Watch Chicken with Plums For Free

the audience applauded

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Blistering performances.

From the creators of PERSEPOLIS comes the tale of a man who loses all hope and decides to die after his favorite violin is destroyed. That might sound odd, but of course it is a gross oversimplification of what goes on in CHICKEN WITH PLUMS. The central character, Nasser Ali (Matthieu Amalric), does indeed lose his precious violin, but its significance is revealed is multiple flashback sequences which give him background, motivation and depth. I don't really want to spoil anything, so I'll just say that the end result is rather poetic and touching. From a visual standpoint, it continues from the same place that PERSEPOLIS came from, while imbuing it with lots of color and fantastic elements. The film feels like a fairy tale at times, with a sense of whimsy and free-flowing creativity that flies in the face of rather depressing subject matter. Matthieu Amalric does a standup job as Nasser Ali, bringing a certain world-weariness to his character as well as youthful optimism in the flashback scenes. Ultimately, by the end of the film you understand why Nasser has chosen to just give up (although I don't condone suicide). Thematically, I think the film works on a couple of levels. First, there is the surface story which is about losing hope and one's raison d'etre. However, with a character named "Iran," I also think that there is a subtle political allegory as well. The film takes place in the 1950's and references are made visually and through dialogue to indicate that Marjane Satrapi is making commentary on this particular period of Iranian history. She also takes some potshots at America that I thought were slightly uncalled for, although no less funny in the context of the film. My only real issues with the film are that the supporting characters are mostly sidelined and/or underwritten, and the narrative structure lends itself to being a little episodic at times. That being said, though, I was quite pleased with the end result and emotionally invested the whole way. Overall, CHICKEN WITH PLUMS is a delightful cinematic confection from Marjane Satrapi about her native Iran. The subject matter is kind of depressing, but plenty of visual sugar (along with some emotional heft) helps the medicine go down smoothly.

I kept watching this film. Waiting for our hero to be redeemed . Much to my disappointment , that never happened . What a waste of film . a heroine , too weak for true love , and a hero who won't accept the love of his wife and children. I feel tainted having invested time in watching. Boo! I had hoped to find a story of romantic love ,not an excuse for crappy husbands and fathers ! I felt NO sympathy for out "hero". I wished for him ,more ill than befell him. A cowardly heroine , and a nasty , distant "hero"? Thank you, I'll pass. How Roger Ebert gave this a favorable review must have something to do with karmic debt , or some other misguided impulse, but I can't get on board. For anyone expecting a sweet, redemptive "Chocolat " type experience , look elsewhere. You won't find it here .

This is a quirky, interesting film. I found parts of it more interesting than others, and some really quite beautiful. The sense of humor takes some time to develop, but when it does, it's quite winning. Those who are expecting another *Persepolis* will be disappointed; it is really very different, quirkier, and more uneven. But it definitely rewards attentive viewing.One of the things I found interesting is that, unlike Persepolis, this movie really considers life from the perspective of a middle-aged man. Women here are either very objectified objects of sexual desire, or harpies. There are no intelligent women, such as one finds in *Persepolis.* That doesn't make the movie good or bad for me, but it was an interesting difference.

Before I saw the movie, its title inspired me to cook the dish "chicken which plums", which is surprisingly delicious. I saw the movie last night, and being a fan of Satrapi's comics and her movies, I had high expectations. Unfortunately I found the movie to be well made but so boring that I fell asleep after about one hour. The movie is set in Iran in the 1950ies, which apparently was identical to France of the same period in nostalgic movies, so they might have just placed it there. A famous violin player has an argument with his wife, who then smashes his instrument; without it, he feels that he is unable to continue to live. The movie then documents the last eight days in his life. Eight chapters ensue which inevitably lead to the death of our protagonist. I felt like having to watch eight magazines of a slide show of someone else's highly predictable holiday. Magazine one: the journey. Magazine two: setting up the tent. Magazine three: we go to the beach. Magazine four: diarrhea and sunburns. Magazine five: I have lost my will to live.Overall the movie felt like the visual style of Amélie Poulain but without the great story or the humour (or the great lead actress). It's set in postwar Iran but doesn't tell me anything about that place or period. The retrospectives to the protagonists younger days only add confusion but don't make the story more interesting. The movie trades in a slight surrealism and nostalgia for the great and engaging storytelling that is usually Marjane Satrapi's hallmark.