Kippur

As an Israeli's view of war, "Kippur" takes "Thin Red Line"s visual approach, with little plot or explication or context, from the sacred (Yom Kippur mis en scene) to the procreative beginning, to the wounds and exhausted faces of the soldiers.

This is a war where a soldier takes his used Fiat right up to the front and back again to his girlfriend's front door. Unlike "Tigerland" where the soldiers are young neophytes with taut basic training bodies, these are lean, lanky, long-haired chain-smoking, experienced reservists who pretty much pick and choose where they'll serve. Instead of the usual U.S. barking sergeant, this unit is based on long-term friendship, training, coordination, shared goals and consensus. Fodder for discussion on military management styles. And I can't think of another war movie where a guy named Weinraub is as sexy looking.

Even my husband, who is a devotee of the War Channel and thought it was way too arty (and amazingly this was from the same director who did the agit-prop anti-Orthodox domestic drama "Kadosh") found one long sequence with almost no dialog very effective, as the medics try to rescue the wounded in the mud.

The projectionist shut down the credits before it was finished.

(originally written 12/2/2000)

I disagree with most of the comments of the other commentors. This film is not a "History of Yom Kippur War" It is a very realistic attempt to see the war through a personal eyes of a Reserve Soldier suddenly called up and "Thrown" in to a War. It is 30 years since that war which is contraversial in Israel because we were caught by surprise by Egypt and Syria. On the other side within less than a month the Israeli army was 30 KM from Damascus and 100 KM from Cairo. I know people killed in that war and like other Israelis think "Kippur" shows the Trauma of that War, And any War. I have visited Egypt a number of times and Hope that, as Saadat said "The October War should be the Last War...". This is my "Apocalypse Now" movie but much more realistic.

This movie stunk. Scenes that go on and on without any life to it. The first ten minutes shows a couple making love, covered in paint on an art canvas. There is a man walking on an empty street and it goes on and on. Two lost soldiers are driving around for fifteen minutes trying to find their unit. Boring and dull. As for the biggest invasion in Israeli history, no one seems organized or even worried for that matter. The soldiers are not wearing combat helmets in a war zone and come across as dumb and dumber. As for the conversations, they are dull and listless, void of any emotion. Honestly, I found this whole movie unrealistic and totally boring. There isn't any type of character development and the viewer has no connection to any of the characters in the movie. I was hoping for a great film, but all I got was a snore bore. I give it a three only because of some effort from the main two characters. Don't waste your time on this junk.

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/

Those here who have bashed the film have grossly misunderstood Kippur. Either they look for a blow-blam-bang Holy-wood flick, which it isn't; or for a highly reliable reconstruction (which Save Private Ryan, extolled by some, is only in part: the first scene is almost like-it-really-was, the last scene is blow-blam-bang with Matt Damon and Tom Hanks instead of Chuck Norris and Steven Seagal). Kippur is a highly personal film, in that war is filtered through the very personal point of view of a sophisticated director. Amos Gitai is close to Antonioni; and in directing a war movie he couldn't forget the Lesson of the Master. Hence the minimal dialogue, hence the dilated times, hence the attention to the setting more than the characters. You try to watch Deserto rosso and then Kippur and you'll notice just how much they have in common. Then, if you don't like Antonioni, it's your own business, go for the blow-blam-bang stuff. However, as for action movies, I think Black Hawk Down is better than SPR. I may be wrong...