User reviews

Bernardo Bertolucci co-wrote and directed the film of the classic post WW2 novel by author, Paul Bowles, who also narrates.

The opening shot (after the credits roll over 1947 New York City and a ship disembarks from its port) is of Port's (John Malkovich) face as he awakens in a North African hotel room, the same scene that opens in the novel. Debra Winger is her most attractive as his young wife,'Kit.' They are accompanied by a randy travel companion, 'Tunner.'

The "casbah" atmosphere of the Moslem city's narrow stone streets, flooded with Arab denizens, camels, livestock invites the viewer in.

As soon as the odious "Mrs. Lyle" and her sweaty, overweight son came into the fly-ridden hotel lobby in the hot sultry desert nowhere, I knew I'd love to hate them.

John Malkovich is seduced by a street-smart, young Arab who beckons him to follow through dark streets into a girl prostitute's desert tent. (live chickens inside are a wonderful touch.)

The Sheltering Sky is a good representation of the novel. The book's narrative of setting, characters, and plot is dramatically envisioned and colored by the reader's point of view and imagination. We literally make the story ours; so when we watch the film version, we tend to judge the director's interpretation seriously.

Bertolucci's vision was entertaining and realized well, especially the lead character: the vast Sahara Desert, and exotic ambiance; the cinematography was beautiful. i look forward to watching it on DVD.

As photographed by the great Vittorio Storaro, Bernardo Bertolucci's "The Sheltering Sky" is one of the most visually beautiful films ever made, almost every frame a painting in light. It is based on the novel by Paul Bowles about an American couple travelling in North Africa and trying to rekindle any passion that might have been in their marriage. Unfortunately, that flame seems to have been extinguished a long time ago. They are brilliantly played by Debra Winger and John Malkovitch, both at their very best. They have in tow a handsome young American, (Campbell Scott, excellent) and on their travels they meet an eccentric British couple, (Jill Bennett and Timothy Spall), and then there is the handsome young Arab, (Eric Vu-An), that Winger succumbs to. Bowles himself pops up now and then to comment on the action.

It is a slow and cerebral film. Neither Winger nor Malkovitch say very much but convey their feelings in the way they interact with each other. Of course, for a great deal of the time it is impossible to tell if they really love each other or if they simply need each other or if they need each other at all and again, thanks to Storaro, it has all the beauty of a travelogue even if the vast alien landscapes and the appalling conditions in which they find themselves are more likely to put you off visiting North Africa. It is also one of Bertolucci's most underrated films, an intimate epic on the transcience of human relationships and the need to go looking for ourselves in the most unlikeliest of places.

It's hard to understand why this film doesn't get better reviews. Yes of course it's a reflective arty film where evoking feelings is more important than narrative drive. The amount of nudity, though in keeping with the story, does perhaps hinder its being taken seriously by some.

Surely though it succeeds as well as any film has in painting a cinematic picture of the experience of being a stranger in a strange land? The cultural barriers, dissonances, language, the maze of similar streets - everything comes together to create the feeling of utter helplessness Kit experiences when she tries to get help for the ill Port. The confusing weird relationships, often only partially depicted in the film heighten the sense of being adrift in life.

Together with some of the best ever desert cinematography rivaling even Lawrence of Arabia, North African music, noises, characters and colors this film is a rich feast for the senses indeed. And what a wonderful final voice-over, one of the most deep and thought-provoking lines in all the movies.

Two post-WWII Manhattan sophisticates who travel to avoid standing still embark on a soul-searching expedition into the Sahara Desert, where the beautiful but desolate landscapes provide a mirror to their own troubled relationship. The film is nothing if not exotic, presenting some of the purest visions of the desert since Peter O'Toole first rode a camel in 'Lawrence of Arabia'. But the scenario works best when presented as an ethnic travelogue, ushering viewers into an utterly foreign world. The messy marital plot conflicts are, by comparison, all rather vague, especially after Debra Winger goes native in a Bedouin harem. The story never really finds an ending, because there isn't anything to resolve: the characters all exist in a (handsomely photographed) vacuum, and their motivations are even more mysterious than the Arab culture surrounding them. The intrusive (and, as usual, unnecessary) voice-over narration is by novelist Paul Bowles himself, briefly glimpsed in the film's opening scenes.

American couple Port (John Malkovich) and Kit Moresby (Debra Winger) see themselves as travelers looking for new experiences. They go to Tangier after the war with their friend George Tunner (Campbell Scott) who they see more as a tourist. Port is introduced to a prostitute and is robbed. Kit and George take a train trip. Port is jealous and follows them catching a ride with the Lyles (Jill Bennett, Timothy Spall).

It's a grand meandering story about being aimless. It's not just about being aimless but there is also a pointlessness about the movie. The location shoots are wonderfully exotic. Malkovich is chewing up the scenes and Spall is being weird. However the movie struggles to find a meaning.

This is one of my all time favorite movies. But... and this is a major but... at least part of my appreciation stems from the fact that I watched it several times and that I've also read the book (by Paul Bowles) two or three times. So both works of art (since the book is most definitely a work of great art) tend to blend together in my mind.

I started by watching the movie though, without any previous knowledge on the novel, nor on Paul Bowles. I was impressed by the powerful imagery (theater! not dvd) and chilled by psychological the harshness of the plot. I was charmed the first time I saw the film but I fell in love when I saw it a second time, which was after I'd read the novel. Maybe this means that the film doesn't 'make it on its own', but to me that's not a problem. And if you are, like me, gripped by the movie I can really recommend the novel for more 'in depth' .

Some people here seem to think that there's no plot or just a very thin one. I disagree. It's not directly on the surface though. You'll have to concentrate and pay attention to dig it up. If you don't like that or feel that a movie should just willingly present itself to you, than this is not your movie.

The Sheltering Sky is frankly a psychological masterpiece and one of the densest books I've ever read, but it has a fairly simple plot. The film adequately reenacts the plot. but can't really convey what it is that makes the novel so exquisite.

That's not to say Bertolucci and his contributors, especially cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, don't deserve a lot of credit for their work. This should probably be accepted as the industry standard for filming the scenery of North Africa. The title alone should tell you you're in for rich cinematography and in my opinion this is absolutely necessary to the telling of the story, but the scenery does tend to overwhelm the story at times.

Malkovich and Winger both give credible performances, but they seemed like strangers to me compared to the characters in the novel. Likewise the casting of the Lyles was excellent, but their role seemed abbreviated. I found Paul Bowles himself to be a captivating screen presence, though he's only on screen briefly as the narrator.

Ultimately the film is worth watching but constantly reminded me of the discrepancy between the two media, which isn't exactly an endearing quality.

Please do not read this review if you have not yet seen the film, because I find it necessary to discuss elements of the film which reveal the plot.

The whole film was for me a long introduction into the silence of myself. I like the desert a lot, am not afraid of the void, when the mind can finally be still. Port also actually came home to Africa. He was ready to die, ready to leave behind his intellectuality, to get rid of the inner mess that was himself. Although he seemed unconscious of it, his inner soul brought him by force to his own roots. When in delirium his hands dance happily, demanding the music to continue, to push him through and out of this existence, Kit is left aside and alone, madness kissing her forehead for the first time, unable to stop the approaching avalanche which will sweep over both of their lives, leaving one dead. Kit, ...how one must feel going to a foreign country to mate again with the mate with whom you, through so many silly, careless incidents, have lost essential contact - and to suddenly find him dead and silent lying in front of you in the vastness of an indifferent desert. The desert we all live in unawares. "Oh, God, what have I done, how could I have allowed this to go so far?" Suddenly she wakes up to notice the immense impact of nothingness.

Her mind broken, she goes off with a Bedouin, and this is actually what I like most about the film. It allows me to let my mind break too, traveling with her through the desert, mostly listening to the silent sound of camels and bells and voices crying out in a strange unknown language.

Some of the professional critics didn't to go down that path. They need their thoughts to run incessantly, .. for them it must have certainly been a threatening movie, or so their comments would suggest.

At some point in the last 100 years.....there is one film that is likely to stand out as truly exceptional. Not surprisingly, such a film might not be well received by the critics or even be a great success at the box office. True brilliance finds its own place in people's hearts and this film has every ingredient to make it the kind of film people will talk about in a hundred years time. Unlike so many films "created" today with lacklustre characters and inept and one dimensional acting - the sheltering sky is moving and funny and ingenious because it offers true artistic and moving portrayals of the ending of a long term relationship amidst the kind of locations the most adventurous backpacker might not know about. Every film is about human meaning and should guide us to know what the author felt and experienced. Somehow the sheltering sky reaches into your heart by honestly portraying the emotions of the complexity of loving another human being. It isn't pretentious or dull as dishwasher art house cinema. It belongs in a category of its own and to anyone who loves beautiful art and poignant and moving story's that go beyond the solar plexus: you will truly love and treasure the experience of this work of art that so many failed to "get". Yes....good films happen. Great films occur from time to time....but the Sheltering sky is neither of these two things....it is the most honest and beautiful and emotionally mature work of cinema that I have ever seen. This film makes us feel good about being human...because it shows us how flawed and wonderful we are despite our lack of honesty even with ourselves. The sheltering sky will break your heart and and bring you to life. It will lift you and make you feel like repainting the cistine chapel. It is a brave and noble friend of a film...that wants us to see beauty and pain in all its glory. If you've never seen it......I wish I were you watching it for the first time again. Go get it.! Robert. ps. if you've read the book....don't watch it! no film is going to match your own interpretation of a favourite book...but this movie stands on its own two feet and with some grace at that.

This is one of the worst films I have ever seen, it is all so the only film that I almost walked out of, the only thing that kept me there was the cinematography which was excellent. When I first see it I put the poor sound down to the cinema but I have seen it again an yes it did have the annoying background sound most of all when the chanting starts. It is also overly long and drawn-out but then again so is the book.

Port and Kit Moresby are travellers who come to North Africa to spend a year or so. With them travels a friend, George Tunner. Their journey hides the gradual breakdown of their relationship - a fact that is only highlighted when Port visits an Arab prostitute and Kit sleeps with Tunner after a drunken train journey together.

Before you sit down to see this film, you really need to have asked yourself what sort of mood you are in. Are you looking for a fast film, something entertaining and slick to distract you from life, or provide background noise in the room while you iron? If you are looking for such a movie then there must be thousands of action movies and comedies that you can watch. If you are in a contemplative mood or are able to accept the story that comes at you no matter how slow or difficult to get into then you may as well give this a stab. The film focuses on the relationship between Kit and Port, a relationship that has been crumbling for many years before we are brought into the story. The film then uses the journey as a journey of them both and, ultimately, Kit to find more about themselves, each other and their lives.

If this sounds straightforward then forgive me, for it is not. The film doesn't help; it is difficult to get into the story because at times it doesn't seem to really be about anything. It is not so bad for the majority of the film, but Kit's wander in the last 30 minutes is difficult because it seems to be going nowhere and not be connected to the emotions that we only assume she might be feeling. This is the main problem with the film - not so much the slow pace but the fact that it could be running but it wouldn't matter because it would still feel like it isn't actually going anywhere. It is possible to take something from this film but the actual intension was lost on me - when the final lines of dialogue came I hoped they would be as a torch in a dark room - but they only served to lose me that much more. I hate arty films when they seem to revel in their sheer impenetrateability, sadly that seemed to be the case here.

Malkovich and Winger are both very good; they acted wounded and hurt very well within their veneer of respectability and normalcy. It's a shame that, although their performances help us get into Kit & Port's relationship, they are unable to help us understand (or care) when the film begins to become `deeper' than that. Scott is quite interesting but underused, although Spall and Bennett are reasonably good. The star here is the desert, and it looks great. For all his faults as a storyteller here, Bertolucci can frame a shot, producing a great sense of place as well as some really gorgeous travelogue moments. If that's your thing (a `deep' and beautiful film) then you'll be OK, but I needed some emotional buy in or at least something approaching a narrative that could be easily followed with a bit of thought.

Overall this is an interesting but ultimately frustrating film. It looks great and it all seems very worthy, but where it goes was beyond me. I enjoyed watching it as it forced me to think instead of just vegging out (like so many other films do) but at the end of the day I was left wondering if this was artistic posturing on a big scale or if it really did have an emotional core that I just couldn't reach.

Your know what you're in for as soon as you see the shot of John Malkovich's penis dangling in your face in extreme close-up. Bertolucci is a director who has always liked to shock with his subject matter and graphic sexual depictions. "Last Tango" sure caused a lot of controversy in it's day, although today that film comes across as terribly dated and pretentious. And with the gorgeous 'La Luna", one of his lesser-known works, and also my favorite from Bertolucci, his depiction of a highly sexualized mother/son relationship made many uncomfortable. So much so that the film has yet to get a video release in the States. To make things more controversial, the son is 15 years old, and a heroin addict. I realize the "The Sheltering Sky" is not a comedy, but for some strange reason whenever i watch this film i alternate between being transfixed by the films sheer beauty, and rolling fitfully on the floor in hysterics! Debra Winger is superb as 'Kit' and John Malkovich portrays 'Port' with sensitivity, even though he is a man given to self-indulgence and is not above cheating on his wife. Kit & Port are two Americans traveling through Africa, in search of some enlightenment, or happiness. They are adults, but seem sometimes as spoiled children, enjoying and grasping at life's pleasures, and this makes it fun to watch, and to be a part of their adventures. Their friend 'Tunner' travels with them, but he doesn't seem quite as thrilled to be in a land without the Western comforts. He is a good-looking chap as well, younger and perhaps more sexually potent than 'Port', and there is some interesting tension there. Port suspects sexual goings on between Kit and Port, even before something actually happens. When he returns home, (from a rendezvous with a prostitute) and finds Tunner in their hotel room, his reaction is similar to that of a little boy finding his mother breast feeding a playmate . Many have said that the final part of the film, where Winger's character loses her mind and is wandering through the desert with the caravan, is the most boring part of the film. I think this is when the film really takes off. With no dialog at all for the final 40 or so minutes, Kit's despair, isolation, and confusion at being left to fend for herself in a strange, and increasingly hostile land, is palpable. For some reason unknown to me, the scenes of Winger in the birka, wandering through the desert frequently had me in hysterics!?! The look of complete and utter despair on her dirty face was perhaps just too over-the -top for me. But honestly, the film has it's moments of intentional comic relief. My favorite line is when Winger slurs :"I'm weeping for my gin and tonic", and when she wakes up in bed with Tunner after a champagne drinking binge, and remembers nothing. She frantically throws him out of her room, then beckons him back and asks for another bottle of champagne. It was funny to see how each character dealt with their discomforts and fears. And i must say, it is hard to take matters seriously, in spite of some wonderful dialog, when Malkovich and Winger are making love outdoors, him speaking of life philosophies while his butt was pumping up and down. From the look on their faces, and the way they were speaking, they sounded like they were sitting in a coffee shop or a restaurant, instead of frantically banging away! But despite the unintentional humor i found in "The Sheltering Sky" the film's power and majesty did not slip by me. I actually love this film, on so many levels. With such characters it never gets boring, despite it's length. I found myself howling for joy whenever the creepy mother/son duo appeared! That sweaty, 40 something mommas boy, and that red-headed hag have my undivided attention every time i see this! And the end is beautiful and touching as well. I'm sure everyone who watches this film to the end comes away with their own individual understanding of what it all means. Few films leave so much up to the viewer to fill in the blanks for themselves. I think this is a good thing. Highly recommended!

Two American's are bored with their lives and - probably - each other so decide to travel to Africa to get some adventure back in to their lives.

Hard to get a strong grip on a film that seems so full of vagary and entering and exiting characters. Few of which seem to have much to do with the wafer thin plot.

Only when it is over do you get the master plan which seems to suggest that time travels slower in the dessert and that Africa might as well be another planet. And on another planet other rules apply.

This is set after WW II, but this seems hardly relevant in this unchanging environment of flies and dingy mud dwellings. While a turn-off to me I presume that this is part of the experience that our central characters are looking for. This would seem a dangerous place, but are they ignorant of this or is this part of the experience?

Maybe this reflects my personal ignorance or lack of observation skills but I don't really know what the couple are about or what they want. If you want my best guess - and that is all I can give - is that they don't know themselves. Travelling only broadens the mind if you have the willingness to have your mind broadened, rather in the way that two people can sit in the same French class and one learns to speak good French and other can't learn a word of it. In other words it is about intelligence and effort. There is nothing here to suggest that the characters are capable of change - no matter changed by a hot sun and sand dunes!

This is so well filmed and the setting so believable that maybe this film thought it didn't need much in the way of a script. Indeed it must be one of the most plot-empty productions of recent times. If you can get inside the film and give it a chance then you could well be intrigued rather than entertained, but there is nothing really that special going on - cinematography to one side.

Not exactly a Biopic in the proper sense of the word, but an adaption of the autobiographical and massively dramatised novel by the American author, composer and translator Paul Frederic Bowles (December 30, 1910 – November 18, 1999). In 1947 Bowles settled in Morocco, with his wife, Jane Bowles (February 22, 1917 – May 4, 1973) who was an American writer and playwright in her own right. Not having read the book, it's too difficult to me to comment on its truthfulness, however we know that Paul Bowles was cooperating with the screenwriters, it is he who is narrating the film and even appears in a cameo role. It's the story about a couple's search for stimulation not only within their fading passion and closeness but also for their creativity and productivity. Ultimately, from the personal point of view, this turns out to be a sad enterprise, thinking that the constant traveling and external visual changes would rekindle their evaporated love and disconnection; it's a shortsighted forced-upon chase after illusions.

John Malkovich and Debra Winger are not the usual Hollywood-like physically attractive love couple 'a la Barbie and Ken' nevertheless it was beautifully exciting to watch them perpetually connect and disconnect mentally and physically. As soon as the protagonist dies, that's when the biopic turns into fiction, as Bowles kept on living till 1999. I was wondering if he wrote this scenario as a sort of a metaphor reflecting on his own life and dismantling relationship.

From the famous and truly extraordinary Italian cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro's view, this is a declaration of love to Morocco and its impressive and breathtaking landscapes, culture and nomadic life; a magnificent visual feast and one may even smell all the spices, swatting flies, feel the grit of sand between the teeth, start sweating and get one's blood boiling, not only due to the local heat but also to the carnal sultriness, whilst watching the screen!

Full frontal nudity and a few sensual yet tasteful very erotic scenes and therefore I rate it 16+.

The gorgeous main-theme of the soundtrack is a total tearjerker to me...for sentimentalists only!

Noticed that they drink a lot of MUMM Champagne, oh! how French, and that Eric Vu-An, famous Ballet dancer and ex Etoile de L'Opera de Paris had a secondary very seductive role in this typical Bertolucci epic.

This film sets a deliberate pace. I never found it boring. Those who think that it was terrible need to stick to films with car chases and explosions. This is basically an art film. Debra Winger turned in a fantastic performance, as did John Malkovich, in spite of his trademark smarminess. The photography of North Africa is stunning, and the emptiness of the desert obviously mirrors the relationship between Kit and Port. I will say, though, that I really didn't get the ending.

Bernardo Bertolucci does not really make fast-paced movies, let's face it. But very often (The Last Emperor, Last Tango in Paris, La Luna,) they're beautifully crafted character studies set in amazing landscapes. Bertolucci also handles his cast with great talent and the performances delivered by actors in his movies are always intense. Here Debra Winger is captivating, and aptly supported by John Malkovich and a strong supporting cast. The story slowly unfolds itself, and the nuances in the script, dialogue, cinematography and acting are splendid. The throughout subtle presence of Paul Bowles adds great melancholy. When I first saw it on the big screen, I left the theater in a state of total despair, because the characters are so miserable.

"The Sheltering Sky" tells of a married couple (Malkovich/Winger) whose post-WWII travels in Northern Africa become an odyssey of self discovery. Beautifully filmed and imbued with the sights and sounds of Morocco while telling its thin, plaintive story, the film makes a better travelogue than drama. A good watch for those into North African cultures, many will find this film's story weak, ambiguous, and unsatisfying with its message buried somewhere in the sands of the Sahara. (B-)

How many full moons have you seen in your life? After viewing this excellent movie, we have made a point of watching the rise of the full moon each month. Our count since viewing the film is 126. Weather conditions and where you live will limit your full moon count.

The question is asked by BB. And the scene is set at the end of the film and BB plays himself. He is sitting on a bench in a low light, wood paneled, smoky barroom. BB is shown as a reflection in a large mirror when he asks the question. And we all know the moon's light is a reflection of our sun. Very brilliant parallel but only if you caught it!

The film is on our number ten list and qualifies for many viewings to be fully aware of all the brilliant insights.

Have you ever had one of those nights where you couldn't sleep? You wake up tired, but you know you have to go to work the next day. Everything you do makes you tired, but you must press on. That's the feeling I got from this film. Fatigue. As Winger and Malkovich make their respective ways through the Saharan obstacle course, I wonder what horror is around the next corner. Ultimately, we need to ask the question, "Why are they there." The ennui they represent is hard to fathom. They have bought into this mess and have no intention of leaving it. The characters are exhausting in that they are reckless. They put themselves in constant danger. I guess it's to experience something that will bring them out of their self imposed comas. The acting is excellent; the scenery phenomenal. I felt like I was riding along with them on those awful buses. At some point, I guess, Debra Winger's character has some sort of epiphany and sexual fulfillment, but what lies ahead. Exhausting!

Unlike great movies which are timeless, this movie was endless, like a portion of food you don't like but are reluctant to throw away. The film would have been better with a Richard Kiley narration, under a National Geographic logo. There were wonderful shots of the dessert, gorgeous panoramas, and interesting character studies of the people. And I found the last half hour nearly intolerable. I like movies with a different take on things. I liked La Strada. But I did not like this film. The only saving grace is that I didn't pay to see it, and I didn't waste good popcorn money.

The film started out with good intentions. It developed well, with Malkovich's character contracting typhoid. The sequence in which Kit is at Port's side, nursing him for what must have been days, was - in my opinion - the only redeeming scene in the movie. After he dies, and Kit hits the road, it seems to go downhill rapidly. The movie loses its continuity and its coherence. Perhaps the book was better, but after seeing the film, I have little interest in finding out.