"Die Reise nach Kafiristan" is a German-language film from 2001, so this one had its 15th anniversary last year already. It was written and directed by the Dubini Brothers from Switzerland and it is maybe their most known work. This may have to do with the time when the film is set or the real people references, but also a main reason could be that some people mistake the Barbara Marx credited as a writer here for the very famous recently deceased American show girl of the same name. Anyway, this 100-minute film is about two women traveling through Iran for very different reasons, personal and professional, and they decide to travel together to make things easier for both of them. The film is set during the 1930s and that time and area certainly weren't very suitable for women back then. Then again, is it anymore suitable today? The two protagonists and their endeavors existed in real life too, which makes the film slightly more interesting, not too much though. I honestly think lead actress Hain is/was stunningly beautiful, but never a really gifted actress. As for Petry, I don't think I have seen her in enough roles to make a definite statement. But in here she is equally forgettable as Hain. This is a major problem because the two characters are supposed to have a love affair, but the actresses had very little chemistry with each other. They are also the only known names in terms of the cast. Even gigantic German film buffs like myself will probably not recognize any other names/faces. This is one reason why the supporting characters / side plot also did not add any spice to the film. Oh yeah and if they really love each other as they want us to believe (not really historically proved either), then the ending is also not really making sense. Real love trumps personal goals and missions, also during a time when homosexuality was frowned upon. The filmmakers' attempt near the very end to add important historical context to the film (the radio report) felt rushed and for the sake of it. Not very much about this film is working to be honest, the only aspect I somewhat enjoyed are the beautiful sceneries and cinematography. Obviously far from enough for over 1.5 hours. Watch something else instead.

Whatever the merits of the film, it is poorly researched. As others have pointed out, the movie shows locals in Iran speaking in Arabic, rather than Persian. That is enough to lose credibility for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the area or the country. The landscape could not be more different from the actual.Other factual errors: A train is shown to be operating in Afghanistan, while Afghanistan does not have railways. The Turkish ambassador is wearing a Fez (the red hat), whereas the Fez was banned by Turkey much before the time in which the movie is set. The Turkish ambassador's daughter is actually dressed as an Indian, and Indian classical music is playing in the background in many scenes. I suppose the filmmakers meant to show an exotic woman, and sari was what they decided would make her exotic.

The movie's storyline is pat and quaint. Two women travel through the middle east and discover themselves. Unfortunately, if you are looking for a movie about the middle east and central Asia this is absolutely terrible.The producers of the film either did no research or were unbelievably lazy when filming it. To begin with, and most glaringly incorrect, the Nuristanis, as they were known in the thirties, and indeed since the 1890s and their forceful conversion by Abdul-Rahman Shah of Aghnaistan, were not nomads. In fact they have not been nomads since the Aryan invasions of central Asia over three milenia ago.Second, the city that is filmed as Tehran is not Tehran, which is understandable, however the geography of the area around the city could not be more strikingly DIFFERENT than the city of Tehran, which is surrounded on all side by a large mountain range, which predominates all of the cities views.Third, Persian, despite the fact it is spoken in Iran and Afghanistan, is never heard in movie. When there are native speakers who do not speak in German they speak in Arabic. The 'Persian' guards at the border, in fact, say to each other 'Ma hadha rujal' (This is not a man) and not 'in mard nist' as it would be in Persian. Also, the love song between the Indian princess and one of the main characters is obviously in Spanish. While talking in the garden one of the main characters says that the Quran uses the words 'Ferdos' and 'jehaan' and makes some reference to drugs afterwords. These words certainly never appear in the Quran as they are Persian for Paradise (indeed, Ferdos and Paradise are very distant cognates between our languages) and 'World' respectively, though Jehaan is admittedly close to 'Jehennan' which is hell in Arabic. When they encounter the nomads in the desert the language spoken is also Arabic, this despite the fact that there are NO native speakers of Arabic in Iran and Afghanistan and its use is primarily religious, with some use in education at that time.When they are stopped in Iran before they reach the Afghan border the people they encounter are wholly unlike any Iranian group. Their tents are typically bedouin with carpets decorating the walls and a high profile. In Iran it is also extremely uncommon for people to wear Turbans unless they are a cleric. The language spoken is clearly Arabic from the initial greeting of 'Ahlan wa Sahlan.' When they do reach Kabul the desert they find themselves in is sandy, totally unlike the rock dirt that is found in the arid parts of the Hindu Kush mountain range. There is an absence of the light green scrub that covers the ground in the summer and spring. The area is also not wholly consumed by the extreme mountains of the mountain range that won its name, The Indian Killers, because of its difficult and limiting ground.In short, the story line is the only thing in this movie that holds any water and it is still weak and common place. It lacks any real draw to it, being merely the tale of two women trying to learning about themselves as they get to Nuristan, however, even that is still-born and no real development is felt, leaving the characters in the end just where they were in the beginning and nothing has changed except that world war two has broken loose. In short, this is a really bad movie that I would have rated at one star except for the good footage of Bedouin and the deserts of the Levant, even if they are misnamed.

I quite liked this movie. From what I read before seeing it, I expected more beautiful scenery. But the Dubinis clearly wanted to show us a psychological journey more than a physical one, so the camera glides over the most picture-perfect hills, ruins etc, only to swiftly return to our actresses. And this, I think, is good: The film could have become a National Geographic style documentary and that would have left the interesting topic of what moves these two very different characters, who are doing something much out of the ordinary in the 1940s.Rather then spell things out for you, the directors choose to hint at feelings, to leave dialogs uncompleted and to move on at the point where you would expect a conclusion to be reached. There are pros and cons to that: There is no preferred interpretation and the actresses can use expressions and body language to suggest much more than could have been put into words (and Jeanette Hain is very good at that). But the film seems to move slowly because nothing unexpected can happen this way and in the end, it all was a bit *too* subtle for me.This said, there are plenty of very moving scenes. Especially the flirtatious side of Annemarie gets well depicted (the dance at the ambassador's house) and at the same time it stays constrained and half-hidden, as you would expect for a woman in that period of time.The real dramatic moment of the film comes near the end, when the women have to part their ways. Even then, things are very quiet and stilted. Is this a flaw of the Dubinis' film or did they want to show an era in which you didn't discuss your most intimate feelings with others? I really do not know the answer, I think the film could have improved from a little more ``say what you mean and say it mean''. But it still ranks as a good 8 on my scale.