Ehsan_Alikhani

The casting is weak.

There are excessive pauses between dialogues, giving the impression of a dramatic reading rather than a cinematic experience.

The sound design is extremely irritating-for example, the singing of Hajji Firouz or the noise from fireworks.

The beginning of the series is confusing. It's unclear where we are in the story or where it's supposed to go.

The dialogue scene with the drunk Irish photographer was a turning point that completely discouraged me from continuing the series.

It's unfortunate-this could have been a good story with a strong concept, but as a series, it simply doesn't work.

In the early years following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Saddam Hussein violated the treaty signed with the previous Iranian government and launched an invasion, driven by a desire to access open waters. The Iranian people have historically demonstrated that when facing foreign aggression, they set aside internal disagreements and unite to defend their homeland.

However, the film portrays the war as a concern exclusive to hardline conservatives, implying that intellectuals, such as university students, are detached from that reality. At one point, a student who has returned from the front line sets himself on fire in the middle of class, claiming he was deceived.

But deceived by what? He went to war to defend his country against an aggressor-an Iraq that initiated the conflict. Where is the deception in that?

The film also shows women being flogged for having romantic or sexual relations with men. In reality, no woman is flogged merely for not being a virgin or for being in a gathering with men. Such punishments, when they occur, require legal evidence and a judge's order.

I was born and raised during the early years of the Revolution. I witnessed the limitations and have, on occasion, even been assaulted by religious hardliners. I lived that reality. I know that era of Iranian society. So I consider myself qualified to reject this film's portrayal.

The film is highly exaggerated. It portrays women as the primary victims, whereas in truth, restrictions applied to both men and women alike. The depiction of religious extremism on campus, forced confessions, and fabricated punishments is misleading and overstated.

In one scene, a woman nostalgically remembers a time when shops were open, contrasting it with a present where cafes and bookstores are shuttered, presenting the country as desolate and dark. This is simply false. Even during the war-and especially after-it's well known that the development and growth which had begun during the Pahlavi era continued and still does.

This film is no different from the biased Instagram or YouTube videos where a content creator, driven by a specific agenda, tries to paint Iran in an unfairly negative light and portray it as backward.

For many years, Iranian-made historical series were into two categories: they either narrate the religious stories of Arabia and Iraq or, if they are about Iranian history, they focus on dark depictions, portraying governments as oppressive and the people as living in misery and despair. This has amplified the sense of identity loss in a nation, pushing them towards watching foreign series like "The Magnificent Century".

But this series is exactly what caught my attention after years, made me stop watching foreign films and series, and fully immerse myself in it. This series quenches a nation's thirst for authenticity and historical identity. It provides us with a fairer and less biased portrayal of Iranian history-a past that is not so distant and has significantly influenced the current fate of our country. It teaches us not to see everything in black or white; a king can be a gray character, a high-ranking official could be concerned with the rights of the people, the dignity of the nation, and the safety of foreign travelers. This series showcases another side of Iran during those years: economic prosperity, international stature, and societal flourishing. (Just before the interventions of European colonialists in Iran began.)

Though there are flaws in the details. For instance, some actors have had cosmetic surgeries (like Ash Mehrabi); some actors' accents are modern (such as the prison guard in episode seven); or there are issues in set design (like the stagnant and murky water in episode five). However, overall, the depiction of that era is well-executed, and in its own way, it is the first of its kind. The use of computer graphics has made it more captivating and realistic. The makeup is well-done, the costume design is appealing, women are depicted more realistically and without heavy censorship, and the city and market designs are engaging. Even a non-Iranian viewer would be tempted to follow the story of this series (if it has proper English subtitles). And most importantly, the story is patriotic and emotionally moving-a grand narrative that includes smaller subplots, making the viewer curious and engaged.

The story features heroes (which is the most important element): a people's hero, a government hero. Adventure, teenage romance, action, fear, comedy, mystery, human kindness, law, references to famous historical religious figures, and nationalism are well-integrated into the plot.

Iranian history and literature are filled with tales of heroes that, if portrayed correctly, not only resonate with Iranian viewers but also captivate foreign audiences.

If I were to rate this series by today's standards, it would score between 6 and 7. However, considering the available resources and comparable series, I would give it a score of 9.