Fièvre méditerranéenne

First half of the movie was such a big promise that it made the disappointment of the second half to be more damaging.

It started relaxed but natural, inviting, convincing and relatable.

The second half of the movie was the easiest possible path and the ending was supposed to be a surprise, but since the whole second half was spiraling down, it gave a "whatever" impression. Uninspired and unimaginative, almost cliche solution to the story. And it seems that the writer forgot about his son and geography later on, as if it was never part of the story.

Also, I don't know who decided that this is a "comedy drama", since it has only two or three vaguely funny moments. It also gets more serious and dark as it goes and raise the issues which can be triggering to viewers. It's very reckless, inconsiderable and misleading to put comedy as a genre for this movie. When you write "comedy drama" people expect relatively light approach with a few serious notes/hints, not the other way around, because if it's the other way around it suffices to call it just drama. It's like tricking people into watching possibly triggering moments.

Saw this at the Rotterdam filmfestival (IFFR) 2023. It starts with a promising setup and plot. Interesting, unexpected developments in the odd friendship between two very different neighbors, all of that interwoven in the infamous Palestinian situation, with well-known intricacies that pop up some of the time without being pedantic or preacherly, just coming up at the right moment in the story as a useful ornament.

This is not a political pamphlet. It is merely using the current political situation as starting point for an interesting plot. Living in The Netherlands and thus a far-away outsider, I certainly missed a lot of clues that are self-evident for people living there. For example, I'm sure the type of loud music that the new neighbor played a few times, is intentional and probably means something. On the other hand, the geography teacher and his very specific opinion about capital cities, is perfectly understandable, even for us Europeans living elsewhere, as such issues appear repeatedly in our newspapers.

The final Q&A did not enlighten much. Several answers were evasive, mostly coming down to: "I can talk for hours about possible interpretations, but my job is done now". Or "the film is ready, and you have to think of your own interpretations". Or a combination thereof.

All in all, surprising movie with surprising developments, but not more. I scored a 4 (good) out of 5 for the audience award after the screening.