Change Your Image
hessianmercenary
Reviews
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
A splendid work of ART.
First of all, Sleepy Hollow has apparently two distinctive characteristics among most of the movies I watched. These are:
1- It was one of the few movies which I can really regard as a "work of art",
2- It was almost excellent in EVERY aspect.
Yes; briefly, this masterpiece was almost excellent in every aspect: Marvelous costumes; impressive music by Danny Elfman; fabulous cinematography, which should have got the OSCAR instead of American Beauty; breathtaking plot by A. Kevin Walker ( se7en ) and Kevin Yagher ( what a brilliant idea to make a new version of Irving's well-known story); great direction and art direction, which brought it a well-deserved OSCAR and wonderful cast including Martin Landau and Christopher Lee--- I especially loved Christopher Walken's cool portrayal of the Hessian Horseman and certainly his teeth! For now, he is my favorite villain.
On the other hand, the most obvious aspect wrong with this movie was the crucial exposition, which was unduly rushed and could have been much longer in order to let the audience fathom the full plot.
( Warning: STOP here. This might be a spoiler for you.) Now, I would like to reply to the friend who criticized this movie for the exploding windmill. Here is an article that states that windmills DO EXPLODE in particular circumstances such as the ones in the movie:
Cinefex says: "An explosion is precipitated by clouds of stirred flour, which have made the air combustible. It is a strange fact, but you can have explosions in flour mills." stated Paddy Eason. "Ichabod throws an oil lamp into the mill and everything goes bang..."
(Spoiler END) Finally, I would like to point out that you may not like this movie since it does not appeal to everyone, but it is still a great movie then. I give it a well-deserved 10/10.
Agir Roman (1997)
Just decent; nothing great.
To be frank, Agir Roman, though highly praised by most of the critics in Turkey, was not totally a great work of Mustafa Altioklar.It had some innovative aspects-especially in terms of direction when compared with most of the previous Turkish movies- as well as remarkable shortcomings.
First of all, as for the direction, this movie was quite an accomplishment for Mustafa Altioklar as far as his personal direction style is concerned- I found it very specific, very original and -though rarely- visually stunning. Especially the way he shot the scenes and the stylish camera movements fairly reminded me of the independent films in US. I think in a few years' time, "Agir Roman" may be regarded as a milestone in the Turkish film industry by Turkish critics since it gave rise to the recent popularity of the Turkish movies that were more likely to be shot in "independent film" style (e.g. Karisik pizza, asansor).
As for the acting, I found it quite successful. The cast was simply great. Okan Bayulgen was especially outstanding and thus proved himself a splendid actor, giving the impressive portrayal of an ordinary young man born in a ghetto.
In the next place, however, I would like to point out that if some of the audience did not like this movie despite the high praise of critics, I think the screenplay was the basic reason for that. I especially found the dialogue in most of the scenes fairly unrealistic, as though the events took place almost in a dream world rather than a Turkish ghetto. Moreover, the screenplay was not comprehensible enough to be fathomed by most of the audience so that a considerable number of people I know did not grasp the whole plot for the first time they watched the movie.
Finally, I recommend this movie to the ones who do not expect too much. Yes, it was quite decent but certainly not a must see one!
Scream (1996)
A milestone in its genre.
No doubt, Scream, a splendid work of Wes Craven- Kevin Williamson cooperation, was really a milestone in its genre both owing to its very original plot and the imitations made after it was released in 1996. Well, you may laugh, but in my opinion, Williamson should have been - at least - a nominee for the Oscar for the best original screenplay that year. I simply admired the plot, and its originality. It rested on the idea that while it made fun of the basic rules of horror films, the events were based upon the same rules! Terrific!.. ( Warning: Spoiler) For instance, while Sydney (Neve Campbell) was talking to the killer on the phone for the first time, she said about scary movies:"...they're all the same.Some stupid killer stalking some big-breasted girl who can't act and is always running up the stairs when she should be running out of the front door; it's insulting." However, when she came up against the ghostface, she tried to run out of the front door but she could not do so because she had just locked it.Consequently, she necessarily ran up the stairs in order to escape from the killer like the"big breasted girl" she had just mentioned. What fun!! (Spoiler END) Apart from being extremely original, the screenplay was also a brilliant achievement due to the perfect concealment of the killer. ( Major SPOILER!) In the first hour, I highly suspected of Billy and was sure he was the killer. But all my suspicion died down when I saw the ghostface and Billy together in the bedroom in Stu's house. How could I have known that there were two killers indeed?! Besides, the characters were great! I especially loved Gale Weathers, who was ready to do anything in order to do her "job", and Randy, the young expert in horror films. (Spoiler END)
As for the acting, I think Drew Barrymore was the best although her role was quite short. She acted Casey Becker so impressively that the most scary scene was hers, which was full of suspense and horror. The music was also fine, adding much to our suspense during the pre-murder scenes.
In conclusion,this movie was simply a must see one that made the teen slasher movies popular in the late 90s. Actually, it was both Craven's and Williamson's outstanding achievement which made this movie a milestone in its genre.
The Sixth Sense (1999)
"I see vast shortcomings!"
"Why-o Earth- did almost everyone think this was a great movie?" ( warning! spoiler)Come on; with the exception of a few good aspects ( the astonishing end and Osment's performance as Cole ), this was actually a bad movie. Not very bad, but bad!
First of all, despite the wonderful plot, which is absolutely convenient to make a very spectacular movie, Shyamalan does not seem to have been able to make use of his "own" screenplay very cleverly. Consequently, the movie which could have been much more breathtaking became unreasonably boring; indeed boring almost all the time!! While watching the movie, I became so bored that I wondered whether that was the real "The Sixth Sense" people were praising all the time! Moreover, I do not approve of Shyamalan's Oscar nomination for the best director; anyone else would have been a nominee due to that wonderful screenplay!
As for the acting, I liked Osment's worth-seeing performance, which is one of the few good aspects of this movie.Also, Colliette was outstanding as Cole's mother. But that's all OK with the cast; I especially disliked Bruce Willice's performance as Malcolm Crowe. Actually, he must have played more enthusiastically since he was the leading character. Besides, his face did NOT go with the character of Malcolm Crowe. I am sure that anyone else would have played much better than him. For instance, Robin Williams would have been a perfect choice for this role!
Finally,the music was VERY poor; so poor that I had not seen any movie the music of which was poorer than this one! So ask yourself; would you have liked the movie if the end had not been so astonishing? A movie should be charming from the beginning to the end; not in the end, only!!! 4/10
Scream 3 (2000)
Funny rather than scary. Contains Spoiler
I was extremely eager to watch the third and the final movie of the Scream series since I believed that it would be a perfect scary movie; perhaps the greatest of this year. However, after watching it, I was fairly disappointed to see that it was quite funny rather than scary because there was plenty of comedy, which had never taken place in the previous two. But that is OK; though not as scary as the first one, I also liked it.
The best aspect of the movie was-to me- the screenplay, which was-unlike the previous two-not written by Kevin Williamson but by Ehren Kruger. Though not as experienced as Williamson, Kruger seems to have made a successful work in Scream 3. I found the screenplay very cleverly-prepared, and sometimes very surprising. None of the details in the plot were overlooked; Kruger put emphasis on every crucial detail and he formed a realistic connection between the plots of Scream and Scream 3. Also, he perfectly concealed the killer and cleverly focused our suspicion on other characters. That's why I was quite astonished when I learned who the killer was. Besides, the movie was absolutely exciting and entertaining and unlike its counterpart, "the sixth sense", it was never boring!!
The casting was OK, also. ( SPOILER ) I especially liked Neve Campbell's performance during the the endless fight between Sydney and the killer.But Parkey Posey, the independent film star, was the best throughout the movie. So go and see it if you do not expect too much.
Braveheart (1995)
BOREDOOOOOMM!!!
Although I went very enthusiastically to the theater to watch Braveheart due to its Oscar awards, seeing how MONOTONOUS this movie was simply a terrible disappointment to me. To begin with, the movie was unduly long; so long that as soon as the first half ended,I thought the movie was over !! And during the next half, I had my most boring hour at the theater. However, to my great relief, the movie ended after about an hour. My boredom is on account of the slow flow of the events and the lack of interest and excitement in most of the scenes ( more than half of the movie ).In fact, Gibson should have placed more emphasis on the crucial events which were supposed to be a milestone in different periods of the life of William Wallace. Unfortunately, Gibson did not seem to have given the enough expression to those crucial events; that's why , most of the time, the movie was monotonous except the spectacular war scenes, which were- I think- the greatest accomplishment of Mel Gibson as a director; not an actor. The breathtaking war scenes could not prevent the dullness of the movie, though.
As for music, I think it went perfectly with the "Scottish" atmosphere of the movie. Though not as successful as his wonderful work in Titanic, James Horner did a great work in Braveheart, too.
Finally the acting was OK, but not very outstanding. I do not think this was a bad movie, but it was extremely boring to me. 6/10
Gladiator (2000)
A stale plot, older than the Roman Empire!
After reading many praising comments on Gladiator, I see that I am one of the few who announce how poor this movie was actually. I am not going to write a long comment to explain the shortcomings of this movie because they are so obvious. First of all, the movie was full of clichés and exaggerations. The plot really lacked originality. This was actually the ROMAN VERSION of BRAVE HEART or the latest version of BEN HUR rather than gladiator. I cannot understand why such a stale plot was used...
Secondly,, the visual effects were fairly poor, apart from being realistic. For instance the tiger was like a character of one of Disney's animations. It was obviously non-realistic.. And it was also too obvious that the upper part of the coliseum was computer-generated..
In the next place, the movie was unreasonably long; long enough to bore the audience. So, all Gladiator fans; please stop giving this poor movie more than it deserves. Since the production cost of this movie was high, some thought this was a great movie, who are fascinated by the fake beauty of gladiator!!! This is the unfortunate fact about gladiator.