Change Your Image
sinanipek
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Gölge Oyunu (1993)
Similar to Tsuru?
A good movie but it is a little bit reminiscent of Kon Ichikawa's Tzuru (1988). But the similarity is well between the safe boundaries.
The Square (2017)
Good movie
Watch it. It is the second best movie I watched nowadays.
But why the film was not shot in the "square" format? I mean in 1:1.
Autómata (2014)
Good But Not Enogh
Good movie. I found some scenes and dialogs smartly written. The minus point is the movie couldn't escape from many sci-fi clichés. Nevertheless, not a bad movie. Some scenery points are not clear as well.
***Spoiler alert!*** Why other people blame Jack for not being loyal to humanity? Why people threat robots so badly, it is not clear. Can the baby endure the radiation dose it took from the sandbox? Why the clock-smith robot at the end of the movie made the insect-like robot? Why the robot company didn't benefit from the prototype they made at first? ***End of spoiler!***
I like the robots in this movie. The way they move and respond is believable to some point. Still worth watching.
Parenthèse (2004)
You feel the passing of time
This is a great animation. In fact, it is among my top ten of all time animations. The music score is superb. You feel the passing of time during this 6 minutes short movie. Even my 22-months-old daughter understands it. She calls it as "vu-vu", referring -I think- to the music score that sounds like "vu-vu". She asks me to play it again and again saying "Daddy, play vu-vu!" You feel like you had lived the life of the little man in the movie. The movie tells us that time passes. Millions of lives goes without intersecting each other. The loved ones will soon be all gone. You feel it. You feel the artistic quality of it. It almost has a Proustian quality in it. Congragulations boys. I envy you. You made a great movie.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
A.I. vs. SOLARIS
When I watched the movie for the first time, I felt sorry for all beings who possess intelligence either artificial or organic. The film is about the agony of existence. We can call this agony as 'the ontological trauma'. When a being, no matter if it is human or non-human, organic or mechanical, is aware of its existence, that makes him very exceptional and tragic. First of all, he knows that he is mortal, impotent and temporary. He knows that the memories lost in time cannot be retrieved authentically. He grasps the idea that there is pain everywhere. He understands that the search for eternal love cannot be fulfilled completely. There's pain, suffering, and hate in this universe.
In this movie, the main source of the ontological trauma is the unsatisfiable desire for being loved while in Stanislaw Lem's Solaris, it is the impossibility of recreating a woman who committed suicide when left by the main character of the novel. Solaris is the name of an ocean-planet. The ocean is alive as well as intelligent and capable of doing everything except to kill itself. That serves as another source for the ontological trauma.
If you read Solaris, you can find some similarities between the book and the movie. The novel emphasizes mostly on the philosophical aspects of the tragedy of being while the movie focuses on the emotional consequences of it. The movie focuses on the eternal pain of loosing parents just the way as someone who suffers while seeking the object of his desire.
If you could isolate the sorrow and look at it closely, perhaps you could notice that it is as heavy as a black-hole. It wants to suck everything instantly and inescapably. ***Spoilers after here*** The surrealistic-beings at the end of the film must be brave and strong; because, they tried to heal the pain of poor David as the Ocean in Solaris failed to do so.
Hamlet (1996)
So why do I complain about its lightning?
The movie is almost perfect except the lightning. The actual lightning of the movie doesn't represent the dark, hopeless atmosphere of the original play. We know Shakespearean Theatre addresses people's imagination rather than his/her scenery. What you see is not more important in Hamlet than what you hear (or think or imagine). For this, in Shakesperean time, there were little settings on the stage. First of all, it was impossible to set the stage with props and furniture. Thus, Shakespeare supported his plays by adding extra verse which described the setting to the audience. This restriction freed Shakesperean theatre from putting the plays under several stage restraints so that it came nearer to temporary movies in its fast editing.
So why do I complain about its lightning? Still, I'm complaining about its lightning because Branagah ignored the stage conditions of the Shakesperean time. He used brilliantly lit, overfilled settings which bothers our eyes with its 18th century decoration and fashion which is a distraction because the verse has enough decoration and description.
Also, by ignoring the setting conditions of Shakesperean time, Branagah misses the chance to visualise the tragic look of the play. If Branagah used a low key lightning with strong contrast (i.e. dark and light together), the movie would seem more grotesque as it is.
For me, the time shift of the play from ancient times to the 18th century is also useless and perturbing. We know that no Shakesperean play needs the adaptation of time to seem more contemporary. They are so universal and moving that any time shift is unnecessary.It is clear that Branagah wanted the audence like his movie very much so he shifted the time near 20th century; but, for me, it was useless.
Solaris (2002)
Only tangent to the original novel.
This film is only tangent to the original masterpiece of Lem's. Go see it if you want, but you had better buy the book and read it slowly. Don't forget that, there is much more in the book than in the movie. The book is a big adventure of human existence. It is ontological. In the book, the story emphasizes the role of live ocean of Solaris, a little god of itself, a tacit existence which deny all the efforts of manhood to communicate with it. The movie shows the ocean only from a distance.. but in the book, Kris touches it by his own hands.
Poor Sodenberg!
Attraction (2000)
the film was very suspensive
I saw this movie on TV. Unfortunately, I missed the beginning ten minutes of it. The time was 2:00 a.m. and I wasn't hoping any good films at that time on TV. I concluded from its name, "stalk", that it was a late-hour-thriller which I never so loved; but, it turned out to be a highly psychological film, and I deeply involved in it. Although there was no obvious violence in it, the film was very suspensive. The love relations was very realistic and sad.