I was so psyched to see Cairo Time this past weekend at IFC in Manhattan. The thought of the marvelous Patricia Clarkson actually getting a romantic lead opposite a warm, charismatic actor, in a promising movie, was just too much. And I’m sure she would have been great in it . . . if they had just written some fucking lines for her to say!

This is my main problem with Cairo Time. I like films where people TALK to each other. I like dialog. I can’t help it. If two people are in love, I want to hear about. If they are in love and frustrated about it, I want to hear about that! Eric Rohmer is my favorite filmmaker, that should tell you how much I like dialog.  Cairo Time is one of these films that is all about capturing little looks, awkwardness, meaningful glances. As my wife put it, it’s yet another one of these films where no one finishes their sentences. What most filmmakers don’t understand is that you need strong dialog to set up those subtle, non-verbal moments in order for them to really work magically. Otherwise it just gets really boring, watching these people look at each other, or not look at each other.

Think about some of the fantastic looks and subtle moments in Now, Voyager, for example, and how incredibly effective they were, and then recall how much incredible dialog there was in that film. The subtle stuff works because the dialog bonds you to the characters and makes you care about them. In Cairo Time, you know so little about these people the story borders on completely unbelievable. Is Patricia Clarkson unhappy in her marriage? There’s no evidence of it, but there is no way to tell. Why does Tareq like her so much (other than the fact that she’s a good-looking blonde.)  How should we know? We’re never given a single clue, actually. How does Cairo effect her? We have no idea, expect the obvious observation that she seems to be thoroughly enjoying her tourist experience in the city. We are told nothing about these people, except that they are thrown together. How are we supposed to care if they “hook up” or not?

My second problem with Cairo Time is that it couldn’t decide if it wanted to be a romantic drama or IMAX 3D: Cairo!. Actually, now that I think about it, they definitely tended toward the latter. There are all these endless scenes of Cairo, exquisitely shot. Actually, this was my favorite part of the film. In fact, I now feel that I’ve seen Cairo adequately enough that I probably don’t ever have to visit that disgusting, stinking hole, for which I am very grateful. The problem is I went expecting a romantic drama that made use of Patricia Clarkson’s considerable talent.

Lastly, I want to comment on A.O. Scott’s theses that the film is a triangle between the two leads and Cairo itself, and that Clarkson falls for Cairo. In my opinion this is complete horseshit, and if this is really what the filmmakers intended then they failed completely. My definite impression was that she just didn’t go for the guy, and (coincidentally) happened to be in Cairo at the time. It’s pretty sad, but Leap Year was actually more convincing as a romantic story where beautiful terrain played an integral part! I guess we should not be surprised to find that Leap Year had more dialog, and better dialog, than Cairo Time. Sad, but true.

I just hope Patricia Clarkson gets another chance at a romantic lead, and that next time the filmmakers write some dialog for her so she can show how great she really is.