line, I cannot help but compare and contrast Kippur with that. The weakness of Kippur is highlighted then. I absolutely felt something during Thin Red Line -the war, the pain, the anguish, the lightness of death and all- especially in the final scene where the leading actor James Caviezel -there was a leading actor there- was floating free in the water and talking freely in his mind, I felt something in my throat, keeping me on the edge of crying. I felt him, I felt what the director meant, I felt the war, I felt the movie. Thin Red Line is an incomparably successful war film. I have seen Saving Private Ryan too, a beautiful film more showing the war zone and with great special effects, but Thin Red Line is the one in my all time favorites. Not everything that starts well goes well...