Reviews

In American Psycho, at the beginning of the movie, it shows us the morning routine of Patrick Bateman who is in his 20's, graduated from Harvard, working in a great company in New York, can easily access anything about this material world and always caring his skin, physique and body as a routine. It actually shows us a man who is living in great wealth and richness is actually the slave of his own care.

He told us at the beginning of the movie that he wasn't there actually and he only exists as an entity while putting a mask to his face to make his skin-care routine which is foreshadowing that in this panopticon world, he needs to use this to self-defend against the outer threats because the environment is acting upon the principle of "survival of the fittest". While pissing the toilet he is looking at the Les Miserables board and when we see his reflection on the board, it summarizes the whole situation.

His house is way much white. Because white, is the purest form of light and it is dispersed to other colors through the prism. I think this explains the character of Patrick Bateman. Because there is no real him he is just an idea or a way of life to survive this panopticon, consumer culture. Just like the white is dispersed through other colors, Patrick is changing his persona upon the behaviour of the surroundings. Even his workplace which is in a big plaza is surrounded by the other, almost same looking, stack of iron skyscrapers. It shows us that these clever, wealthy, young, good-looking, successful guys are just ants in these gigantic, massive man-made buildings which restricts the soul and heaven both literally and figuratively.

He is living in a prison society. Where homeless', gypsies, homosexuals, blue-collars, bullies, outlaws, celebrities, political figures which is a cluster of whole sub and side cultures as well as the so-called superior cultures and his so cared ultramasculinity is only material which is his weakness. His anima is actually weak that the potency is only achieved through dominate the sub cultures physically. He actually hates these sub-groups. However, they are actually neeeded by him to show his domination, potency and masculinity. Hence, it is not that these sidecultures are the slave of these upper society, he is actually the slave of his weakness to show and feel his potency, domination and masculinity to these sub-cultures. The reason behind that is the connection between the joy and potency. Because the beggars, homeless', homosexuals are blindingly obvious and their spatial area is actually a rebellion against the norms of the society. In spite of his actions like mocking, scorning, hating to these marginalities, he actually appreciates them, because their incapableness create a magnificence for him as he is comparing himself to them deep within (for their existence is out of the social norms and he is in these so-called norms). By achieving this, potency meets the joy. These marginalities in society are a threat to the system and its worshippers. However system can only show its potency via them and it is the real weakness. Its micro-scaled situation is shown by Patrick Bateman throughout the movie.

The almost same message is actually given in the movie Fight Club via these criticized consumering society and the system that forces its individuals. In fight club, Tyler Durden says "Self improvement is masturbation and it is a self destruction" This is much like Patrick. He is living in this illusion world. Everything is commoditized. Ambiguous triangles between his fiancee, secretary and prostitutes, keeping up with the joneses via business cards, the idea that everything must be perfect, hating yuppies in spite of being one of them is much like the protagonist of fight club before his apartment was blown away by Tyler Durden. But American Psycho shows it in more extreme and violent way. Tyler Durden could be a great enemy to Patrick Bateman.

His soul tries to be free through the entrie movie, however the system doesn't let him to do that via the reason. Everytime system repress' his soul he is going into dream world, animating the movies he has watched, or drawing killing plans. System does not let his succesful individuals' fall and doesn't let him getting a physical harm but mentality is descending.

One of the best post-modern critiques.

Spoiler: I think one of the main reasons Bateman kills the homeless guy which he displays implicitly is that scene comes only after the famous business card scene where Paul Allen wins the contest by showing the most beautiful, tasteful, thickest card and Patrick is getting jealous of it. After that scene, Bateman learns the homeless' name Al which is an abbreviation of Paul Allen's Allen, i think at that moment he planned to stab him.

I had a great expectations about this movie when i first saw the trailer and it is the movie of a man who created Hereditary which is one of my most favorite mystery/horror movies with so many symbols and details. However, when i first saw this, it was one of the most disappointing movie for me.

On internet someone said, "this is a psycological situation, the woman had lost her family and then her boyfriend was cheating on her so the paing turns into pleasure." It is nothing about that. The ending is tied to nothing. There is no subtle connection of the death of family and the onwards . The only connection is main character's travelling to Sweden but this connection is also weak. Pelle that eccentric guy who you can easily predict from the beginning there will be a plot twist about that, actually manipulated the main character tu change her idea on travelling to Sweden.

Let's talk about the bad guys.. Well, it is certain from the beginning but the main problem about that, everyone in movie see what you see but no one is questioning about "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE" or "SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT HERE"

Comparing this to Hereditary would be a blasphemy.

Performances are getting boring afterwards because for almost 2 and half an hours, almost all characters are in the same mood, no change in the mood.

Music is just meh.

Cinematography is good.

Let's review the symbolic language. In Hereditary, nearly all scenes have details on frames and have symbols about the content of the plot whether it is an object, a light, a visual or a text. It is not just the symbols also, the scene that seems the most unnecessary scene from the beginning is actually a metaphor that is reflecting the summary of the plot. However, there is nothing like this in this movie. There are used so many symbols actually but it is not necessary. It is like i was watching a documentary which is about an ancient pagan nordic beliefs and rituals.

A symbol should be hidden. It should be used inconspicuously, like in Hereditary but they didn't do that in this movie. So the main aim of a symbol becomes POINTLESS.

The old man fell down from the hill but his leg got rotten immediately, it was a cheap scene. All of our American characters are looking to top of the hill, there were an old guy and a woman. They are showing this for almost 5 minutes and not a single main characters (beside Pelle) reason that they will fall down. Is this about the criticism of Americans minds? Because the stupidity of the main characters is too much to be real even there are 2 characters who wants to write an academic article in university about that.

A stereotypical prince whose interest is about war.. It is easy to predict he will be dead even if you don't know the history.

I am not much a reviewer on the view of "hystorical accuracy". If the movie's itself have a really good concept of its own history and convince the viewers on this frame then i don't obsess to historical accuracy but this movie could not convince the viewers on this frame.

Even all soldiers wear a kind of plate armor, which is not real. There is a difference between a soldier and a knight.

I don't know that but when i read somethin it says that Dauphin, the French hair did not kill children in the forest.

One of the most important scene is battle of Agincourt and it is really disappointing. The tactics in the battle are really terrible. You can win this war with this tactics if your enemy is dumb. There was no crossbow archers in French army. There can not be so many plate shiny armors in a battle. One of the main mistakes is not usage of tabards in the battle. You are shooting a battle scene but most of the soldiers did not wear any tabard therefore it is almost impossible to know who is friend who is enemy.

Apart from historical accuracy, there is no good cinematography. Could not find any dark and epic atmosphere so the movie could not convince the viewer. They are shooting a movie, with no gesture no mimics of the 15th century. It is almost like they put together cast and said lets shoot a battle scene. No good performances, no good character development...

Most importantly, it must be a joke that the ratings of Alexander, King Arthur or Kingdom of Heaven is lower than this garbage.

We can see this type of cliches in real life so much. Cinematography was really good especially in the hunt scenes and the display of landscapes and deers but nothing more than that. Within the first 4 or 5 minutes, if you don't know the general story, it is easy to predict that it will be a story of misunderstanding about the, the pressure of the community. In a rural place that are inhabited by ignorant people and the aftermath is also really predictable because it is a danish village and it will create a snowball effect. I would have liked the ending if the main character killed all of them but the main theme here is the passive resistance. There are also so many unnecessary characters that doesn't contribute the story.

The struggle of a slandered man against the community is shown good and the cinematography is breathtaking especially in some place.

I don't want to talk about the plot holes or inconsistencies within the movie. The movie was really built well. However, it could be so cool that if character kill all of them and say "hey and it is my joke" which gives a bit tragicomedy and a bit of absurdity.

I will not say that the ending is a cliche. Ending is sufficient, especially looking from 2019 when the corrupted movies are taking over the industries. It is not sensible to expect a better ending from this kind of scenario and performances but the problem here, is the easy predictability of ending. Actually it is easy to solve everythin when you are looking at the quote that is something about the "corncobs". When the cashier asks for "do you want a cigarette" and then give a pack of Pall Mall, something is revealed for the viewers but the story is advancing slowly. Main problem about the ending is, i can not see enough motivation for the main character to do these. 7/10

Actually it is a good movie. Mystery component is drawing attention. There could be problems at the beginning to remember the names but it is not a problem afterwards. However there are some plot holes in the story. For example, Rycart doesn't know that Paul Emmett is a CIA agent, whereas it is written in Internet. Apart from that, before the main character getting so much trouble, he did not reason to search from the Internet. This is a basic detail that digging the plot holes. I expected from the Ghost Writer to make a better move at the ending. I mean it is stupid to say someone she/he is a CIA agent in front of him/her and other big people.

This movie is close to perfect as a psychological thriller drama. Metaphors are really successful. Tim Robbins' performance is great. The ending is marvelous. The dark atmosphere and mystery is really well built. Also there are so many references to Torah especially the names of some characters like Jacob, Gabe (Gabriel), Jezze (Jezebel), especially Jezebel's story in Torah is a great reference for the movie.

This is the second time that i saw this movie. Normally, i would've made reams of reviews but i don't want to do that to not break the enchantment.

What you will find is "death, where you seek the immortality.

Explicatiosn are incredible. The story is actually very clear. The sections in Space and Spain is actually the illustration of the book that is Izzy writing and i think other scenes are reality but it is open-ended. In the book, she is the Queen of Spain and Tomas is the Conquistador who is seeking the "Tree of Life" to save Spain. In reality, Izzy is dying and Tommy is bent on to save her. Tomas drank Tree of Life and cheated death with the result of losing both his life and Spain (The Woman). Metaphorically, after he drink the tree he drops his ring and dies and flowers grow from ground and his fragments poured to dead tree and tree revived. Both these scenes are the symbols of "circle of life and death" which is the symbol of "Ouroboros".

Fountain is a circular system. The water rises, comes to peak point then falls and comes back to filter and pumps upwards again and it is a circle. If it just rises forever, then there will be no water in fountain. So the existence is like that. If there will be no "downfall" or "death" there could be no "life".

But the most beautiful thing that it is just an interpretation an it is open-ended.

By the way i am astonished by the scene of Xibalba, the Mayan dead star of afterlife from Orion.

First and foremost, before i watch this movie, i thought that i'm going to love this moview. It took my attention. The idea is nice: An answer of a neurotic and thief on how to be a license to print money. But it is a great lack that there is no display of thsubstructure of character's work that he was doing. I mean it is really that there is no basic detail about that on a movie which shows everything realistically. It looks surreal that the character tells that "He learns everything on Internet" even if he acts realistically. Therefore there are two main problems underlying the movie: First is the contradiction between the movie's realistic process and its unreal scenario. I mean it really worths nothing for a machiavelist man, who hates all "empty career achievement words" and his main goal is to become a media boss. However, the main goal of a man who makes all this masterplans in the movie, should not be as simple as that.

Second main problem is the moral sentiment of the movie. The machiavelist type of the character is getting much disturbing with the great acting of Jake Gyllenhaal. However there comes a moral judgment in the eye of the watchers, with the intention of producer: There is only one man who is an utter machiavelist and this machiavelist makes his job best. Therefore, there comes a judgment that, "i don't want this man to be successful." At the end of the first half of the movie i thought that, there are two possibilities for the ending of the movie. Either, this machiavelist, greedy man will obtain his goal or the ethical values and the moral principles will overcome the story's itself and everything will be upside-down and this greedy man will fall. So the ending is easy to predict but i wanted the second possibility at least but it did not happen ant it really distrub the viewer. Okey, it is the reality of life you can not achieve something, without stamping someone. Nevertheless, when i say that i "generalize" it. I know that it is wrong but i would have tied the ending to more psychological thing. At least i would have tied the ending, for the character who lives like a robot and does not have a background, to a more suitable and tangible thing which would have made it a good villain. The best thing about the disturbance of the character is the acting of Gyllenhaal.

This one is a really well done Scandinavian detective movie. I think it is better than "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". Successful and there are a few moments that made plot twists but i am used to it. I think it is not difficult to think that Gunnar is traitor and Nete has changed her identity. Department Q series is generally moderate when considering the scenario and plot but with this they had achieved their level. The best one is this film in this series and 1>3>2

This is a very successful drama triller film with the main theme of missing, searching and loss. I was actually surprised that by using these simple methods, by handling daily situations it affected the human emotion so much. In fact, throughout the movie i thought that the film started simple, gone simple and it would end simple but i was wrong. When the movie kept itself at a level of simplicity, but after that is puts itself forward with simple plot twists and it made awareness. I think it is a good tactic. Simple ordinary dialogues, predicting who the kidnapper and bad guy is, anormal behaviours of bad guy... Watching all of these within the first hour of the movie can create discomfort on audience. However, the thing that makes it scary is the basic philosophy and the simplicity of the game which is planned by the Raymond the bad guy. For example, Raymond said that, "i jumped off a balcony when i was 13. Because it was written before that i should not jump. Could not i resist what was written before? so, i did". The bad guy here, convinced himself that he made a divine achievement by doing that and he is constantly praised by his family. This is the case that makes our antagonist that thinking himself something superior. One day after saving a girl baby in the river, he was declared a hero by his daughters and his response is: "You should not trust heroes. They are unpredictable". Obviously, our character wanted to see something in his own game. The main question of antagonist is: "How much people around me love me, if i do evil on the same level of heroic actions?" Because we can not know the light without the dark.Based on this fundamental duality philosophy, Raymond tried to kidnap the girl.

We can not appreciate good without evil, duality. Have you really considered all possibilities in the search of truth? The fear of the unknown and its motivation to find the truth... The adverse effect of being constantly convinced that you are good and successful...

We can easily understand that the guy's girlfriend was a complete idiot. It is a little corny but the philosophy of the film is really shocking. Woman disappeared 3 years ago. Kidnapper, constantly sending letters to her boyfriend to make this situation for him constantly fresh and kidnapper wonders where the man will go. What will be his (girl's boyfriend) actions? After so many details, kidnapper see that the man is really devoted and kidnapper made an offer:

" You can kill me Rex, if you want. But then, you don't know what happened to your girlfriend."

This sentence is the most valuable thing about the movie. A man who kidnapped girlfriend 3 years ago is saying that. A quest for truth. Fear of the unknown but not escape from it. Tendency towards it and seeking it. That is why he offers the kidnapper's offer and he is going to Paris with him. Kidnapper gives man a coffee with sleeping pill and tells him that if he do not drink that he will not tell what happened to his girlfirend. After that, he drinked that coffee and all audience is waiting for what's next? Rex (girl's boyfriend) awakes in a grave under the soil. He was put in grave. Rex uses his lighter, screams away to help but his lighter goes out of gas and there he is struggling to tear the place apart and he slowly dies with struggling and kidnapper by the way putting soil to grave by using shovel with cold blood.

At the beginning of the movie, there is a dream that symbolizes the ending and the way the film goes. The kidnapped female character sees herself in her dream that she is inside a golden egg. There are other eggs too but her egg and his boyfriend's egg reunited again in the void. Kidnapper saw the motivation of the man and he really wanted to see him. The thing that Kidnapper done was put her in grave which is egg. In other words, kidnapper's offer to boyfriend is: "If you want to see your girlfirend, then you should be in egg too."

Boyfriend, could easily kill kidnapper however if he would that, he would never know the situation of his girlfriend, what happened to her. Fear of the unknown is worse than that.

Do you think you'll ever see him again, Rex? Nope. So why don't you give up hope? It's an honor to me. The sacrifice of not giving up hope as a honor for the man really makes Rex's actions heroic and the offer of kidnapper creating misinterpretation that, maybe he is not a killer, he is really a good guy but the ending is tragicomic.

If you saw this movie like, "the killer is revelaed at the very beginning, He was looking a good guy to make plot twist but then he showed his true face, nothing more than that" than your time is wasted.

There is only one logical error in this movie that when kidnapper made the offer to Rex, Rex could easily take him to a rural place and torture him brutally, because, there is no question that a good torture can not lead to answer.

Another great thing is that, you know the guy kidnapped her and until the end of the movie you do not know that what happened to her this is a great mystery.

After watching the movie, you reconsider your search for the truth. You can face the worst way to die when searching the truth but this is not the point of the movie. The thing that kidnapper's achievement is manipulating the girl's boyfriend to search him for the truth for 3 years.

It reminded me of something about my own life. If you had a lot of power in your hands, do you wish you could have your best pleasures, your most pleasurable revenge, or do you wish you could find the truth?, i can not decide but a quote comes my mind and i want finish my review with that.

"If the truth shall kill them, let them die"

10/10

I don't want to write any kind of plot holes, logical errors or something like this. After The Crimson Rivers, i've never watched a good mystery/occult detective movies like this however, there is one and big problem about this movie.

Finding the identity of Harriet Vanger and meeting her with Henrik Vanger took approximately 2 hours and these 2 hours story is ending after that, our journalist return to his own trial.

This 2 hours story only made two things: Strengthening the bond between Journalist and girl's assist to journalist on winning the case. This should not be so easy like that. Otherwise, really good movie

I really liked this movie this is builded well, the usage of modern internet and application technology is done well. However i found 3 plot holes that decrease the rates:

1) Why the father could not reason to use his daughter's laptop before talking with detective? 2) From the street camera records, the last street that the girl is driving is known and from google maps, that street is only leading to a lake, in the half of the film, father tought that and gone to lake, but no other detectives couldn't think that and went through lake. 3) Street camera records shows 2 images that there is a car chasing the girl's car and for a while no other detectives and police could not suspect that.