Kippur

This movie is a little jerky and hard to follow sometimes, but tells a good story. If you are a veteran, you’ll get it in a lot of ways, especially the difficult moments. And if you like Centurion tanks, you’ll see a bunch of them.

Those who dislike this film lack sophistication. A lot of viewers dislike this film. In this case, one's liking or disliking this film has nothing to do with relative taste. It's hard to find a better war movie than this one. Kippur is a great war film -- period. War movies as a genera are perhaps my most favorite. This is no Saving Private Ryan; no Fury; no The Pacific; no Band of Brothers and no Bridge Too Far. This is a foreign, war film not an American war film. Kippur demands a lot of its viewer. A viewer has to apply a story to the manifested action if a story is necessary. So what if there is hardly a discernible plot. If there is very little to this plot, well, that is the point. Action of the film occurs within a small span of real time, a couple of days. In real life is there a discernible plot to events within a duration of a few days? Most of this film's cinematic shots are very, very long in which no dialogue is heard. For example, in one scene what is seen is a face of a character, seated in a helicopter, the cinematic frame -- a mid-range-shot. The camera is fixed on him. He looks ponderously at landscape from a window of a helicopter in flight. At his time a viewer must put thoughts to the character, or not put thoughts to him -- maybe just wonder what he is thinking about. Most anyone in those same circumstance would silently look out a window. Most often on the ground the character with his comrades scramble hurriedly from place to place to retrieve wounded and get them in a helicopter. This film has its own sense of cinematic style. A documentary sense is brought to mind. The style of this film is what I call realistic-naturalism. Realistic action shows how anyone would naturally respond under those same conditions in which the characters find themselves.

It took me awhile to process this film. As with a number of Israeli films on war and conflict it is autobiographical. It is not sanitised. It leaves ugly questions twisting in your guts. But like film when it is powerful, images come back and sit in the memory, prompting questions. It does not attempt to explain Israel or occupation but it tells well the stories of men going into war. The human cost is evident. The lack of cohesion as violence disintegrates into engagement; strategy is not evident in battles which seem almost random, even isolated and chaotic, shambolic. But at the core is the medical team and their efforts to get wounded soldiers out of war zones and save lives by risking their own. It is evident as the film progresses that trauma is something that comes after, that in this exercise there is no time to reflect. It is reactive to events outside of the control of the protagonists. And this is this film's strength. This film becomes many years later the reflection on part of the Yom Kippur War. It is a meditation on the role of soldiery; powerful for its stark portrayal of the events experienced and witnessed. Highly recommended but not easy to watch.

though I admire many of Gitai's films and though this film has many positive qualities, such as being an eye witness to the realities of war, its brutal ugliness-- in the first war that israel neither started nor almost lost....Gitai has captured the immediacy and urgency of isaeli combatants who occupy the Syrian Golan Heights during this 1973 period, which is depicted as an attempt to defend 'their' land. Nevertheless, Gitai has made other films that deserve recognition.

This is one of those movies that you have to watch with your heart. It is an emotional and impressionistic interpretation of the Yom Kippur war. If you are looking for more of a documentary and/or educational type film, you will no doubt like so many others who have given negative reviews, find this film disappointing. I found the film exciting and moving. The film is designed to bring you into the action where you can share the struggle to survive with the soldiers. From that point, you can experience their exasperation and devotion to winning that war. Great film!

Not what I expected. No fighting action, only after-fighting injuries with no conclusion on their care or survival. The plot needed more historical relevance, involvement with what was going on in the war off camera. After getting some identification with the main characters, there was no conclusion with the experience. It's sort of an answer to the question "What did you do in the Yom Kippur war Daddy?" Answer: "I got separated from my unit due to traffic and went with my friend and a doctor in a helicopter to pick up wounded guys on the Golan Heights and take them to the hospital."

I forced my self to watch this film for 35 minutes. That was 33 minutes to long. They portray the Israel has unorganized, bumbling, stumbling fools that by all right should of lost the Yom Kipper war. The idea for the film/story was a good choice but the actors, writers even the back ground scenes were so poor because I guess the producer felt that was not necessary or just plain not important enough. How the movie won the awards it has won is a great mystery when there was no rhythm or any sort of reason.

How is it possible to make a war movie boring? especially one about as dramatic of an event as the 1973 October War? well these folks managed to do it. After what seemed like a promising start showing a very huiman element and realistic experience - traffic jams etc - it never built up or got unstuck from that sense of smallness and triviality. It was a disappointing movie and I had difficulty finishing it.

I wasn't sure what to expect of this film, going by some of the reviews I'd read. However, its strength lies in providing an insight into what (for non-combatants like me) real war is probably like - frantic activity with no time to think coupled with periods of no activity with too much time to think. From my reading on the Yom Kippur War, it accurately portrays the confusion that was prevalent at the time, with people joining up to any brigade they could find, and the ghastliness of what soldiers have to face on the battlefield. At one point in the film, the medics are treating a wounded man using bandages which have become almost completely soaked in mud - no time or facilities to think too much about hygiene - just get the wounded off the battleground. The film also shows how quickly a reasonably safe situation in war can change - there is a scene where the hero and his companions are travelling back to base; the countryside they are flying over is quiet and, at one point, rather beautiful - an almost serene moment before fate steps in.As to the sex scenes at the beginning/end of the film, I don't really think they add anything to the story but perhaps they are a metaphor for how life makes its mark on us - the contrast of the protagonist and his girlfriend daubing themselves with harmless paint at a pleasurable juncture as opposed to the battle scenes where the main characters find themselves slathered in mud, sweat and blood (their own and others') in a situation where they may have to give up their lives at any moment.

Incrdibly moving film. I served in Levanon during Operation Peace for Gallilee , and that was crazy. At least then WE were ready for the war. Kippur is a sensitive and accurate portrayal of what happens when politicians do not listen to their Generals or Security Services.Even for non Hebrew speakers, it would be a great film.

A great film made by a great film director.

average

If excitement's your bag, then better forget this film - it's going to be too meditative for you. However KIPPUR is a staggeringly good film. Instead of trying to seduce the audience with flimsy narrative the director seems to have put all of his energy into evoking the dark, harrowing textures of war - fear, pain, vulnerability, exhaustion, desperation and the utter indifference that events have towards the individual - events don't have feelings.