Change Your Image
mkdropper
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Ezel (2009)
Over-extenden but Great Series
Ezel is a very impressive series. It is incredibly gripping and somehow manages to make people watch it. I mean, even though we don't like local productions in general, the Turkish TV series that I have watched so far give the excitement factor so well that no matter how poor quality and terrible the script is, you somehow find yourself watching it. Another important factor is that watching these series doesn't require a lot of cognitive load. I mean, you can be in the kitchen preparing dinner and watching this show at the same time. Or playing a game or something. You just need the sound in the background. With these features, Ezel really makes you watch until the last moment.
First of all, even though I haven't read the book, I've seen a lot of people saying that it's similar to The Count of Monte Cristo. I wish I had read the book and made this review, but unfortunately I haven't. So how is the overall script? I think the script of Ezel is very interesting. Ezel, our main character, is a friend we can relate to in every way. Even though we haven't experienced as big betrayals as he has, we love him and we always take his side throughout the events. While this is already a reason to watch, Ezel himself is in the business of revenge. As viewers, we want this betrayal to end successfully and we can say "oh well" and relax. However, as always, things do not go according to plan and things go awry. Ezel, who has the mercy of a prophet, spends time with his friends who betrayed him in order to get revenge, but he becomes friends with them again and cannot get revenge. After all that, you would think that it wouldn't be like that, but Ezel is really such a man. The show is normally based on this revenge, but in fact Ezel is just a sidekick.
Although Ezel seems to be the main character of the series, Uncle Ramiz, who was in a very important position in the first season and almost the main character of the series in the second season, suddenly shows us that he is the main character of the series. Although he is not in many action scenes, Ezel is actually his right-hand man. After rescuing Ezel, who will have nothing when he gets out of jail and even won't be able to get out of jail, he gives him a new face and a big capital. Seeing the potential in Ezel, Uncle Ramiz actually raises him as a loyal soldier because Ezel is very smart. He also has an unfinished account and Ezel will help him with it, but he wants him to take his revenge first. Here you have to look at Uncle Ramiz's thoughts. Although we don't know if he really uses Ezel only for his own purposes or if he really sees him as his son, we think the second option is the real one because of his general fatherly demeanor. Although it seems like a good idea to prepare Ezel for his own revenge, it takes as long as it would have if Uncle Ramiz didn't see Ezel as his son. So while Ramiz is preparing Ezel as a soldier for his own revenge, he also wants to help him to take his own revenge.
So who is this Uncle Ramiz? At this point, a concept that I like very much is being explored in the series. Humans are never immortal, but they have always kept things alive. Whether it's through writing, through lines, sometimes even through architecture, things are kept alive for generations. I love that, but in this series, an enmity has been passed down from generation to generation. And it is such an enmity that it has continued every second for years and years. It's such an enmity that because it didn't end, they even recruited people younger than themselves into this war and devastated them too. The main point of the story is the story of Ramiz and Kenan. Of course, I won't talk about it here because it would be a spoiler, but it's safe to say that we watch the first season, Ezel's revenge, entirely for this story. The most important person Ezel wants to take revenge on is Cengiz. He still loves Eysan and still looks at Ali as a brother, but he never forgives Cengiz. Even if he does something with Cengiz in the series, he never forgives him. Ezel and Cengiz are actually a generation younger version of Ramiz and Kenan's story. Cengiz shoots Ezel in the back and takes his love away from him. Similarly, Ramiz did the same to Kenan years ago. An important point here is that the people are crossed. So Kenan actually looks more like Ezel, but Ezel is with Ramiz. Even though he knows that he made such a mistake in the past, Ezel, as always, goes for the familiar, not the good. But Ramiz is in a stage of redemption. Although he doesn't mention it even once, it is clear that he regrets what he did, but he loves Selma just as much and she loves him back. The same is not true for Eysan. Eysan somehow still loves Ezel. So Ramiz and Ezel, even though they are on different sides, they both have one thing in common: The women they love love them.
This is the kind of story that is going on in Ezel. I personally loved watching the story of this enmity that is passed down from generation to generation. While this is going on, the story goes in different directions. Side characters such as Ramiz's and Kenan's enemies and friends, Ali's own stories, Ramiz's daughter, Ezel's family are added, but believe me, the side characters are very bad in this series. You really want to go through every scene so much. When the writers spend all their minds on the main characters and the plot, you end up with a ton of characters who don't have enough brains to be spread on bread. These characters resent everything, they get angry, they create meaningless drama out of nowhere, and as I see from the comments, nobody likes to watch these characters, when it comes to these characters, they skip them, and when they skip them, they don't lose anything from the story. So as good as the main plot is, the side characters are not as good.
Even though the story feels like it's dragging on after a certain point, the beauty of the final episodes somehow sweetens the deal and overall we leave the series satisfied. So we can say a good story, unnecessary prolongation, unnecessary side characters in general.
I think the acting is very good. Ramiz's facial expressions and voice fit the character perfectly. Kenan and Cengiz also play their characters very well. Of course, beauty is relative, but I have to say that I don't like Eysan's acting for such an attractive female role. I mean, even though she is a beautiful lady, one expects something more beautiful when we talk about Eysan, the woman who wins everyone's heart. That's it for the acting, I wish there were no side characters. But there were points where I thought Ezel's mother was really blind, she was well played.
The visuals are very slow, the walking scenes are full, the artificial prolongation of the series is one of the things that really makes it fail to fulfill its potential. The action scenes seemed a bit bland to me. But all these evils are saved by an incredible music. The music is iconic, wonderful. It is at least as good as the music of Kara Sevda, which was produced by Toygar Isikli, our local Hans Zimmer. Once again, we say thank you to him for this amazing album. I think he can really use his talent for much bigger things. I think this album is way above this series.
This series has been extended too much unnecessarily. In terms of plot, characters and scenes, but that doesn't save it from being one of the best series in Turkish history. I hope it's not too similar to The Count of Monte Cristo. If it is, I will be very disappointed, but for now Ezel is a very good series. I highly recommend it to everyone.
Das Experiment (2001)
Re-fictionalizing The Experiment Without Claiming to be "Scientific"
The Stanford-Milgram experiments are really legendary. Of course, at that time, there were no harsh ethical limitations in the science of psychology, and such experiments could be done. With today's incredibly strict ethical boundaries, it is not even possible to come close to such experiments, but it was done in time. This experiment is actually a very popular experiment. Everyone with a university level of education knows a little bit about the experiment conducted in the 70s. Maybe you've read about it in a book, maybe you've seen a summary in a short video. Let's talk about the experiment before the movie. The experiment starts with some people acting as guards and some as prisoners, just like in the movie, and it actually draws transparent boundaries. Zimbardo wants the experience to be as realistic as possible, so he doesn't really restrain the guards within their boundaries. Although the guards are friendly at first, after a few days they become incredibly aggressive and superior and show sadistic tendencies. The reactions of the prisoners are also important here. When Zimbardo realized that things were not going well, he ended the experiment on the sixth day and gave everyone their money up to that day. Even though this experiment did not go well, the events up to that point are recorded and today we have an important experiment result. According to this experiment, "power corrupts". This result is of course not a surprise, it has been known for years. Of course, most of us are far away from prisons, but we can see plenty of them on screen and in books. And we all know very well that guards are not friendly towards criminals. But why might that be? We can think of a few answers right now. The first one that comes to mind is that they are "criminals". These people have committed crimes and don't deserve to be treated well. But in this experiment, this was not fully fleshed out. Even though people seem to be in their roles, deep down they are aware that the prisoners have not committed any crime, that they are subjects like themselves and that they are prisoners purely by the luck of the draw. But things still don't go well. So is just being strong enough to make a person bad?
Zimbardo's experiment is very famous. When we look at another famous Milgram experiment, we see that people can be surprisingly sadistic. I mean, they never behave the way we as a society expect them to behave. We think, how can they be so bad? And do you know which other society this question was asked to? Nazi Germany. Milgram's experiment happened in the early 60s and Zimbardo's experiment happened in the early 70s. So the impact of Nazi Germany on the world is still not far enough removed. It cannot be understood how a society can suddenly become so corrupt and sadistic. History, politics, always directly affects science. The most directly affected sciences are of course the humanities. Psychology is one of these sciences. At that time these issues were being intensively researched and the Zimbardo-Milgram experiments were very good experiments that clarified these issues. They appealed to common sense. When people read these experiments, they could make sense of the phenomenon of Nazi Germany, which they could not make sense of before. That power corrupts, so that the Germans suddenly became such bad people. Everything made sense. At the end of the day, these experiments became so popular that, as you can see, you can even watch the movie.
But the interesting thing is that these experiments are not really scientific. I don't mean in terms of methodology, the results are officially falsified. This may sound like a lie to you, but it will be confirmed by most sources if you search the internet. Both Zimbardo and Milgram manipulated the experiment to get more shocking results. Zimbardo told the guards to perform more sadistic tendencies and Milgram manipulated the numerical proportions of his experiment. These experiments are worthless and meaningless in today's psychological literature. However, in the books of psychology, even in psychology lectures, after mentioning these experiments, there is no mention of today's outrages and the unscientific nature of the experiments. As a result, appealing to people, being interesting has gone beyond being science. With a quick search on the internet you can see that both of these experiments are not scientific, better yet, tell people you know about them so that they know about such things. Psychology unfortunately has a very hard time surviving as a "science". Today these experiments have helped it to survive, but they are completely unscientific. We thank Pavlov once again for making it truly "science" and move on to our movie review.
The movie doesn't describe this prison experiment, but we get the concept of it. I liked this very much. In fact, Zimbardo's experiment is not real, it is fake. The makers of the movie must have been aware of this because they decided to fictionalize the scenario completely themselves. They said, "Since it's not real, let's do as we please. And they did it very well. I really liked the script of this movie. I mean, I was tired of watching/reading/playing "good concept, bad plot" for a long time. I was thinking that they come up with very good ideas but they can't implement them. This movie is not like that. They wrote a script like pashas. And it's very good. Just like Zimbardo influenced the experiment, they added and added left and right. First of all, because we are a movie, we have main and side characters and they are really great. There is a great cast of characters in the movie. I wouldn't get bored even if the experiment continued for days. The parallelism between each character's own characteristics and the characteristics they show in the experiment definitely deserves an applause. Also, the plot is incredibly beautiful. You can realize the tension from the first day of the experiment. I mean, something will happen, but how it will happen, when it will happen is a question that is always in your head. As the guards' anger snowballs, the prisoners become more and more rebellious. And we sit and watch with excitement. At the end of the movie, we also enjoy the ending when things get out of hand. I liked the script incredibly, I watched it with excitement.
The cinematography, although not great, was very good. As far as I understand, there are no extra techniques, but I liked the camera angles, the right actor on the screen at the right moment. Nothing disturbed me while watching. Speaking of disturbing, it was disturbing in the right way. I don't remember if there was music in the movie, I couldn't find it on the internet and I guess there wasn't. I think the lack of music adds a hyperrealist aspect to movies and this movie really needed it.
The acting is top notch. I don't recognize a single person, but they're all terrific. They are very well connected to their roles in the experiments in the movie. I mean, each actor is not just focused on their role, they are really involved in the experiment. I think the acting is really good in this cast that has a range of roles from Hitler to the ex-pilot. I congratulate all the actors.
This movie is as fake as Zimbardo's experiment is fake. However, the friends who wrote this movie did a much better job and they didn't fake it by claiming to be scientific. This movie, which I was very excited towards the last scenes, shows what happens when a good script is written on a good concept. It's as good as I didn't expect. Definitely watch it, and while watching it, read, understand and explain the things I wrote at the beginning.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)
Disrespect to the Author
The Hunchback of Notre-Dame is truly a great book. It's so good that I broke my movie queue to watch this movie. I put this movie forward. Since I'm not very familiar with movies, I didn't know how Disney treated these stories, it's definitely my immaturity, but unfortunately I won't see this as a standard. Of course, a book can be interpreted when it is turned into a movie, but I think it needs to be done properly. So, I think just taking the names of the characters and the basic concept is not very effective. Instead, I think it is necessary to understand what the author really wants to say and act accordingly. In other words, it is a great skill to be able to re-present what the author explains in the book with the opportunities provided by giant screens, rather than using the book as decorative. I'm not sure if I've ever watched something like this, I can't think of it right now, but now I have a bad example in my mind.
So okay, they may have wanted to infantilize something, but is this really the work? So, wasn't there another book for you to babyify? Was there no other work? After showing such a valuable work to children in this way, I don't even think that they will misunderstand it and be curious about the book in the future. Moreover, I don't even think there is complete infantilization. In other words, simplification is made, the subject remains the same, but some inappropriate scenes are skipped and issues that may seem complicated can be skipped or made easier, but this is literally betraying the author. Personally, if I wrote such a work and if such a movie were made, I would use all my legal means and remove this movie. This movie is not a befitting adaptation of the book. Even though I haven't thought it through completely yet, I think I can simplify this novel much more successfully than it is now. At least what the movie and the book say would remain the same. What's the point of taking deep characters, turning them into simple good/bad guys, embellishing them with tension, and giving them a good ending? Of course, Frollo is not a good person, but this is not what his character wants to express at all, the helplessness of a clergyman who has never had a relationship with women in the face of love, and as a result of this desperation, he suddenly throws aside the religion to which he had no attachment to anything other than himself. Even though it sounds complicated when writing, it can be explained without being reduced to the way it is in the movie. While the book was written to prevent the destruction of the church and can make a narrative good enough to make the main character the church itself, in the movie almost no one cares. If they didn't have any shame, I think the name of this movie would be Esmeralda, but they didn't want to stray too far from the book. I wanted to watch this movie with my girlfriend. I told him the book was one of the best books in the world and so on. Then, while watching this disgraceful movie, I couldn't stop myself from saying "Honey, the book is not like that, they made this movie very badly" every 5 minutes. I don't remember where Pierre is in the movie, at the beginning of the book there is a wonderful scene depicting a people acting as a community, there is no "deaf judge" scene that we can describe as comedic. So, although these did not happen, they also eliminated our story, which was a very nice and intriguing story. This story consists of fairies who sing and walk around every minute. It is a great shame for the film industry that such a great book is associated with such a disgraceful movie. I hope we can see a decent movie made soon.
I still can't say that I understand the animation quality, but it doesn't seem bad compared to an old movie. Maybe it's because I don't watch very good things, maybe it's because I don't watch bad animations, but I can't talk about the animation quality to make a decision. I just think it's not bad.
I thought the voice acting was good, that is, the voices coming from the characters were not annoying. However, if I remember correctly, although Quasimodo's voice was stated to be particularly ugly in the book, they did not want to force it that much in the movie and used a normal voice. I think they could have been a little braver. Let's get to the music. This movie is basically a musical and I can say that it is more successful in terms of music than the rest. Even though I don't like it very much, the songs sound pretty good. Moreover, the Hellfire song is really good. Although it allowed us to explore the inner world of the Frollo character at least to some extent, this story remained just a song because it was not a movie that wanted to do that.
It's a movie I never recommend you watch. Buy the book, read it, and don't watch this movie. Recommend the book to people who watched the movie and they will understand how awful the movie is. If you didn't read the book but liked the movie, you'll probably love it when you read the book. If you say, "Old man, I can't read such heavy novels. Is there a story with a happy ending that everyone sings about?" Then the movie is suitable for you, but this movie is really bad and is one of the few movies that I do not recommend.
The Man in the White Suit (1951)
When the Capital and Workers Unite
How can this movie be so little known? I really can't believe it. I think this movie should be much more popular. Of course, old movies are not watched very much, but I don't think any part of this movie has been lost to history. Astonished by the number of views and the lack of comments, I move on to commenting on the film.
The movie is about something interesting. A person with a wealth of intelligence invents a fabric that never gets old or dirty. When we think about it at that time, this was a great invention, because this was the biggest problem of clothes, even though it was not seen as a problem at that time. Isn't it good for both the wearer and the seller to have clothes that don't get dirty and wear out ? This is a great invention. We soon realize that neither the seller nor the wearers want such a thing. This product is such a product that it brings capital and workers together at the same point. Both sides want to prevent the spread of this invention! If you ask why, the reason is very simple and it is already mentioned in the movie. Capital does not want this because if they sell someone something that does not get dirty or wear out, they will never be able to sell it again. This will significantly reduce the amount of money they earn. Workers do not want this either, because as a result of the decrease in clothing sales, they will be dismissed from their jobs in factories and become unemployed. The story of the movie is basically how these two sides come together and chase this inventor.
Like some movies, this movie is much more than its script. Yes, it was a funny movie, we laughed and had fun, but people also think about it afterwards. Can progress and science really conflict with human life? Aren't all inventions made to make people's lives easier and more beautiful? From the computer in front of me to the pen I use to write, from airplane landing pads to inflatable boats, isn't everything invented useful for humans? Can you think of anything like this that would be bad for people if it existed? If you are reading this article shortly after it was written, artificial intelligence may be one of the most obvious examples. For now, it seems that AI can indeed carry out simple cognitive-computer operations on its own with consistently low error rates. This provides convenience in areas such as coding and accounting. But does it stand easily? As we see from the movie, capital or workers basically want to make money. Of course, although it would not be correct to express such different variations of making money in the same way, this is their basic desire. When we look at it, capital can avoid salary costs and earn more money by laying off workers and using artificial intelligence workers. However, by using artificial intelligence correctly, workers can do their job better and faster. So what happens now? Time will tell us this. So, is there any invention that comes to your mind other than artificial intelligence? It is an invention that advances people but will cause both capital and workers to lose money in this regard. Even though it doesn't come easily to our minds when we think about it now, I think most inventions start like this. I'm sure that when the airplane was first invented, people had very different ideas than we do now. When the airplane was invented, it probably came into existence with zero income, or even more money spent on trial and error. This device, which was a complete loss in financial terms, also threatened other means of transportation with its practicality. Currently, we can see that airplanes are clearly used more for long-distance passenger transportation than ships. And although we do not understand the situations at that time due to its prevalence, I mean that every invention adapts the world to itself. Whatever the invention, humanity as a social whole changes according to this invention. In other words, capital and workers are permanent, while the product is temporary. While people were still using trains and ships, professions such as pilots and aircraft engineers developed. While these were happening, the capital that invested in the plane continued to earn like crazy. So what happened to the ship? Of course, it is not as powerful as it used to be, but the transportation of non-human goods still occurs primarily via maritime routes. So the plane did not kill the ship, it could not. One of the most important characteristics of humans is diversity. Today, concepts such as parapsychology and phrenology still exist, and a significant portion of people believe in such things. No matter how old something may seem, people sometimes use it just because it is old.
So what does science do? Shouldn't science progress in such situations? Shall we stop? After all, people's well-being is at stake. Yes, science can produce fabric that does not wear out and does not get dirty, but science cannot make clothes and sell them. Science produces planes, but does not build airports. Science is independent of practice. You may not like the results of some research conducted by scientists, some may not. You can see different ideas, you can see things that never happened in practice. Black holes were discovered theoretically before they were observed. In short, science has no practical problems. It is the attempt of the living species called humans living on that world to systematically solve their curiosity about the universe they live in. This is science, science does not tell anyone anything, scientists say things, create theories in their minds, support these theories with hypotheses, investigate their hypotheses, and publish the results. Other scientists accept these results, move on from them, sometimes do not accept them, and begin to conduct opposing research. Science is actually a much freer field than what they tell us about as scary: science says this and that. The only practical thing about science is the method it uses, but that's a much longer topic. Rind and his colleagues conducted a study in 1988 showing that sexual abuse of children did not affect children's lives as much as it was thought. Of course, as a result of this research, storms broke out, how could this happen, do you allow harassers, etc. Even though Rind pointed out the situation in various parts of the research, knowing that it would be understood this way, he was exposed to many negative criticisms in the chaos he created. It was opposed by different studies, but was criticized and even corrected by Rind in terms of its methodology . Although Rind's research has generated much controversy and has even been used in practical cases in egregious situations, such as when lawyers obtain commutations in child molestation cases, it is an important part of science. Science is an effort to examine the universe in which humans exist. The purpose of science is never practical anyway. The practice is that non-scientist craftsmen can use this science to make something and continue to fund the scientist because of the profits that will come from their work. Science is science, even if it has the worst consequences. The only thing practical in science is the method of acquiring knowledge. When dealing with the subject of truth, science prefers the method of obtaining knowledge that will be practically useful to us. Other than that, he has no interest in practice.
I cannot comment on the cinematography of the movie because it is too old. But since it was that old, it didn't look bad at all. Even the chase scene at the end was quite entertaining. Unfortunately, I didn't understand what they used for music and I couldn't find the music list later because it was an old movie. Honestly, I can't remember anything negative or positive.
The acting of old times is very strange. I don't know if people were really like that back then, or if realism wasn't the goal of cinema, but the acting in such old cinemas always seems far from reality to me. Of course, I'm not looking for characters who have conversations where the conversations are very fast and the terms used today are used, but this seems too dull. I mean, the speeches, the movements, all of them seemed to me to be from the upper class rather than from reality. That's why I have to say that I didn't like the movie very much in terms of acting. But maybe acting was just like that back then and I'm interpreting it wrong.
I'm actually surprised that such a beautiful movie has been watched so little. The duration is short anyway, so even if you don't like it, I think you won't waste much time. And I definitely recommend everyone to watch it.
Brooklyn Nine-Nine (2013)
Good Merge of Comedy and Detective Series
It's a series that turned out much better than I expected. Frankly, even though I liked the lead role already, I didn't expect it to be this good. They wanted to get on one knee and do a good job. Indeed, work done with love can always put itself ahead of other works of the same type. So, let's come and see why this series is so good.
Actually, this series looks like a standard sit-com. Nothing more and nothing less. Funny characters, absurdism , traces of black humor, love between characters, etc. It looks classic. It is difficult for sit-com series to break away from these chains that bind them, so they may not all be very different and very special. I think an important feature of this series is that it has successfully combined the detective story with the comedy genre and it is the extra of a special character. B99 is a simple but funny series. Even though it's classic, cliché stuff, it still manages to make people laugh. While doing this, he creates crazy comedy through characters and absurd comedy through events.
Jake is a "crazy" leading character in every sit-com series. In order to use this madness as a comedy element, of course we need to put him in an environment that is also self-confident, extroverted and, above all, accepting of himself as he is. The 99th district is exactly such a region. The people around Jake are already "abnormal" people. Charles Boyle is Jake's best friend and also his biggest fan. This is a relationship that we don't see often in other TV series (especially between same-sex couples). Boyle is a character who openly accepts being the second character and even lives his life in this line. Of course, it is difficult to see such things in more realistic TV series because we have difficulty finding such characters in real life. And of course, one of the reasons why this character exists in the series is that Jake never abuses this situation, and he sees Boyle as his best friend. I think the Boyle character is the second most interesting character in the series and it is handled very well. If you're aware of the fights between him and Jake, whom he admires, and Jake's interest in girlfriend affairs, I can't help but mention Jake when I'm talking about Boyle, which defines Boyle. He is exactly such a character. He is also a very polite friend who knows how to cook and has interesting sexual preferences. I loved the character of Boyle. Although the character of Amy is the person who represents common sense in the series, there is a character who does it much better and her only characteristic is exaggerated meticulousness and nerdiness. For me, she is a character that is a bit dull in the series. Perhaps he is the character that the audience can connect with the most. Diaz is a very tough and "masculine" female character who never laughs and speaks as little as possible. Although this character is far from comedy, he manages to make jokes and make us laugh when he laughs, even if it is rare. The character of Linetti is a bit complicated and chaotic. It's already depicted that way. Even though I thought he successfully reflected this chaos to the audience, he was the only character who could not make me love him. While we can say that the other characters are definitely different mentally, Linetti is a very sane character. Although this is not the important thing, his selfishness and evil actions are unfortunately visible when compared to other naive characters. Even though he is a character like Creed from the Office series, I think he is a slightly less successful version of him. Let's talk about my favorite characters (except Boyle because he's second best but I talked about him already). Hitchcock and Scully, as you can see from me writing together here, are a duo that never leave themselves. These two try to laze around as much as possible and never play detective. An episode where they are really successful when they do what they do and shows their youth tells us very well how they got to this point. They are very voracious characters and represent the absurdism of the series well. Terry is a character who stands out with his muscularity and is also superior to the detectives in rank. While in this article he is expected to be a tough character in a normal series, he is actually like a baby. Although he can be harsh when necessary, he is generally a very sweet character. Her biggest concern in life is her family and especially her daughters. It has been emphasized many times in the series that her daughters are her priority, and you feel this deeply. Moreover, you can really connect to the character by switching to the third person when talking about himself.
Let's come to the star of the series. A truly unprecedented character. Moreover, Raymond Holt , not as he is, but with the change he has undergone throughout the seasons, with the character he already has, with the obsessions he has, with his ability to go crazy by merging with the remaining characters when the time comes, even though he is the most important source of common sense and wisdom in the series, and with his amazing relationship. When the Holt character enters the series, he is described as a "Robot" by other employees. He cannot even show a simple emotion like laughing at first. He is always harsh, speaks little, pays attention to grammatical rules, and in general pays attention to procedure in every aspect of life. He always strives to increase the productivity of his employees. He acts as a mentor to the character Amy and a father to the character Jake. So much so that Jake sometimes mistakenly calls Holt "dad." In this way, he is the funniest character in the series because you don't expect it when Holt does things like other characters. He is normally a very stable, less talkative character, but maybe he can adapt to an environment where he is accepted like Jake, and maybe he can live his character more easily. Although he seems irrelevant to the 99th district at first, after seasons he turns out to be a good father to all of them. In my opinion, Holt , who is so aware of his responsibilities and is also such a fun man , is the key and funniest character of the series. To give an example, if the TV series The Office were real, no one would probably be working, but I can say that everyone in the 99th district would be working.
With this, we have finished the large leading cast of sit-com series. There are very few side characters in the series that should not be left without mentioning. Perhaps mention could be made of Doug Judy, who comes one episode per season and whose story really progresses in stages. There is generally no progress in the series until the last 2-3 episodes of the seasons. General improvements are made in those episodes, but since it is a sit-com, I don't think anyone will complain about this situation.
Unfortunately, the series has made it clear that it has some message concerns, especially in its last season. In other words, they feel this way sincerely, and when it is done unnoticed, people may like it when they touch on such a subject. But unfortunately, it looks insincere when it is forced. We are in a period where games frequently make this mistake. It makes us understand that these companies do these things out of commercial concerns, rather than because they really care about this situation. For example, in Red Dead Redemption 2 There is a terrorist organization called KKK. The time and place where the play takes place are suitable for this, this is not forced. Moreover, the game does not impose a mandatory task to go and kill them. However, you come across their secret meetings in the forest at night. Kill them if you want, watch them if you want, join them if you want. However, when you kill them, the game increases your " honor". In other words, the game knows that the KKK organization is an evil organization, and it wants you to know it too, but it does not do this in a forced way. To give an example from this series itself, the character of Jake Peralta is a very progressive, feminist character. However, he is already a thoughtful person and they squeezed these parts in without shouting too much. In other words, the series knows how to raise awareness on certain issues, but depending on the time it was released, it came with a season that was completely concerned with the message. This does not leave a good taste in one's mouth. If you ask how it could have been, this issue could have been handled in a more subtle way instead of being explained loudly from the first episode, it would have looked more natural. Writers already know that if you talk about the issue loudly like "racism is bad", no one will receive your message, and those who do will not process it, because everyone hears it anyway. If you really want to raise people's awareness about an issue, you need to keep it within the whole story. So much so that even if we do not remember the books we read, their main ideas have already settled in our minds and started to form our ideas.
One way or another, Brooklyn-99 is a very good series, better than I expected. I liked how well they combined crime and comedy. Even though the series has its shortcomings, the character of Holt is definitely one of the best characters I have seen on screen. I think the actor who played him did a great job. I thank the team for creating such an iconic character. I think everyone who loves sit-coms should watch this series.
Poyraz Karayel (2015)
Disappointing Classic Mafia-Love Story
Poyraz Karayel. Poyraz blows from the northeast. It comes from the Greek god named Boreas . Karayel, on the other hand, blows from the Northwest and is a wind that generally brings cold. So, do you know how this part is reflected in the series? Frankly, I don't know either. Because there is no such thing. Unfortunately, I cannot say that maybe the character of Poyraz is divided into two. The series is actually exactly like this example, a bit pointless. So why? It is actually a very praised and popular series, but I did not like it. Now let's dwell on it a bit.
Poyraz is a police officer. One day, something happens to him and he tries to get inside information by being close to a mafia boss. Meanwhile, he falls in love with his daughter. It's actually that simple. After a certain point, Poyraz completely goes to the side of this mafia boss (Bahri). And then the series happens. A classic scenario. Especially the part about falling in love with your daughter. However, the script is very insistent on prolonging this. Although the first season of the series was successful, of course, they later realized that they had to squeeze the water out of something so popular, and they ruined the series beautifully. So who is this Poyraz Karayel? Let's start here.
The men of Turkish TV series either have no families, or their families cause trouble for them. Poyraz's family is a mixture of both. They don't exist, but when they exist, they're just a nuisance. He is a person who grew up without a family and became a police officer. I have not read Oguz Atay, but my friends who read it told me that there are many similarities with the book "Tutunamayanlar". Poyraz is a somewhat emotional person. It's a bit poetic. But along with these, there is also the mafia. In other words, he is actually a man that the series wants to present to the female audience. Of course, how attractive today's women find this character is a separate issue, but I do not think Poyraz is a successful character. There are two ways we, as viewers, connect with the main character. Empathy and sympathy. We will either empathize with this character and understand what happened to him and understand what he will do, or we will love him and become attached to him. It is impossible to empathize with Poyraz. I think very few of us are the right-hand men of a mafia boss and fall in love with his daughter. Unfortunately, we do not empathize with what happened to him by making it lighter (by changing a large amount). So we need to sympathize, but I really had a hard time with this. Poyraz is a "man". There are certain aspects of the male stereotype that society presents as attractive men, especially in TV series. For example, mysteriousness, which I think especially women in relationships would never want in their relationships . The character Aysegul, whom I will talk about later, is a very smart character. However, no matter what, Poyraz hides everything from Aysegul, even when he is about to go to the toilet, and somehow escapes by saying "I have some work". Even though Aysegul would not approve of what she did at that moment, she does not know or understand that she owes it to the girl she "loves very much". And yes, Poyraz loves his girlfriend very much. Poems and serenades are everywhere. Unfortunately, after he doesn't say anything to the girl and loses the perception that he really cares about her, these things seem fake. I am sure that my fellow women will confirm while reading this article that a ton of kind words cannot be more valuable than one action . He is also a stubborn person. Even though Aysegul says "don't go, don't go" words just because she thinks about him, Poyraz doesn't care about the world. He can go away with a ton of money that his father-in-law has since the tenth episode of the series, but the character, who is affected by this scenario that the scriptwriters made to make the series more enjoyable, seems to us like an "adventure enthusiast". Besides, while talking about nice words, we should also mention the dangerous things Poyraz said to Aysegul. Even though the sentence "If you leave, I will die" seems harmless, you need to think from the other side. You will feel bad when a person who says this while crying stands in front of you. Poyraz, who uses phrases like "You can't love anyone else but me" a lot, unfortunately starts to seem fake when he says these curse-like sentences after a ton of flowery words. Of course, a person who is truly in love cannot love someone else, but I think this should not be said by the person in love. Moreover, even though Aysegul does not want to, he repeatedly knocks on her door and even throws stones at her window. He doesn't think that Aysegul, if have been behind the glass at that time, could finish the series. So he is definitely not a character that can be sympathized with. At one point in the series, he even forgot about his beloved son. The series tries to make people love Poyraz in a different way. Pain , as he sometimes does to Aysegul. "He has suffered so much, he deserves to be happy ." The series is trying to make us think like this, but I can say that this situation backfires.
Aysegul is the loser of this series. He believes in his father, he believes in his lover. Despite what happened, he believes that his father and his lover will eventually be able to achieve peace with their own methods. I will touch upon these mafia affairs more clearly in Bahri's section. Aysegul is always optimistic, no matter what her father and her lover have done to her and other people, and that's why she loses the most. There doesn't have to be death. This girl hates her father enough to change her surname. She hates her lover, but she is helplessly in love with him and cannot break up with him because of Poyraz's manipulations at the level of black magic. That's why Aysegul, who expects that everything will get better sooner or later, even sees the death of her lover. At this point, when Aysegul was about to lose her life, she was saved by someone else. As soon as she married him, her lover, who chased her as a ghost, returns. And he's still in love with her Because it happened, another story starts from here. Although I think that people do not marry behind the back of someone they truly love, I am still undecided when I think that Poyraz is not worthy of this much love. No matter what, Aysegul is the most important character representing common sense and humanity in this series.
Coming to Bahri and mafia affairs, Bahri (Father) is the biggest mafia in Istanbul. I thought people were tired of this nonsense, but no, the mafia is always being watched. Even though he is the "good mafia" and tries to be portrayed as such, the number of people who died and the people they lost throughout the series reveal how messy the mafia situation has actually become and that there is no such thing as a "good mafia". Bahri also has three men. The events that take place between these men generally contribute to the comedy element. Even though I like their characters, they are not very deep and I feel like they are victims of cross-matching (the single people becoming lovers in TV series), which is the thing I hate most in TV series. Maybe one day screenwriters will realize that it is not necessary for everyone to have a lover and give up on this situation.
In other words, the scenario revolves around these characters and the story I mentioned at the beginning. If you ask me, it's not too difficult after the first season. I mean, the bad guys, for example, seemed very sleazy to me. Unfortunately, they could not add such an iconic, very powerful, bad character that will make you feel really helpless, always behind the good character. Actually, it seemed like there was one, but they sent him out of the series for no reason, I don't understand why, and he had good acting. The story doesn't even seem to have a focus. So, if you ask me what exactly happened right now, I honestly can't tell you. I think I can say that it is a love story sprinkled with mafia as the most complex one. Although the series is good in some respects, it is unfortunately a bad series in general.
I can't talk about the cinematography of the series because I don't remember anything. Frankly, I don't remember any technique or extra beauty. But I think their music is not bad. Even though I like thematic music, I think that for such a long series, the music is few and repetitive. Seems like a bit of laziness.
Finally, I think that the friends who played the characters of Aysegul and Bahri acted very well. Terzioglu, who played the role of the daughter of Istanbul's biggest mafia a few years ago, once again did justice to this character. Although the fact that the actors play the same characters makes one question how good they are, if they can play that role well, no matter what. Even though our lead's character and voice were suitable for the role, it would be a lie if I said I couldn't see any extras. Oh, by the way, the kid's acting was bad. It could be really annoying at times.
To finish our article without further ado, even though it was a good series with its first season, it is a series that makes us wish it had stayed with its first season, has characters that are difficult to like, and has large and simple gaps in its script. I can say that it is one of the worst TV series I have ever watched. If you are ready to watch a lot of romance, you can watch this too, but for your friends with high emotional standards, this love story will turn into torture, and the remaining mafia will get tired of the nonsense of the stories and leave. As a principle, I finish every series I start, and that's why I finished it. Otherwise I probably would have left it in the second season.
Mandira Filozofu (2014)
Failed Movie with a Good Idea
I write the same thing at the beginning of every article, but it is a really interesting movie. Every movie has a special story to tell. No one is the same as the other. We watch different things. It is impossible for us to experience these , it is even very difficult for us to see them, but we see these stories on stages and screens. Every story has different things to tell. This movie is actually a very simple movie. One day, while sitting in a coffee shop, an uncle said: "Actually, you will quit your job, go to the village, and live everything naturally there." It's a movie that can be written based on its words. Although you find the concept simple, it is impossible not to like it. So what does this movie tell and how does it tell it?
He is a very rich businessman, he cannot spare time for himself because of his work, this is a classic type anyway. We are exposed to these characters a lot, especially in movies and TV series. But there is also the Dairy Philosopher. He is the special character of this movie. He lives in a small hut in a small bay. He does animal husbandry, agriculture, and prepares his breakfast from these works. He collects the chicken's eggs and breaks them into the pan. He picks tomatoes from the garden and puts them on a plate. They especially focused on these breakfast scenes. This breakfast is an important part of the Dairy Philosopher's life. We do not know what he consumes in the evening, at noon, or even in winter in this natural environment, and when one thinks about it at first, it does not come to mind. He wonders how this philosopher will survive the winter, especially without a heating system (we haven't seen it, but maybe he has a stove). This businessman wants to buy the land where the philosopher's hut is located by paying millions. The business costs so much money that this man could probably settle in one of the best places in the world and live comfortably, but the philosopher insists on not selling his land.
Really, where is the best place in the world? Monaco? America? Italy? The philosopher already lives in one of the most beautiful bays of the Aegean. He says that no matter what he needs, he can meet it from nature. Money doesn't mean anything to him. Of course, it is possible to see here that he did not make tools such as pans and household items himself and that they were left to him, and therefore there are practical errors in the messages the film wants to convey, but we may have to comment without getting caught up in this.
In order for the western world we live in to perceive a person as "abnormal" in psychology, one of the most important characteristics that this person must have is "not being productive". So what is being unproductive? What do you produce? Production here is not just about producing a product, using it or selling it. Creating can also mean introducing a behavior that will be useful in the system that people have created. For example, working at the hotel reception is a form of productivity according to the western world. You produce a service here. Productivity is very critical for the western world, and groups of people who have lost their productivity even though they are not sick are labeled "abnormal". One of the most important examples of these groups is LGBT gender groups. Not being able to produce children is an act of counterproductivity, and these people have been labeled "abnormal" for centuries. Currently, people with "anomalies" such as autism and schizophrenia, who can live more normal lives with the increase in humanism, are described as "sick" by the psychology science dominated by the Western world, because they are "not productive". Of course, the organization of these people will change this situation in the near future, but this is the subject of another article. If you understand what I mean, you understand its connection to the movie.
Robinson Crusoe ? Although they seem basically the same as the philosopher in this movie, we can say that their lives are diametrically opposed. The dairy philosopher is a person who lives day by day. He does not have a working routine, he sleeps when he is sleepy and wakes up when he is awake. He eats when he is hungry. Doesn't do anything extra. He lives by thinking about periods of one month at most. It is intertwined with nature. However, for Robinson, nature has been placed at his service. No matter how much he produces, Robinson does not stop and continues to produce more. It doesn't need it at all, and maybe it never will, but it will never stop production. He continues to work throughout his life. One of the first things he does as soon as he lands on the island is a watch to help him keep track of time. There is no need to explain further. We can compare the difference between these two to the west-east dilemma. For Western people, nature is just a tool. He gets his needs from nature and is ready to exploit nature until nature will not destroy him. However, eastern people have the concept of "mother nature". Nature is not a tool. It is a special spirit with which man lives in the world. That's why animals and plants are more respected in these cultures. For them, a cow is much more than meat and milk, while in western cultures, cows consist only of meat and milk. On the other hand, it is thought-provoking that veganism is much more common in the West today.
Represents "the human being in touch with nature " in this movie. The movie is incredibly bad. Even though what it wants to tell is good, this is a really bad movie in terms of both the technique of the movie it uses to convey this and the parallelism of its narrative with its vision. However, when evaluating the idea contained in it, it is necessary to look at it more objectively and from a distance. When we look at internet access rates, both Turkey and the majority of people on the internet look at things from the West's perspective. According to them, if you do not produce value for people, you are living in vain. So, while Crusoe is a successful gentleman, Mustafa Ali is nothing but a crazy philosopher. I think it is necessary to look at it more objectively from a distance.
Now let's talk about the rest of the movie, the trash. The film is a film that fails to do anything except the idea it tells, or rather the idea it tries to explain. First of all, numerous logical errors in the scenario stand out. There are numerous logical errors in the main relationship of the film, the businessman and philosopher, and their dialogues. The businessman already has the power to stop working whenever he wants, with his savings. With the money he has, he can buy and eat the most natural, freshest things from any cooperative, or even better, from a farm. He can settle wherever he wants and continue his life that way. While he has such an opportunity, the anti-thesis that this man provides us is not correct. Although the sentences we heard from Mustafa Ali's mouth, such as "I am against work" and "I am against money", are read in a way that is far from the western paradigm, they are not plausible ideas. First of all, he did not make the tools at home, it is obvious that he was not interested in mining, naturally these were bought with money. Moreover, even though he lives day by day, he is aware that he has to work hard to maintain such a life. So, although the idea is good, both the dialogues and the structure of the film handle the issues very poorly. The movie doesn't hit you hard. It fuels the ideas he already had in his mind, "I should settle in a village", for a while, and then they begin to be forgotten. Here, the money could have been criticized in a much more creative way, perhaps going between pre- and post-agricultural communities, but it should not be forgotten that this situation requires a very difficult and striking scenario. The images of the movie are nice, but if you throw the camera in Mugla, you will already take beautiful images. They don't need to try too hard. The music of the movie is deplorable. Although there are no beautiful pieces except one, these pieces look as if they were bought from a website at a cheap price.
Let's talk about the acting. He played the role of the messman really well, and his face was also very suitable for playing this role at that time . However, I have to point out that I did not see the same performance from Öztekin. Of course, the film's crappy cinematography has a lot to do with it, but there's nothing you can do about it. The remaining characters do not mean anything in terms of script and screen time anyway. They just reflect the comedic elements of the movie. Moreover, there are a few actors who really can't handle the Aegean accent. If they had actually hired peasants instead of choosing famous actors, these people would have played better. Acting, unfortunately, is a profession that gets much more value than it deserves. Of course, people know that acting is about looks more than talent, but this seems like too much. People really faint. It was especially a bad choice for the director to use the same names in his other famous works .
Good idea get thrown away with a disgraceful movie, was the first movie I evaluated as a "waste of time" and "don't watch" on the site. Anyway, good luck to those who will watch it.
Drive (2011)
Literally Us?
Once upon a time there was a frog. This frog had very good intentions. He used to take those who wanted to cross a river across. One day a scorpion came and asked the frog to take him across. The frog replied, "No? You are a scorpion, you will sting me." He said. The scorpion replied, "Well, if I sting you, I will also die in the middle of the road. Don't worry, I won't do such a thing." He assured the frog. The frog was convinced by this idea and took the scorpion on his back and started to cross the river. In the middle of the river, he felt a pain in his back. "Why did you do that? Now we are both going to die!" said the frog to the scorpion. And the scorpion said: "I know, but what can I do, I am a scorpion."
Although the connection between the movie and this scorpion story is controversial, we see that this story is not far from the movie. There is a proverb that says, "A person with a bad temper does not give up his temper". People are like scorpions who sting the frog even if it means death. No matter what the cost, they will not give up their habits. So how can we adapt this to a movie?
I don't normally read other people's writings before writing these articles, but I started reading them a few articles ago in case they might be useful, in case I missed something. But these articles are really strange to me. Those who deify and worship the movie, and those who trash the movie unnecessarily alongside them. People who don't understand the movie at all. And so on and so forth. It's like people are judging movies for their own purposes and not for the purpose of the movie. "I think that's what this movie should have been, but it's not, it's zero then". Or this movie is about my life. It's the best movie in the world. And there are so many comments like that. It's really upsetting, but I'm not going to respond to such criticisms here unless they are very intense and precise. But before I talk about the script of the movie, I want to talk a little bit about the "literally me" that people often talk about.
I think there is no need to talk at length about what these characters are and who they are. We already know who they are in which movies, but usually Ryan Gosling is a very good actor for these characters. These characters are generally silent, they are lonely. Not only they don't talk, but the amount of movement on their faces is very small. So they seem to be trying to communicate as little as possible. Besides that, they are usually criminals and they are very good at their crimes. They act within their own moral compass and although they normalize their crimes, they are very strict and sharp, especially in protecting their loved ones. And just like the scorpions we described at the beginning of our article, they cannot give up their habits. Although we cannot be sure, it is possible to see that they are struggling with some mental health problems. We could talk about this at length, and it may take a lot of research, but to summarize, Driver is a person who has not found himself in this world. Like other "literally me" characters, he is experiencing a crisis of masculinity in a capitalist and consumer-oriented world, and he "self-realizes" at night. He is a goal-oriented person and is ready to do whatever it takes to achieve his goal. He needs to always be superior in every position, so he does not compromise his controlling and cold-bloodedness even for a second. Although he numbs himself as much as possible, his feelings for his neighbor remind him that he is a human being who belongs to this world. From this point on, even though his purpose changes completely, he is still a scorpion and as the lines between his two lives disappear, he embarks on perhaps the most interesting and challenging adventure of his life in this movie.
It is possible to summarize the story of the movie in this way so that we don't go too far and give spoilers. The focus of the movie is what our driver will do in this situation, how he will get out of this chaos. Basically, most "literally me" movies already show how such people struggle with their "scorpion-ness". I think the script of the movie is not bad. It's not very special, but I think it conveys what it wants nicely. I think it's a bit too superficial (especially compared to Only God Forgives) but no movie has to be full of layers. I can say that the movie, which finishes its story in an hour and a half, didn't leave much of a narrative gap for me.
The movie has a unique (I think?) shooting technique. By dividing the rectangle in which we are watching the movie into four other rectangles, it is possible to understand that the movie is shot on these new rectangles. The technique used in this movie, where one half of the screen and the other half of the screen tell very different things, is really interesting. They used the right and left halves of the screen, the top and bottom halves separately. And it is possible to go even further and watch a different scene in each quadrant of the screen. Here, we can actually see that the driver separates his life and these lives gradually intertwine as the movie goes on. A successful shooting technique. In the rest of the cinematography of the movie, I didn't notice much, to be honest. I don't remember any extra good shots. I can leave the opening scene out of this because it's a scene that has become very iconic with its music and image and has been the subject of internet memes. The soundtrack of the movie is really good, a lot of work was put into it. They can be listened to separately. The songs are already good, but the instrumental ones are absolutely great as well. I think people who are not going to watch the movie but like the synthwave genre can sit and listen to it. I can't comment on the sound effects because I'm still not very competent. Maybe I should watch the best movies when I'm the most competent.
It is very easy to talk about the acting in a movie with so few actors because there are only a few. The most important one is Ryan Gosling, who really does justice to these roles. It's like he was created to play these roles. If you ask me, he doesn't have a face suitable for these roles. Seriously, he looks a bit "silly" handsome. We have recently seen him in the role of "Ken" and I think he is more suitable for this role, but we have been able to watch this brother, who we now see as "Ken", in these roles in his time. Even though I see him playing only one role, I think he is very successful in these roles and I hope that he can show the same performance in other movies with characters that are not of the same type. There is not much that I remember from the characters other than that, to be honest, the movie has already put all the spotlight on Gosling (ironically, his character in the movie never wants this).
It's an iconic movie. However, I don't think everyone will like it. Although I don't understand the history of cinema at all, I think it's normal to see that easily consumed products attract the attention of the masses while attracting the hatred of old moviegoers. For me, Only God Forgives is much better than this movie. They are actually very similar, but this is a more easily consumable movie. Whatever kind of viewer you are, choose between the two movies and watch it.
Lucy (2014)
Boo different opinions boo
Lucy is an interesting science-fiction movie. Although I expected the movie to be much better before watching it, as can be seen from its score here, it is just a movie that is just a little above average. After watching it, I can remain of the same opinion. Even though they chose the concept well, I think the mistakes the movie contains and its last half hour definitely drag it down a lot.
In the movie Lucy, the idea of "not using the full capacity of our brain", which most of us have probably heard somewhere, is discussed. In this film, a scientist who develops a hypothesis on whether this full capacity is used or not, and a woman who has a high dose of synthetic drug mixed into her blood and therefore can use her entire brain, come together. However, the skills this person can achieve when his entire brain is used seem very interesting indeed. Of course, the fact that a person is very smart brings to our mind the firstly artificial intelligence. These machines, which can perform very large operations in seconds, can run through their algorithms in a very short time the things that people often work on for hours and produce results. Naturally, when we say "very smart person", the first thing that comes to our mind is artificial intelligence as an imitation. However, with the popular artificial intelligences we had the opportunity to talk with recently (GPT), we have seen that artificial intelligences cannot avoid very simple mistakes and cannot be fully human. So here we have a person who can hypothetically use his entire brain. Although we think of a person who can use his entire brain as a very high-level calculator in today's scientific paradigm, the screenwriter's perspective on this matter is different.
In the paradigm of today's science, humans are represented as high-level complex machines. In psychology, elements such as memory and mind are modeled through computers. People do not build computers by looking at humans, but they take computers as an example and explain their own brains. The reason for this is that the West, which is the ruler of science, defines the person who meets its own living standards as "normal" while determining the "normal" of a person, and defines the other as "abnormal and non-functional". In other words, in the paradigm in which the West has a strong say, man is a machine from the perspective of science. We, in general, agree with these ideas because we were educated entirely within the Western paradigm, especially in science. While looking at the reviews about the movie, people complained about the movie not being scientifically real, but the movie doesn't make such a scientifical claim anyway. However, we can see in these people how today's scientific approach crushes even our dreams and theories under the name of "science". They are so attached to the paradigm that a new idea has no effect on them and they reject it outright. However, science itself is not done this way. Science can thrive almost entirely through dreams and ideas. It is clear that if such people had lived before, they would have been firmly committed to Newtonian physics and would never have agreed with Einstein. I was saddened to see these friends who were more interested in information technology than science.
The themes of "nirvana, ascension", which are mostly from the east, are discussed in the movie. The power that comes from knowledge and the full use of the brain can give a person powers that we currently describe as "superhuman". These powers include not only being very intelligent, but also being able to control the physical world. From here, the unity of man with nature and different religious and spiritual views are included in the film, but since I do not have much knowledge, I cannot write about it in detail. In my opinion, there is no point where the film contradicts the general theme. If there is, it is because today's people cannot see the situation they are in and are unaware of this situation, limiting even their imagination in line with what this world has taught them.
So, if you ask what the problem of the movie is, it is that the character, who uses his brain enough to integrate with this world, makes some strange mistakes in the movie. I think that a character created like this should definitely not have made these mistakes, which I think were made to lengthen the movie and make the ending exciting, but at one point they might have made them to emphasize that this character is aware of everything and that he created the difficulty herself, etc. It is really difficult to make a clear inference, but of course the police officers watching a lot of people with guns entering the university cannot be explained. Although the general theme of the movie is interesting, they failed to keep this theme warm and wrote it as if it went completely wrong after a while. Maybe there's something I missed.
I liked the visual and sound techniques, but they are not great either. Those black parts at the end were very fake and very visible. In general, it would be fair to say that I did not see any additional shooting techniques, but since I still do not consider myself competent in this regard, I would like to quickly finish my cinematographic review and move on to the music. To be honest, there was nothing that interested me much in the music, except for one or two songs. There is one piece that is quite nice, but the rest seemed like filler pieces to me.
It would be a lie if I said I remember anything extra good or bad about the acting. Personally, the acting of the Asian friends looked a little bad, but it wasn't that bad. I think they used Morgan Freeman purely for his voice, I don't understand why they chose the actors anymore. I think that our sister in the leading role was chosen to resemble the people in these first human events, but she is not such a divine human type. How's her acting? I don't know much, honestly it seems average. There is no scene that impressed me.
In other words, it is a movie that starts well, goes well, but then becomes a bad movie with a lot of mistakes. I would say the concept is good, but I can't because they say it's too similar to the movie Limitless. Oh, it's definitely worth watching. An hour and a half won't steal anything from your life anyway. Maybe it will help you open your mind and get rid of this "science" paradigm that the West has established on you. As I always say: "Boo different opinions boo".
Rogue One (2016)
Star Wars 3.5
I'm certainly not a huge Star Wars fan. Interestingly, I like the second trilogy a lot more and I wouldn't have understood half of the references in this movie if I hadn't heard them from someone else. But I still like the main movies. I especially don't remember what they did in the first two movies of the first trilogy. For me, Star Wars is really more a movie about the Skywalkers than about Star Wars. But it was also the political setting in the second trilogy that made me like this universe, which normally doesn't interest me. As much as I like this political setting in the movie, I'm not very interested in the resistance-empire war unless it's very well told/illustrated. But this story showed that this war can also be interesting when it is told correctly.
I think the story is very good. Especially after the cliché-ridden script of the Solo movie, this more original script felt better. But perhaps the biggest factor that saves the script is its connection to other movies. There are a lot of references in the movie. There are a lot of people in the movie that I don't remember, but are very important to the Star Wars universe. Honestly, I'd rather have interesting new characters added to the movie rather than having these characters appear just for fan service. Since the movie is a single movie, it's not easy for me to get attached to these characters, but they definitely have colorful personalities. I think the character of Jyn is good. I'm very bored with women in movies who are always making sarcastic jokes, who are witty and whose only characteristic is that they are a woman that someone loves, and I think Jyn is a very nice independent character. The movie cuts what she went through as a child so short that we can't really get attached to the character and what she went through, but there is no need to prolong the movie. She became this person after what she went through. Is it irrational? Not at all. Moreover, I think his father is a great character. The answers to the questions the audience asked in 4 are actually in this man. I think Galen Orso is definitely a good character, even though he doesn't get much screen time and I love the actor who plays him. He's not overwritten, he's a real hero, his screen time is small, it's enough. Of course, in movies like this, it's important to connect with the character, but we don't need to be exposed to him all the time. Apart from Andor, who we don't know much about and who doesn't have much of a character, we have two characters with comedy elements. K2 is actually a very funny robot. Even though the gang is great and not very interesting, it doesn't bore you. I think the story is not bad either. I would have liked more of the rebels' bad behavior to be shown, but that's enough. Other than that, the last half hour of the movie is really great. We have a great battle scene and the end of these scenes is very good. It's perfect to tie the end of the movie to the first movie. We also get a glimpse of Darth Vader, but I don't understand why people shake so much when they see Darth Vader. I think this character should be shown a little more and there should be scenes where he can show his real power instead of showing off to three or five soldiers. I think we need to see him use his mind as well as his strength, and I think they can reflect the concept of a terrifying character by showing the terror he can really unleash, not by showing very little of him and increasing his mystery and hiding his power.
Mads Mikkelsen, even though he's not the lead, even if he's only in a small role, it shows how wasted he is. This guy is definitely not someone who exists only to play a villain. He's an actor who has a lot more potential and can overcome this potential, but I don't know when the studios will realize this. The character of Jyn is played very well. Other than that, I didn't see any outstanding acting, good or bad.
It's really hard to understand cinematography. As if what I have learned and experienced so far is not enough, I also need to understand how good the CGI mechanism is. Unfortunately, I'm not well-versed in cinema, so I don't think I'm capable of criticizing. For me personally, there was nothing that looked ugly. In fact, it even felt like a similar art style to the ANH movie. Since it is not my talent to notice this kind of detail, it must be the skill of the filmmakers. The CGI animated characters look very artificial, but I have to say that.
The Star Wars universe is absolutely wide open. And I don't think it's hard to make really good movies like this, even though the content of this movie feels a bit too compressed. Maybe I would have preferred a mini-series instead of this movie. I mean, you've got a vast universe, you've got all the history of this universe, you can make a resistance movie on an obscure planet if you want, who's to say. The fact that the Star Wars universe is so open seems to make it easier to make movies, but unfortunately it is not easy to make a good movie to meet the expectations because people's expectations are high after the first two trilogies. However, with smart scriptwriters and good directors, I think this can definitely be overcome. I don't know exactly what Disney is doing with Star Wars and I haven't heard very good things from my friends who are Star Wars fans, but if they are smart, they can use this universe for a long time with above-average work. I hope Disney is wise and does quality work that is more about cleaning up its own name than money, and I leave aside the Star Wars universe, which I love and hope to see more quality content.
Finding Nemo (2003)
A Children's Movie That's Still Very Good
I think it's great to revisit the animations we watched as kids. To be able to experience the nostalgic feeling of that moment and to be able to experience the movie again in a smarter way probably means that we will have a very good 2 hours. Especially if the movie is really good, as opposed to just being good for us because we're kids.
I think this movie is a very good example of that. It is debatable how much this movie is aimed at children. I personally didn't see it as a children's movie, I don't think any adult watching this movie is going to talk about how childish this movie is. I can understand this better when I watch the movie at my age. Even though some elements of the movie may seem simple to us as children, it actually contains really interesting events and characters. At the very beginning of the movie we are confronted with a father who has lost his wife and all but one of his children. So much so that this father can only save one of his hundreds of children (although this seems to devalue them, it makes the only child left behind very valuable) and that child is born physically disabled. Nemo, a character who is not good enough at swimming, appears this time. Although he can't fully swim because one of his fins is too small, Nemo is actually a good swimmer despite his disability. Of course, this father is very afraid that something will happen to his only child Nemo because of what he has been through and naturally he becomes a very restrictive father. This eventually leads Nemo to dislike his father. We have the blue fish, who is his father's traveling companion after the separation, and the fish in the aquarium where Nemo gets caught and falls in. The fish in this aquarium are certainly very interesting and entertaining, especially the leader. In the same way, what happens to the father in the ocean when he's looking for his son is definitely a very interesting story. Even the interestingness of these stories is handled and processed. Thanks to the writer of this script. He really did a very good job. My expectations were not very high, but I think that a cautionary tale was written. Who would have thought of intellectual vegan sharks?
As usual, I can't talk about the quality of the animation because I don't know enough about it nor have I seen enough to comment on it, but nothing bothered me. The fish were also very cute. The effects were good too. Unfortunately, I don't have much to say about it. Even though the soundtrack wasn't "How to Train Your Dragon", it wasn't bad and I won't dislike it. In fact, I still remember a few specific ones.
The dubbing of animated movies in Turkey is definitely very good. Of course, I can't make a comparison without watching the original, so I won't make a comparison. The Turkish dub is very entertaining. It seems that we are a very advanced country in animation dubbing. Especially the Dori voice actor really acted like a character.
So this movie is not a movie that we like only because we watched it when we were little. It's still a rocking movie. I think it's a very entertaining movie that handles the concepts I like very much, does not drag itself out, and does not slow down its pace. I think I can recommend it to everyone from 7 to 70.
Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)
Very Standart Heist Movie With Star Wars Spice
Of course, I don't think it would be possible for a universe as full and big as Star Wars not to make such side movies. There is money in it, after all. But I think they understood from the feedback of this movie that they should work with the original writers in such cases. I don't know what they did afterwards, and I personally don't think it is a movie worthy of the Star Wars universe. I wanted to watch it because I finished the movies and because I like the character of Han Solo like everyone else, but I was not very satisfied with it.
Because of my age, Harrison Ford, the character who played Han Solo at the time, is not a very important and valuable actor for me. Of course, he has good works, but I can't say that I saw this man in the movies I watched in my childhood. But because of the Star Wars movies, like everyone else, I loved the character of Han Solo. As I found out later, this character is loved very, very much and is almost the most loved character in the universe. I think a movie made with so little emphasis on this character must have driven Star Wars fans who have such a huge audience crazy. I went in with low expectations because I was coming from behind and because I had heard from my Star Wars fan friend what Disney had done to Star Wars. I have to admit that the result was even worse than I expected. I have to say that the movie is actually not that bad, but Han Solo is a really important figure. They definitely should have given more importance to the movie to be made on this figure. Even the name of the man we love so much is written in such an interesting way. It's like I'm talking Star Wars with my friend and we're joking around. The difference is that it's not a joke. Unfortunately, the movie was made by sprinkling as much fan service as possible into a simple script. Of course there are some good things and some funny things, but some things are so ridiculous that you can't wrap your head around it. It's as if they took the script of any heist movie, printed the Han Solo character on it, sprinkled a little bit of Star Wars content on top and left it at that. Unfortunately, it's a disappointing script for such an important character.
The movie is action-oriented and the action scenes are really nice. But sometimes it can be too complicated. Of course, I don't expect to be able to pick out everything in detail, but I think I could at least ask for a little more visibility. The soundtrack is very good. I definitely don't think it's a movie out of its year.
I think the acting is also very good, but the characters are so underrated. Whether it's the ones who die for no reason, the ones who do quadruple-couple treachery in order to fit the clichés in heist movies, the ones who die absurd deaths in order to make the main character worthwhile, the characters who appear for no reason just for fan service or whatever, this movie really has it all. I definitely liked the guy who played Solo, and he had a great villain performance, but I say he had a great villain performance because as usual, they didn't even let him play the character.
It is a heist movie that is close to a waste of time. No one would have even heard of this movie if it wasn't called Star Wars.
There's even a Rick and Morty episode that makes fun of heist movies like this one.
Prisoners (2013)
A Good Crime Movie
I always watch detective movies with the prejudice that they won't interest me, but they always prove me wrong. This movie is basically a thriller, especially with the music, the theme and even the story, but it's a crime movie and it's a very good movie.
The movie starts with a simple but sad incident of the disappearance of two girls. It's an event that can be extremely upsetting for people who know about what happens to missing children, even for people who don't. Of course it's ordinary for a movie, but these factors don't usually affect the interestingness of a movie. Personally, I was expecting a man with an extreme psychological problem, kidnapping little children and raising them in his kindergarten. Well, of course that didn't happen. Villains are usually gray and they leave the audience room to agree with them so that we cannot directly distinguish between good and bad. This movie does that not with the villain but with the lead character. A father who has lost his daughters, probably one of the most dangerous creatures in the world, does things that will question your morality but that you would do if you were in the same situation. This is the moral dilemma the audience is being forced into. Other than that, I think the villain designs are not bad. They definitely have an interesting motive, but what makes the movie shine is the victims in the present. These people who always manipulate the police and the father have an interesting psychological identity. As someone who works in this field, I don't find their identities very realistic, but such people can really exist. So theoretically, I definitely give credit to their creativity for creating such characters, not to their inability to be realistic.
Denis Villeneuve proves with this movie that he is definitely one of the best directors I have ever seen. Thanks to his unique shooting techniques, the movie drags you where it wants to go without you realizing it. It keeps the thrill factor alive and offers a lot of detail for those who can catch it. The movie is absolutely perfect in terms of visuals. The sound is a bit strange because it basically has a couple of soundtracks. I think it's too little for such a long running movie. But I think the only music that is there is great. The music summarizes the whole movie, not just one emotion.
I really appreciate the acting. The detective is definitely very well played. I don't think it's easy to act like a tic. This tic thing can also write to the director because such details increase the realism a lot. When was the last time you saw something like that? And of course the victims. They're really well played. I can definitely say that they could have ended up in a mental hospital for acting like that.
I think it's a good movie. Some moments in the story felt forced, but I don't even remember them now, so they weren't that important. If you like watching extreme criminals with strange motivations and the mysteries they create, I would definitely give it a chance.
Only God Forgives (2013)
Boo Symbolic Movie
First of all. It's a refined movie of an hour and a half. Yes, the pace is a bit slow. But it's not artificially prolonged. Even if it was, an hour and a half is one of the most appropriate times for a movie.
What a movie. It really is. I was shocked when I went to the movie's page and saw the rating. Usually I'm the one who doesn't like it, but this time I have a much higher rating and liking rate than the majority. And I think it's a very good movie and I'm really curious why it's not liked, so I'm going to go and read it. Yes, I read it and I'm a little bit disappointed. First of all, I haven't seen Drive and I don't think it's right to compare one movie to another movie when evaluating a movie. The points that are criticized afterwards, I don't think it's a point of criticism. If I give an example from video games, which I know better, some games like to tell their stories in a more closed way. They want the player to understand the story on their own instead of telling it like a fairy tale to a child. This is not a bad thing in my eyes, it is the game's choice. But the game can also make this narration bad. For example, if we find data left and right and understand it that way, then it will be criticized. Because it has used its preferred method unsuccessfully. This movie also preferred a closed and symbolic narrative. It is so closed that most of the people who commented did not understand the movie because of this closeness, but they said that the movie was unnecessarily closed because they could not express it clearly. However, I think the symbolism of the movie is very clear, even with its title. People really want to be able to keep their brains closed for most of their lives nowadays. If you can't even understand such a simple symbolism and closed meanings, I say watch children's movies. First of all, it's a pity for the author's work. I didn't like the story that much either, but I found the story and the symbolism successful. Of course it's not revolutionary, but I think it's very difficult to adapt the concept of God to a human being and the movie did it successfully. I also think that Gosling's acting is a very good portrayal of a person who had a really awful childhood and will never get over it for the rest of his life. If you can't handle so many layers in a movie, you can really go back to watching those crappy superhero movies. I think they can entertain you for hours without asking you to use your head. If you still don't understand the movie, you can easily understand it with a simple research on the internet. There are some points in the script that bothered me, one of which is that a very important knot in the past is not illuminated. Also, I think one more scene could have been added at the end. It was an aesthetic ending, but I would have liked to see the happy ending Julian deserved.
Even those who don't like the movie have already praised the cinematography enough, but let me talk about it a little bit. First of all, the color palette is great. The shots are very good. It offers us a wonderful image in terms of visuals. They made Thailand look very good. The dream-real mixed situations that Julian sees during the day are shot in a way that confuses us as well as Julian. I didn't see any extra shooting tactics, but the scenes with blood look very contrived. Maybe it's because I've been exposed to the real thing a lot, but for a movie in 2013, I think it could have been done more realistically. And finally, the movie is really slow. I mean, considering how much people don't understand the movie, maybe I can't call it slow because they are given time to think and understand the movie. Moreover, the movie is actually embedded so that it can be understood better. I figured out the representations and what it was trying to tell when I realized the title after I finished the movie. And even though the movie is slow, I don't think it's a big sin because it's only an hour and a half. I have already expressed my happiness about this.
The acting is very good. There's no bad acting. A man who had a terrible childhood is played perfectly by Gosling with zero facial expressions. The mother representing the devil is just as good. Chang was the only actor who confused me because the concept of God reminds me more of the God of the New Testament, but Chang plays more like the God of the Old Testament. And sometimes he is forgiving. The actor's temperament is not forgiving at all. It's more horrible. I'm writing a small minus here.
Only God Forgives is a very good one and a half hour movie, full of representations and symbols. Don't watch it if you're looking for a thriller-style chase. If you want to watch a slow but short film about a man living with his traumas and the battle between God and the devil in the neon color palette of Thailand, watch it if this description appeals to you.
I wanted to add one last nice detail: Thai people speak Thai in the movie. I don't like all nationalities speaking English in movies, but this movie has done a good job. Of course, their job is easier because there is not much speech, but it is a nice detail.
Kara Sevda (2015)
"Bitter Love" Would Be a Better Translation
In Turkey, Turkish TV series are not very popular, especially among young people. They even become a subject of ridicule up to a point. But this series is not one of them. The series that the channels are obliged to produce every year and that easily make their finales receive bad criticism from people because they are like a kind of factory output. Most of them are copy and paste series that focus entirely on love triangles. However, there used to be good Turkish TV series. This series is actually one of them. So what makes this series different from them?
The series definitely started off well. I mean, it's good in general. I don't think anyone would object. The writers have a good story in mind. But story writers know that the story changes shape as they write. I think there is a good plot. The characters are good, they really make you feel. We have a very interesting villain. I mean a straight bad guy. Sometimes they do this and that in his past, but it doesn't really make sense. I mean, some villains are not so bad afterwards, I don't know if you're aware of that, but one of the best examples is Flowey from the Undertale series. He's probably the one that started this whole "curable villain" thing. But now people are really tired of these characters. At least I am. Emir, our villain, is definitely a psychopath and nothing more. Especially in the second half of the series, there are interesting scenes to sympathize (?) Emir. They also put some sweet music. But the character they wrote really doesn't fit this profile at all. I see it as a futile effort and I condemn it, but that's the bad thing about being broadcast and made for profit. Actually, our story starts off very well, but it goes on so unnecessarily long. During this prolongation, it manages to keep the excitement by being really interesting, but after a certain point, something really forced and illogical happens. In other words, neither the police nor the law works correctly in a series that approaches crime fiction. Just like in science-related works, they say quantum and get rid of everything, they prolonged this series by using the terms they wanted. I don't think there is really a need to drag it out this long, but I can't really deduct points because they really managed to keep the excitement alive despite this much dragging out. So what happens at the end of all this prolongation? Nothing very interesting happens. Look, I love bad endings. I love Sabahattin Ali's novels with pointlessly bad endings, I love reading Berserk, but what they did after taking so long is really pointless. Especially what they used as a method, if it was really 35 episodes, it could have done very well globally, but as it is, it is a series that started well and then used as a money machine. Don't be surprised by my score after talking about it so badly, because as I said, the writers have kept the excitement alive while doing these things and created episodes that do not advance the story but make you watch the series with a really successful sitcom. Since the elements such as the plot of the series and the side characters are strong, there have been series that have managed to survive until the last episode. Dear writers, we should not make endings for the sake of making them "bad", we should make endings because they make sense in the course of the story. I am sure that they are aware of this, because no writer would prefer such an ending, but it is as if orders came from somewhere.
Maybe it's because I was exposed for 185 hours, the acting is great. It's like they became people around me. The character characterizations are really good. The writers knew that the more specific the characters are and the more different they are from each other, the better they will work, and they definitely did a great job with that. And the actors really fit these characters. They fit so well that it is now possible to base these characters on these actors. I can say that the actors were really effective with their acting on top of that. Although Emir's villain performance definitely stands out, it would not be wrong to say that Nihan also shows her acting skills. Sometimes she cries as if these events really happened. I would love to be on set and watch how she does it, it can't be easy to cry like that.
The music is really good. However, 25 songs are really too few for a 186-hour series. There are 2-3 new songs towards the end but it's not enough. Despite this, the music is really beautiful and they reflect it well. At this point, it is necessary to say when Toygar Isikli made bad music. As for the shooting and visuals, I didn't see anything extra. In fact, the acting was better in this part. In other words, nothing extra was done in the series, there were no moments where I said what a beautiful shot, but I don't remember it ever grinning, and no series has the task of impressing me.
The series started off very well, but it was stretched out a bit with dozens of sitcom-like episodes, but that didn't stop me from watching it. I can even say that I loved it. I don't like love-oriented stories. It is a series that goes into different topics and handles them well enough without getting too far away from the focus on love (except for the extended episodes). I recommend it with peace of mind.
No Country for Old Men (2007)
Which Old Men?
It's a very interesting movie. It's really interesting. I think interesting movies are always good. It's good to be different and stand out. There's no place for old men in this movie. But who is the old man in the movie? I must admit I didn't understand that for a long time. I mean, one would expect that there would be an old man and there would be a place where old people are excluded? Or, as in this movie, they would not be able to settle in the future and they would be excluded. But that's a more dramatic subject. This movie deals with it in a much more interesting way. It deals with it in such a way that it subtly works on this issue as if it is not the main subject of the movie. It doesn't hit you over the head until the last scene of the movie, and if you don't understand it until then, you're watching the movie doing something. The movie actually feels like a very simple chase. You're watching action, and when you see a killer who is different (in the end) than the Hollywood killers of today, you're definitely interested. I have to note here that we really long for such villains. Let's not investigate the mystery behind him, let's not find out that he has a problem, let's not try to change him. Let's have a killer who just wants to kill and works for it, who doesn't have a case. He kills everyone. I really missed this kind of character. And while we're busy with the chase between this character and the main character, an older character comes in. I personally didn't care much for this character, he didn't seem very necessary. He was late for everything, he used old methods, he talked long and anologically. However, as I realized later, the man had actually passed. He couldn't find a place for himself in my mind and he couldn't find a meaning among the criminals and chases of the modern world. He couldn't keep up. He couldn't make sense of the events. So there was a more layered story than I expected. It didn't hit me over the head with the message, it gave it to me as if I was sipping poisons in a sweet dish. I didn't understand it while watching the movie, but afterwards everything made sense in my head. That's how you write an unforgettable story. However, some disconnections and unnecessary things made me sad. I mean, I feel like another half an hour could have been cut and a more refined movie could have been created. I hope the filmmakers will break their love for two hours soon.
The guy who played the killer definitely did justice to his role and I think most people would agree with me on that. Other than that, I don't think there is anything to talk about because the characters are not difficult. Playing normal characters is not impressive enough because it doesn't feel difficult. Of course, there is no such thing that everyone will play difficult roles, but with the money they received, it cannot be said that they did an impressive job. Lastly, I think the sheriff played very well. Because he literally took me away from him. Just like he couldn't adapt to the world, he prevented me from caring about him in the movie. The acting must have played a role here.
If we analyze the artistic parts of the movie, I liked it. I mean, it was shot in natural environments and I liked that. I guess there weren't many effects in the movie anyway. Actually, I wondered if a 2007 movie could have looked better, but maybe I watched it with poor quality. The color palette is very nice, it reflects the overall structure of the film. The sound effects are good, and on an interesting note, there is no music in the movie? I wasn't sure while I was watching it, but as soon as I noticed it, I paid attention and there really is no music in the movie. It's an interesting choice, but it's not that some of the movies now have almost the same music, and it's not that it's boring that they keep putting this music on according to the emotions. And actually the movie seems to draw you in more. I think it has something to do with the fact that there is absolutely no music, because there is no music in real life. And maybe it's a reference to the old man.
I think the movie is really good. It's definitely nice that there are a few things that started to dawn on me towards the middle of the movie, that it's not a chase movie as it seems. There are very nice details hidden in the movie that even I noticed. It's one of the rare movies that I think I could watch again. If you are focused while watching a movie, I recommend you to watch it.
Karpuz Kabugundan Gemiler Yapmak (2004)
A strange movie.
What gets old in movies? Effects get old, shooting techniques get old, even acting gets old. When we look at old movies, we see that actors used to be almost unable to cry. This movie also has actors who cannot cry. It's like actors who can cry are a rarity. However, in the reviews of the movies, if they took people who cried their eyes out even for the most unrealistic dramas in the world, actors who could cry would be found very easily. But you know what never gets old in movies? Stories. The things that are told don't get old in movies. I mean, they get old, of course, but they continue to interest people. The best example of this is of course 12 Angry Men. Even though it came out in 1957, it has an interesting story, a plot. So is that what I'm criticizing this movie for? I mean, yes. It has a very strange story. This movie wants to walk on two basic themes. Cinema and love. And then it collects them somehow, so there is progress. But these progressions are so strange. And by strange I mean unrealistic. The fact that movies are forcing love on themselves for no reason is really starting to disgust me more than irritate me. There should be no love in a movie, brother. Let the two kids try to make projections. No, someone has to fall in love with someone or else. This is exactly what happens to stories that have nothing to do with love, but love is forcibly pushed into them. While it would be a beautiful, funny movie, absurd events take place and these events are never told. Then, of course, we have even stranger endings. What happened? I don't know. The writer doesn't know either. It's like the writer just disappeared and asked somebody on the set to finish the movie. I don't want a good ending, I don't want a bad ending. What I want and what the audience wants is a realistic ending. The film is strange, as if it has discovered absurd humor, which is popular after 2020. It's like a comedy movie, not a drama.
Shooting on location is always good. I don't like artificial locations. It's usually grinning anyway. They shot everything beautifully in the village, it makes you want to stop by. Also, they didn't use the weird shooting techniques that were famous at that time, they went for a simple way of shooting and it turned out very well. There is no need for such fancy things, simplicity can be very beautiful sometimes.
The actors seemed warm to me. The most important difference here was that the actors looked like they were talking among themselves rather than reading a script. Maybe this is real, maybe they shot the movie with a conversational technique rather than a script, but at this age, I say health to the hands of the actors.
I mean... Another movie that left me speechless. But not in a positive way. Oh, it's fun, it's fun. It is definitely watchable as an absurd humor movie, but don't expect such a great drama movie.
Pleasure (2021)
The subject matter is bold, but the content is lame.
The porn industry is huge, but it's shameful, so people don't talk about it. But if we look at the viewership data, we can realize that the people who don't talk about it are more busy watching it. I think it's a very good choice of subject. It's a brave choice of subject. At the end of the day, we may need to see what's going on behind the scenes in this industry. Because it's a hidden thing. I mean, it's not possible to find it easily by searching on the internet like the movie industry, and even in the cinema, there are dark things that we don't know. But porn opens up a whole different world. And this movie was made to look at this world through the eyes of a girl who is trying to become a new porn star. So that we can see what she encounters on this path, what she suffers. But the movie is a bit, it's weird. I mean, you expect it to show how cruel and dramatic and sad the porn industry is, but in that respect it can be a bit like a sad episode of a children's movie. So there are two things in the movie that are supposed to be really sad, but neither of them really gives you that feeling. The first one is the filming where the actors have a really hard time, but the strange behavior of the male actors as soon as the shooting is over is more absurd than sad. The second part is a bit like a high school drama? I mean, I don't understand how such a strange and uninteresting story can be written on such a beautiful subject.
The filming is also very strange. I mean, really weird, even disturbing? The way they chose to shoot it is ridiculous to me. Either make really uncensored porn, and there are some very explicit scenes in the beginning, or do it in a censored way. I mean, I don't know what exactly is the point. In these situations, you can be a little brave and put some graphic scenes so that it doesn't get showcased at some useless film festival, but who am I telling. The important thing is the money that comes from the large audience.
Working with people who are actually in the porn industry is the most admirable point of the movie. However, I feel like you should have had them write the script. They should have shot it with people who are actually in the business. I think the acting was pretty good, but I don't think you need such good acting for a movie like this.
I mean, very good subjects and acting, together with a terrible script and shooting, balanced the movie and put it together. I think the good things in the movie can be kept and something more decent can be done. I think it would impress the audience more if the desired movie is made independently of the requirements of what to watch in the cinema, but who cares.
Se7en (1995)
What's in the Box?
I'm not really a movie buff. I don't watch many movies, but I appreciate their content. Even if I like what they are trying to say, it bothers me when they are presented as movies because I think movies are very boring. I mean, I think they usually don't have enough content to fill 2 hours and 15 minutes, which results in an artificial filling and we watch empty walking scenes under the name of "detail". For this reason, people think and guess what will happen next in this free time and lose the excitement factor. Movies don't have to be two hours long, but I don't know what standard that is, but because of that standard, they last so long that they start to get boring. Especially in a detective movie, I think boredom is an unforgivable punishment.
But Se7en is not such a movie. It's a movie that always keeps the excitement high. If you were told about the concept of this movie right now, it might sound a bit normal, but I think it was not bad for '95 and even relatively interesting. However, the movie is definitely exciting, and as soon as you realize that you can guess some parts and start to analyze the movie, the movie surprises you and tells you that you can't read it so easily. I have to admit that especially towards the end I got excited and wanted to watch the movie at normal speed, which is very rare for me. The movie is definitely far from the boringness I mentioned in the above paragraph.
Even though I don't know much about the technical details, I think the more I watch a movie, the more I see good and bad examples, the more easily I can notice the flaws and beauties. I especially liked the color palette of this movie. It's a shooting technique with muted colors that can very well reflect the gloominess of the place where the events take place, and I can definitely say that I liked it. I also liked the shots and I can't fault the acting.
It was really a beautiful and exciting movie. I don't know if it's a must-see, but I think it's a movie that can be easily watched and liked in every environment.
Mindhunter (2017)
The great series that NF gave up
It's really sad that different and great stories can't continue in NF. It's like they're doing it on purpose. Mindhurter is basically about cops/psychologists who do what the poster says. "History, pattern, profile" meaning analyze past criminals, understand their patterns, and profile these killers. This method, which I don't know how well it actually works or doesn't work, is something I've supported since I became interested in psychology. I always thought that criminals should always be analyzed instead of just staying in jail for no reason, and that knowing the factors that lead them to commit crimes and their characteristics would make it easier for people in judicial proceedings. Netflix made a series about this.
Of course, almost rehabilitating criminals can cause political problems. Many people think that serial killers are monsters and should not be dealt with as human beings. But I am sure that psychology, one of the most important human sciences, has something different to say about this. If water is dripping from a faucet, you don't keep collecting it in a bucket and using it, you turn off the faucet. Of course, it will not be possible to prevent all the crimes in the world, but at least we can find them before they start, and even more importantly, we can prevent them from becoming what they are. This is what these psycho-cops are working on. And this is a very interesting subject. I myself am a person who works in the field of psychology. The things that interest me the most are the loss of perception of reality. In this respect, serial killers are also in my field of interest and I personally liked the series very much. I think that people who are not in the field of interest should definitely watch it if they will not be disturbed. The story is absolutely beautiful. Both the serial killers and the political issues that the psychologists go through, we definitely have a good fiction. However, they also fell into the pit of unnecessary romantic relationships that today's TV series/movies do too much. These lovers who have no purpose and who I think they put almost only to make us watch sex scenes are definitely an unnecessary detail. Let someone else be alone.
Moving on to the technical part of the series, I found the shots very beautiful, especially the color palette that reflects the gloomy theme. So it's never too vivid. The darkened life of the cops dealing with serial killers is very well reflected in the color palette, this is a nice detail. Afterwards, some scenes were withdrawn in order to avoid certain restrictions and loss of audience, but they did their best by showing these murder scenes in photographs. The series is relatively slow, I have to say that I watched it at 2x. I think it would be right to complain about the unnecessaryness of some scenes. Of course, the effort to convey emotion to the audience is important here, but if those scenes are just walking scenes, I think it doesn't work very well.
The acting is good, but I'm not sure if it's perfect, especially the three leads. They seem to have added something of their own acting to the characters given to them. Holden's blank yet thoughtful and soulless looks are very well played by the lead. Tench's role as a father who is constantly fed up but clinging to his functionality is very well played. More importantly, the guys showing the serial killers have definitely done their work, thank you. Sometimes you find yourself feeling close to them and sometimes you find yourself shuddering at them.
I have no idea why such a good series ends so early. I hope NF will continue with the people's opinion and restart the series. The story of our mustachioed brother who dresses like a woman at the beginning of each episode hadn't even started yet. I say, this series was not watched, so why did you end it, condemn NF, recommend the series to everyone and wish you a pleasant viewing.
Shrek 2 (2004)
A sequel that perfectly complements the first one
I thought this movie was better. Normally they say that the second movie in a trilogy is bad, but we have seen that this is not the case with this series. Even though the first one was also a very good example of an animated movie, I can say that the second one was not inferior, even better. It was as if the first movie introduced the characters and the world as a stepping stone for this movie. Since they didn't have to deal with these in this movie, it seems like they made a better movie that takes place directly in this world and with these characters.
But how much better? Not much, to be honest. I was just surprised that they were able to surpass the previous movie. I mean, as far as I know, animated movies like this are not as good as the first movie because they are not made as carefully after the first movie as they made the first movie, but this time it looks like they took care in the second movie. Actually, what I mean is to make a movie like Rockstar is interested in their games, even though they have problems with the workers. When you play Rockstar games, you realize how much care is put into the games. It's as if the people who made the game worked not to get their salaries, but to make a very good product. Movies like this remind me of that kind of working environment. Because I think such working environments are infallible in delivering successful products, so I congratulate everyone who worked on this movie. This time the movie deals with a more specific subject and presents characters that are as interesting and entertaining as in the first movie. Especially love the parts where Shrek and Donkey change. I would be lying if I denied that I was entertained even though my curiosity was not triggered as much as in the previous movie due to the fact that the surprises were few and far between in the script.
As for the animation quality, it is possible to say that it has gotten better with the years. Even though the last scene was festive, I couldn't watch it after a part because I don't like musicals very much. But I can say that more attention was paid to the music this time because some of them especially stuck in my mind. Apart from the music of the movie, I can say that the "I Need a Hero" scene in the last scene went legendary with the music. Especially since I watched the Turkish dub and the Turkish version of that song, " He is my world" was played in the dub of that scene, it was a great scene. I am sure that no one who watches it will ever forget that scene, especially with the effect of the giant gingerbread man.
I can't really criticize the movie because I didn't watch the original but the dubbed version. As I said in the review of the previous movie, the Turkish dubbed version is very successful. Turkish dubs are usually very good in animations. I think " He is My World" is much more beautiful than "I Need a Hero". I recommend you to watch the Turkish version even if you don't speak Turkish. The dubbing is very successful, but I don't know the original.
In conclusion, Shrek 2, with its great finale, is much better than the first movie in my opinion and manages to entertain very well. If you watched the first one, you should definitely watch this one.
Shrek (2001)
A Great Movie for Children
Of course I had seen Shrek when I was little, but I wanted to see it with my grown-up eyes. The Shrek I remembered when I was little was different from other animated movies because Shrek, let's say, was not such a cute character. How successful is a movie that asks us to be prejudiced against an ugly creature that looks bad and treats people badly, and then introduces us to how well-intentioned that character actually is and tries to turn the tables on children?
Shrek aims to do exactly what I just described. This creature, who at first seems ugly and evil to you - and I'm sure he didn't even seem evil to most people when they watched it when they were older - later shows his good intentions. He also explains why he wants to be alone. It's actually a good story when I think about children. But when watched as an adult, the story doesn't expand much. There are very few details that go unnoticed, or characters whose plight we now understand. Maybe only Shrek is a character we can understand better as adults. But other than that, the story is very simple for an adult. Is it entertaining? Yes, that's for sure. The movie managed to make me laugh. Especially the character Donkey is really a source of joy for those who watch the movie. Apart from that, there are "miscommunication problems" in the movie, which is one of my least favorite things. I don't know if anyone has used this term before, but it actually means that two people never talk about the problems that they can sit down and talk and solve very easily, but they make it more complicated and cannot solve it by not listening to each other and communicating over the part they misunderstand. It seems like a simple and bland concept to me. Above all, it seems a bit far from reality. But considering how much the character of Shrek avoids communicating, it's not that irrelevant for this movie. The movie ends well. In other words, I don't think there are many pluses in terms of story, but I don't think there are many minuses either.
I don't know much about animation quality, I don't pay much attention to it. I'm not a professional movie critic, my goal is to record what I think about the movie after watching it, while helping people who want to read a comprehensive review before watching the movie. So I don't think I can talk too much about the animation quality. Nothing bothered me. Only the fire effect caught my eye a little bit, but I silenced myself thinking that it didn't look bad for 2001. Other than that, I think the voiceovers were pretty good, but I'm not sure because I couldn't watch it on my headphones.
As for the dubbing, I watched it with Turkish dubbing because it is legendary in Turkey. Actually, it is not as legendary as they say. Is it very good, yes, I think my Turkish friends should definitely watch the movie dubbed. The stuntmen did a very good job, health to their mouths. Afterwards, I looked at the original a little bit, but the Turkish version seemed much more colorful to me, no lie.
In other words, the movie we watched when we were little and liked it very much was really beautiful. Does he have an extra great job? No, but it has a nice humorous and thought-provoking aspect that will never be a waste of time. I think everyone should watch it again as an adult.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Awesome Final
This is the "Legendary" Star Wars they were talking about. The only problem is I have to wait 5 movies for this movie.
First of all, let me state that I watched the movie in order of release. So this is the 6th and last movie for me and according to the advice of my friends who love Star Wars, I will not watch it because the last trilogy is so bad. The fact that the second trilogy chronologically precedes the first trilogy has provided great opportunities to make references to the later (well, actually the earlier) in the movie. And it would not be an exaggeration to say that the movie used these opportunities to death. However, I recommend watching it in chronological order in order not to spoil the surprises. I think it will be more exciting. Now that I got that out of the way, let's move on to the review.
The movie has improved itself a lot in terms of visuals compared to other movies. Even in the opening scene alone, it is possible to see how much the animations have improved from the previous movie and have become more impressive, not to mention less disturbing. This visual feast continues throughout the rest of the movie. It is possible to say that they used their possibilities to the fullest. Especially in some of the fight scenes, the change of location and the continuation of the fight in the meantime definitely presented scenes that were pleasing to the eye. I usually watch movies at 2x speed because I find the scene shooting insufficient, but I slowed down and watched the fights at the end. The music is more iconic compared to other movies. Normally I don't look for the music after Star Wars movies, but after this movie I specifically looked for the music of a particular scene.
The acting in the movie has improved much more than the previous movies. There are less absurd scenes. Despite Christensen's lack of intonation, especially in his conversations with his partner, the acting is better in general. Except for the Vader "Nooo!" at the end, the acting is not great, but it is not grinning.
Finally, the movie is perfect for what it is about. The character development, the political goals, and everything else is all wrapped up perfectly in this movie. I can't talk about a lot of things to avoid spoilers, but this movie definitely has a great ending for Star Wars. The stories that have been accumulated wonderfully over the course of the two movies are perfectly wrapped up, and very little of the movie is made up of cookie-cutter scenes. Especially considering that I don't remember the first two movies of the first trilogy because they were so empty, I feel like I will never forget this movie because of its content.
In short, Star Wars is the last movie of the trilogies. This is the last movie of the last movies.
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
An underrated build-up movie
Finally some excitement. The Star Wars universe is huge, with plenty of movies, but I was having trouble getting into it. I couldn't find the legendary Star Wars I was waiting for. It should be noted here that I watched the movies in order of their release dates. I mean, yes, good movies, but they didn't excite me or draw me in. Until this movie.
I think this is the first movie where things go from private to general and get really excited. I don't remember ever being bored while watching the movie. Of course, there are empty scenes, but the big events behind were enough to keep my excitement alive throughout the movie. Also, seeing the individual stories and character development for the first time definitely impressed me more than other SW movies.
Although there is no difference in terms of scene shots, it is possible to see that they have progressed a lot from the previous film. Although I found some of the effects strange in the previous movie, most of the effects in this movie did not seem strange to me. Also, the soundtrack of this movie is really great. This time, after the movie was over, I looked at the music. The movie looks and sounds great.
The old time acting is weird, it has to be admitted. It is possible to see how strange some of the acting, which was then called legend, was. It makes people sad to look at face expressions that don't mean anything. And it's even weirder to see this school of acting in the entire movie. It seems childish after a while, frankly. I still don't understand how the acting of old movies looks so weird and nobody says anything about it.
This is the best SW movie I've ever seen, it exceeded my expectations for the other movie. I'm excited to watch the movies that make Star Wars Star Wars. See you in the review of the last movie.
P.S. I Love You (2007)
An average movie.
I don't know much about romance movies. I would also avoid watching it because it was a feeling that I had not experienced thoroughly and I thought it would create prejudices in myself.
This is the place to say that I did not understand the meaning of the movie very much. I mean, it's not a very interesting subject. I have to mention that I watched this movie with my girlfriend. However, the movie failed to impress me. I mean, I didn't even know what the movie was trying to tell. Such an event has happened, but what does it mean to us, exactly? If they made a movie of a surprise I made for my girlfriend, why would anyone watch it? And regardless of what people believe or not about the afterlife, I don't think a person should cheat on their spouse in this way after they die. I think some people have no idea whether they love love or the person they love.
Acting was also normal? I don't know. I didn't notice anything extra, but I don't remember anything that was grinning.
It's hard to talk about stage shots. So neither good nor bad. I don't really remember. If it was good or bad, it would have caught my attention.
As I wrote in the last two paragraphs, it's an average movie. I'm not a person who thinks that all love movies are empty and makes it a missionary, but I don't think this movie has much meaning either.