Clevercell Very disappointing...

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Martin Teller The first part of Youssef Chahine's semi-autobiographical trilogy concerns a young student and his frustrated dreams of being an actor in WWII-era Alexandria. While not as stunning as CAIRO STATION, it's a warm and easily relatable story with strong characters (charming lead performance by Mohsin Mohieddene) and flashes of brilliance, including Fellini-esque fantasias and clever use of stock footage and ironic music. The amateur play scenes are standouts. The problems arise when it comes to the other stories interwoven with the main plot. These cover such controversial material as an aristocrat who "buys" a drunken Allied soldier to kill him for amusement but falls in love with him instead, a group of inept Communists plotting to capture Churchill, and a Jewish girl impregnated by a Muslim boy. Each of these subplots could well be a fine film on their own, but the transitions between them are too abrupt, and rightfully pegged in other reviews as "sloppy" and "messy". It leads to a lot of confusion and the nagging feeling that Chahine is piling too much on his plate.

Tilly Gokbudak I was quite impressed with "Alexandria, Why?" It is just the second film I've seen from Egyptian master Youssef Chahine, but I can already see why many scholars have praised his work tremendously. This film captures both its' time and setting quite eloquently. It is clearly inspired by Italian neo-realism and uses dubbing as many Italian films of the yesteryear have so often done. The film is perhaps an autobiographical one as it depicts a young man in World War II Egypt who wants to immigrate to California and become a filmmaker. I sense the reason this film is so rated so poorly here is because it has a production value which is very minimal in scale. You realize that many shots are shot in a studio and backdrops, particularly ones with the Meditterranean shore, are ones from stock footage. This is something which is more often in B-movies from the '60s here. But, I am sure this was due to inherent financial limitations which Chahine had too work around. If one compares this film with ones from Turkish and Indian films made in this era, it seems as though Chahine effectively utilized what he had. And, if you compare it with films from other African countries, like Senegal, well it seems like an MGM production! I imagine if George Lucas had the film's producer, these things would have been remedied but as it is, very little artistic integrity is compromised here. We are drawn into the characters' lives and we are captivated by their struggles too find love and freedom. In the end, some things are sacrificed too achieve one desire over another and thus we are left with the brutal reality of the immigrant experience. And, the result is one sterling film which suggests that if an artist truly believes in their work, they can achieve the same artistic merits as filmmakers from more developed nations.

davidmccollum This movie reminded me of many things...a Felliniesque fantasy, and a war drama and a movie about the love of movies . The characters are likeable and the movie is fun to watch. It's defently a film for movie buffs.

Johnny Vinther Jensen (prometheus-dk) One cannot help but agree with the title of this film. Why indeed? Why spend more than two hours watching this mess of a film. The only reason I can think of that the Jury gave this movie the Silver Bear at the Berlin Film Festival, is that is is different from anything else at the festival. And it is, it is a refreshing view through the eyes of a moviemaker NOT from the west. Unfortunately Youssef Chahine is not up to the task. He has severe difficulty figuring out which story he wants to tell, there are many stories in this film that would make great movies in their own right, but the constant intermingling of them, which might have worked in the hands of a more experienced director, fails in this film. For the first hour you are thrilled with the movie. One of the many stories involves an Egyptian aristocrat who picks up young English soldiers and kills them, one of them however invokes his pity and he ends up falling in love with him. For the first part of the movie this story is well told and interesting, but in the second half it becomes obvious and cliché and the good beginnings are ruined. This is one of his early movies and, although I haven't seen any others, I firmly believe that his production has improved vastly with experience, but you should definitely not see this as your first movie by him.