Reviews

The movie serves as a drama and a crime mystery while criticizing daytime TV and marital relations in the US.

The movie opens as a drama. The soundtrack and audio cues have the making of a drama. Reasonably bold camera angles are reminiscent of recent popular dramas - akin to Boyhood (2014), if you watched that.

And just as you are about get to bored with the drama, the movie takes a different turn, and begins to unfold as a crime mystery. It still succeeds at retaining the drama quality in all aspects, but the story becomes captivating and interesting. The twists in the story are not heralded with blatant cues, but they are many. You find yourself more and more drawn in as the story keeps hitting you with new twists and dark witty humor.

You could think of it as Insomnia (2002) meets Se7en (1995).

I marked it down for a feminist critique: As my girlfriend pointed out, the movie is based on one female-specific trope. The movie just does not work if you replace the genders of the main characters. It is based on a gender-based stereotype. In fact, the storyline is based on a number of well-founded stereotypes, including those about certain states and regions of the US. Some behavior is so stereotypical that it is just unrealistic.

Still, an entertaining use of your two and a half hours.

Many movie-makers find a captivating contrast but few work it as intelligent as Taking My Parents to Burning Man. It is rare that you find yourself laughing continuously at a documentary that feels this honest yet is smart and sophisticated. It is a 10k$ school project, but feels as professional as prime time TV or a blockbuster.

The contrast is the director's (Bryant Boesen) parents' going to the radical self-expression festival, Burning Man. As somebody who never heard about the festival, within minutes, I had a clear idea about it. By the end, I knew what it was about, and I had had my best laugh in some time.

It is easy to watch, gets your attention immediately and keeps you laughing throughout as you learn what Burning Man is about and how the parents of this radically-dressed young director interact with it. It is a refreshing change from the complicated world of independent movies.

This is a must-see movie if you are somehow interested in PKK terror throughout the 90s. It is of further interest for those interested in how a successful movie can be produced with professional directing despite an almost-all amateur cast.

It is apparent that a good part of the scenario is based on real events: From personal experience, I recall reading about of the occasions and situations in the movie from the local media. The battle scenes are quite graphic and accurate. The characters feel quite real. They are not necessarily deep, but depth of character is not really necessary for the storyline, as this movie is about the lives of soldiers in an obscure, remote military post.

The camera use in the movie is excellent. In the opening scenes, the audience experiences the vastness of the landscape. The feeling of loneliness and being deserted is strongly conveyed. Further into the movie, the camera is used professionally to convey a feeling of urgency in the battle scenes, of which there are only a few. It is equally professional in conveying tranquility, and if you watch the movie, you will see one climax where this contrast is made very apparent.

In various connecting scenes, the passage of time and the feeling of timelessness is communicated through fast moving clouds, reminiscent of Donnie Darko.

On a further note, most of the actors are either amateurs or had very short acting careers. However, the director manages to offset this setback by using different camera angles where the audience does not have to see the faces of the actors to understand their feelings or mood. This movie is an excellent example of low budget casting can be more successful than many professional actors when good directorship is used.

Those being said, there are some unnecessarily long scenes in the second part of the movie, where the captain explains in head-aching detail his philosophy and thoughts as he becomes more and more suicidal. However, I do not take any points off my score for this setback, because long live the Turkish warriors. 10/10

The beauty of "Red Eye" is the simplicity: Two actors, four settings. (Airplane, airport, house, hotel) The plot is basic and comprehensive.

Wes Craven does a wonderful job of pacing the suspense throughout the movie. The story is slow paced until a certain moment in the plane, and suspense keeps increasing afterwards. Eventually we have two climaxes, similar in suspense level: One in the hotel, the other at home.

Acting lives up to its promise: There are certain moments where Lisa's (Rachel McAdams) reactions and emotions are important to the story. Rachel McAdams presents Lisa successfully in those moments. Cillian Murphy's role is not as demanding, and his acting certainly lives up to the role.

I was surprised to find some comments remarking that the movie lacks realism; in fact, even though I *am* realism-obsessed, I found the movie is quite realistic. Not all the questions are answered, and not every aspect of each character is inspected in detail; however, the movie presents what it promises to present: Integral and consistent storyline, comprehensive plot, convincing acting. There is nothing in these aspects to obstruct the overall realism of the movie.

If you want to see a good thriller, watch "Red Eye."

"Be Cool" is not really a movie. It lacks a comprehensive plot, character development or any of the most basic literary elements you would expect to see in a movie. It is in fact a long visual and audio experience.

It is apparent that the movie was produced to promote the talented and beautiful Christina Milian, along with some car models and some small gadget that I could not quite figure out what. You may listen to some nice new songs performed by the Milian, and you may also watch Travolta and Thurman do a perform a low-performance American Samba to the new-age Samba sound.

"Be Cool" may be good as a pass-time, or as a very long commercial.

It is not possible to write ten lines for a quasi-movie such as this one.

The striking quality of the movie is the originality. The striking failure is the lack of integrity. The plot is composed of five subplots unsuccessfully merged together. The actors are mostly renowned but a terrible mix: The unprofessional and insufficient bunch of the "TV-series boom" in Turkey and professional Turkish actors from the German cinema.

The plot is insufficient to say the least. The movie is composed of five intertwined subplots. However, the subplots are poorly merged; and each subplot is directed with different concerns in mind. The only common theme of the subplots is the mafia in Istanbul - that is a strong theme; however, insufficient as the only common denominator. In the "Hilmi & Senay" plot, we have (too much) drama. In the "Snowhite" plot, we have action abruptly turned to absurd fantasy. In the "Fiko & Banu" plot, we have romance. In the "hungry Kurdish man" plot, we have absurdity at its best. In the "Melek" plot we have psychology with a horrible twist. The plots intersect at absurd points, specifically the ending is unrealistic and overly dramatic in a naive way. It is not like watching subplots merging cleverly together a la Tarantino, but more like watching five different movies with only one theme in common all at the same time.

The best subplots are "Melek" and the "hungry Kurdish man." The twist in the "Melek" subplot is striking, unexpected and haunting, made stronger by professional and convincing acting of renowned Uner, and also by powerful directing. The "hungry Kurdih man" subplot, resembling Tunc Okan movies is hilarious, absurd yet believable. The other subplots are simple and shallow. "Fiko and Banu" plot is literally left incomplete: We never learn Recep's reaction to Banu! Neither do we learn the eventual fate of Idil.

The movie lacks a climax. Of course, we have a minor climax when Musa meets Saliha, and another - stronger - climax during the Melek's flashback. However, these all have a lower level of suspense than the action scenes in the beginning in the "Snowhite" plot. The suspense level is fluctuating wildly, as well as the mood: The movie jumps from action to drama, from laughter to tragedy, from harsh realism to absolute fantasy abruptly and repeatedly. This confuses the audience and distorts the integrity (or lack thereof) of the plot. It appears as if each of the subplots have been directed by a different director and bundled together hastily.

The acting is varied yet generally insufficient. There is some very professional acting alongside absolute amateur acting. Kirac fails to play the homosexual Mimi; he has essentially one gesture that he keeps repeating to remind the audience that he is acting gay: Hand raised to chin, small finger pointing upwards. Other than that, he does little to act out a convincing homosexual role. Isler, Uner and Reynaud are all very convincing, specially Reynaud's difficult character is very well acted out. Isler develops a very believable character with real emotions from a mafia bodyguard that otherwise would get little attention in the plot. (I get the impression that he wrote scripts for the character that the director forgot to write.) Rest of the characters are not presented in depth.

The movie is a nice try, and certainly original, although somehow "inspired" by "Pulp Fiction-type" of plot line. The movie also deserves attention because we have the Turkish state backing a movie including heavy profanity; we see the Turkish government beginning to adjust to the 21st century at last. However, the movie lacks integrity, lacks professional casting. (5 out of 10, and three of that comes from Isler, Uner and Reynaud.)

I have seen the 1997 Japanese movie "Shall We Dansu?" only partially. The movie was successful in presenting the audience an insight about the Japanese culture, and the contrast created by the traditional Japanese family and societal values and the spirit of the Latin and Ballroom dancing.

This movie does not make sense as a remake. The cultural contrast so delicately pointed out in "Shall We Dansu?" (1997) ceases to exist in the 2004 movie. The most important message of the 1997 movie is related to the Japanese culture. This message disappears when the setting is changed to USA.

To illustrate, let's take the example of Gere being ashamed for dancing: There is no cultural reason why Gere (John Clark) would be ashamed of his wife (played by Sarandon) because of his dancing: What aspect of American culture shuns ballroom dancing? Why does he not just ask Sarandon to join him? The reason stated by Gere that he is ashamed to want more happiness in his life is absurd. There is no concept such as "shunning pursuit of happiness" in American culture, and as audience, we are presented no reason why Gere should be ashamed of this.

Another theme in the movie that does not fit to the American culture is the reaction of Lopez to Gere when she thinks that he is hitting on her: Kusukari's (Mai Kishikawa, counterpart of J-Lo in 1997 version) reaction to Yakusho (Shohei Sugiyama, counterpart of Gere) "This may sound rude, but I hope you don't join the class with me as your goal" is one of the peaks in the movie where the audience is presented with the dilemma Kusukari faces as she is torn between her position as dance instructor and her cultural disposition towards Yakusho. Her reaction is soft and measured, and takes care not to offend Sugiyama. Paulina's (played by Lopez in the 2004 version) reaction is extravagant: She risks injuring a stranger's feelings to the extend that he may give up dancing, and also risks losing a potential student to an already troubled dance studio. Although her cultural disposition to the issue is much "liberal" than her Japanese counterpart, her reaction is much more extreme and thus unrealistic.

Comments on the dancing technique: The actors could not dance. Period. This is understandable for Gere and the other students. It is unacceptable that supposedly professional dancers, played by Walter, (Bobbie) Gillette (Miss Mitzi) perform such unaesthetic wriggling on the dance floor.

Final note on Lopez: It is unfair to present her acting as "bad." She gave the character everything that the character needs. None of the characters in the movie required too much depth. Her acting is not comparable to a professional actress such as Sarandon, however it is more than sufficient for such a shallow and unrealistic character. The fact that the character is shallow and unrealistic is the fault of the director and 2004 screenplay writer, not the actress.

In addition, Lopez's dancing technique was significantly better than the rest of the supposedly professional dancers, contributing much to realism, or better stated, contributing to decrease the unrealism of the movie. Her dancer's training and background, including the fact that she actually took night dance classes when working in a law firm, makes her a natural fit to this role. Her short performance of Paso Doble set in the darkened dance studio was very well performed.

Although the cinematic technique of the movie was successful and I enjoyed many aspects of the movie, including the camera, the performance of Farell (Alexander) and Jolie, (Olympia) and the use of symbolism, I did not enjoy the movie in general: The movie fails to generate a correct experience of 4th century BC on the audience and also fails to discuss the personality of Alexander in this environment. Considering the historical nature of the movie, it is the social duty of the director should make an effort to present the reader with an accurate outlook of the era and the personality of the historical figure in question.

*** POSSIBLE SPOILER *** One of the most disturbing aspects of the movie was its naive handling of the issue of bisexuality. The nature of the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion is never clarified in the movie. This approach actually would have been the best approach, only if Leto (Hephaistion) had not received such focus in the movie: When the director aims to present us the personality of Alexander, and the relationship is mentioned over and over again throughout the movie, the audience expects to learn the director's opinion of the true nature of the relationship. Whether Alexander shares sexual experiences with Hephaistion remains a mystery for the audience.

However, if the director had taken care to present us a view of the Hellenistic Period conception of sexuality - an issue on which it is possible to find an immense number of material - then we would have the chance to experience the world of Alexander and his personal response to it.

Another important point is the incorrect presentation of the concepts of "freedom," "nationality," and "fighting for homeland." Before the battle of Gaugamela, Alexander makes a statement, claiming that the Greeks ("Hellens" would actually be the correct nomination) are fighting for their homeland. Geographically and historically, this statement is wrong. At that point in history, the Hellenistic army is more than 1000 miles away from what may be considered the outermost borders of the original Hellenistic homeland. In fact, it is actually the Persians that may feel they are fighting for their homeland. Similarly, Alexander makes a statement that the people are fighting for their "freedom." However, we know that Alexander was proclaimed king after his father, and the monarchy, unlike the democracy of the city-states does not imply "freedom" of the people, but expects the people to be "subjects" to the monarch. There is no point in a king claiming that his subjects are free, whereas the subjects of the Persian king are not; they are both subjects! Similarly, considering that Alexander has enslaved the inhabitants of Thebes just four years before Gaugamela after a revolt by Athens, Thebes and Peloponessus against the Macedonian rule, it would be difficult to assume that the Hellenistic peoples of these cities would consider themselves of the same "nation" as their Macedonian rulers or "free" under the Macedonian rule - as opposed to the democratic city-state rule.

It is not difficult to understand Alexander's motivations: Instead of fighting for "freedom," "nation" and "homeland," (which are concepts of 21st century and appear as political agendas only in the last 3 centuries) Alexander was fighting for creating a unified world, the concept of ecumene, and he aimed to achieve this through a policy of conquest, reconciliation, mixed marriages, equality to Hellens and Persians, (homonoia) Greek being made the universal language and unified coinage. It would make much more sense to present these ideas (ecumene and homonoia, unification and harmony) as the high ideals of Alexander, instead of the made-up concepts that appeal to the audience of today but are historically incorrect.

In the same light, Alexander is portrayed as a naive lover of warfare and battles, and his political personality is not discussed at all. He had quite a lot of achievements after returning from his last campaign of Porus, most notably making the Greek language official language of his empire as a step towards creating a unified people. His political ideals are not discussed at all in the movie.

In addition, the costumes of Persians are mixed up with the traditional costumes of Arabic peoples. Similarly, the costumes of Sogdians are bad versions of traditional Turcoman costumes, and their dances appear to be a corruption of traditional Caucasian dances with an absurd hint of Indian dances. In fact, Roxane calls Alexander "Skender," which is the Turkish form of his name. This is as absurd as giving Rome & Juliet costumes to Julius Caesar just because they share a geography - or as absurd as having Toltecs perform a Mambo in a movie that would describe pre-colonial America. Sogdians or Skiths have no significant cultural relation to Turcomans and neither do Arabs of today to the Persians of Hellenistic period.

Instead of creating a real personality of Alexander, the personality is idealized into an idol for the average audience of the 21st century. Similarly, the conceptions of the Hellenistic Period are presented in the mockery of what they really are. It is a pity that possibly the most noteworthy persona of the world history is discussed with such a "light" approach in such a high-budget movie. To compare, Achilleus is - successfully - given a "human touch" in Troy, and the history is presented, although briefly, in a scene where Agamennon and Menelaus discuss the projected Hittite response to a possible Trojan victory, whereas in Alexander, even though Alexander is a real person and Troy is a legend, the history is twisted into a 21st century caricature, and Alexander's personality is discussed in extremely shallow terms.