kulabas

Troy is a wonder of animation cinema age.In movie,there is a great work of creating cities,battle scenes.I'm not complaining it.Because if this is the war of all times,this is the only way to be like it.This is a movie which you always want more.

But in spite of great animation work,Troy is not a classic unlike Ben-Hur,Lord of the Rings,or Gladiator.There are a lot of points I like to see but when you make mistakes in main things,there is no matter for the things deep in core.I think Petersen forgot some points for glorifying the heroism in audience as he tries to make a great movie.

The most beautiful thing for the movie is the philosophy and the drama surrounding it.This movie is not just a story,it tries to be deserving of the structure of the novel,Iliad, and tell something about the nature of human and politics.Glory by Achilles,politics by Agamemnon,conscience and responsibility by Hector,passion by all of them.By this side,movie gains a deep and strong structure which everyone get something to think,especially about what is going on in today's world.

The second advantage of the movie is the great cast.Every actor is a legend like the characters they play.There are a lot of 'many-talked' actors but I think the greatest performances are from Peter O'Toole and Brian Cox.By their amazing performance,they nearly make the movie their own acting challenge.Especially Brain Cox,by his acting show,he throw away everyone playing with him,no matter if they are million dollar worth Brad Pitt or Eric Bana.As I said the cast is the biggest reason to watch this movie,except one...

The biggest disappointment for me is Brad Pitt.There are 3 ways to make a movie like this.First,you take a legendary director so there can be actors with normal star statue,like Gladiator.Or the tittle is a legend so there can be normal star statue actors or director,like Lord of the Rings.Troy goes with the third way,a normal star statue director so there have to be super star actor.And I don't think there is anyone who suits Achilles in mind better than Brad Pitt among super stars like Tom Cruise,Johnny Deep,Keanu Reeves.I thought I wouldn't say this in a hundred years bu I understand that the only super star to play Achilles is Charles Heston in all cinema history.I may not appreciate his personality but he has the face of these characters.Brad Pitt is one of the actors I like watch most but he is just a baby-face for this one and the watcher can't take seriously when he talks about politics,glory...

Another factor about this fact is there is too much nudity in this movie.No matter if there is love or women,this movie tells a man tale.Telling their fights and sacrifices.And as you wait for to see another character,man or woman,naked you can't focus on their heroism,dying for what they live for.The biggest problem of the movie is this,as all the main characters going down to die,watcher can't ask in mind 'Why did these man die?,Why did they sacrifice their lives?'.Gladiator was very good about this,because it told a man's tale in a man way.Because no matter if it is a man way,it has the same impact on man and woman audience.If there were less nudity and woman,the empathy for audience would be easier.

Another thing is a main theme for the music.In total music is very good but it lacks of a main theme which represents the emotions both of the movie and the audience.We saw how it worked well in Last of the Mohicans,Star Wars,or Lord of the Rings.Because of this absence,the feeling,that makes the watchers feel as one in the case of glorifying emotions,can't work well.This is another reason why we can't respond against the deaths of the characters in the way it must be.This absence is also felt in the battle scenes.

Like theme music,the dialogs are missing,too.There are a lot of spoken words but few is to be remembered.Most speeches are parts of the dialogs but there are few of them to carry the weight of the movie in the mind of audience.Because it is these kind of dialogs which symbolize all the meaning of the movie for the watcher.When you talk about the story,they are the words which you use to give the impression in your mind,like 'You shall unite or you shall fall' in Lord of the Rings or 'May the force be with you' in Star Wars.

In the second half of the movie,I think there is a problem to make the story going on.Because there are no nearly no drama but a lot of battles.One finishes and one begins.This is a good for a simple action movie but in this kind of movies,there must be an one and only battle which audience can see what they all can see.But even the fight of Hector and Achilles can't satisfy this need.So,I think,in most of the watcher,that's why there is a feeling that something's missing in action.

Shooting the battle scenes is another thing.The fight of Hector and Achilles is legendary for cinema history, and we feel why they are the biggest warriors of all times.But in other scenes,there are something lost which this scene has:Wide-angle shoots.The shots are taken in the scenes with close angles so we see what's going on inside the battle instead of watching glory and mighty of war.Then in some scenes,Petersen is like to forget the all war and focus on small stagings inside it,like the fight between the Hector and the huge guy in the second battle.Most of the time it is good and makes the audience fell like they are not just watching an animation wonder.But this time these stagings take so long.

There are great work on creating the city of Troy in building it and animating it, but this movie can't reflect the mighty and greatness of it as we feel for Gondor in Lord of the Rings.The reason is we see a few of city of its big time than we see in burning it down by Greeks.All we witness is the large size of the walls surrounding it.

Troy is a good movie but unfortunately it won't be in much of the one's top 10 movie lists,I think.The reason is not the things it has but the missing parts of them.Petersen take the characters out of 'more than human' category and represent them as they are all like normal ones inside to make them suitable for the mind of the audience.But he forgets something suitable for the heart.But no matter if it is liked or not by the big masses,it will be a main brick in the cinema history.

This one is really the one of the kind.I can't even describe the kind.But it sets a new style that words can't tell.It's a french movie but not in totally in European way.Although that's for sure that no one but an European can do this work.

It's hard to tell which character's story this is.There are a trio swing group,a grandmother,and a grandson,and also their dog.By examining each character you can see different points of view,new aspects of the movie.It's even true for the dog.The story is so simple but the beauty lies in details.Like the evolution of the train passing by the house or the thin bodies of the triples who eating frogs as everyone around is fat due to eating burgers.

The screenplay doesn't just put the situation in front of the the watcher as it is.It builds a background,tells how things started,shows where they happen.So we know where we are from and where we are going.And we easily accept the world things happening.Because doesn't try to judge it,just it as it is and leave the decision to us.Besides it's not that different from our world.But I think it doesn't really take any risk,I mean it just shows the sides it wants.We can't totally describe the whole place.But it gives the wave of atmosphere as we all know Bellivelle.

And there's something to be said about animations.The style is not that kind we're used to.And it really can put the audience off the movie.As the Japan animation and their style with sharp lines get the favor of most of us,it's a real bet to think this can work in most of Europe and U.S.A..And I should say that there's nearly no speech.But animations are so successful about telling the story that you can think that if there were words,they would be burdens.There isn't a clear and clean vision,and it has some kind of dark side.But after all these the total of the elements;story,details,music,make you think like that's the only way to do this one.That was what I mean when I said it's not in totally European way.Maybe not using a specific.well-known way but telling what it has in mind clearly;from story to details.

The music is really interesting.Because of the fact that the triples are swing singers,you may hope beautiful songs.But these are more than that.I can't definitely claim that the songs are awesome but they are really intersting.Lyrics,enstruments...nothimg familiar to MTV generation.I don't think the song that got a nomination for Oscars deserved it but it sure deserves some attention.

This animation movie has one thing in common with Japan animation style:It's not for kids.Maybe it seems sweet,funny but details like killing the frogs with dynamites... I don't think Chomet designed this for kids.Except children I don't think Bellivelle will hurt anyone in mind.Of course it seems as a strange way to make this kind of animation for big guys,but I bet it would be stranger if this was a real movie.

I can't suggest this movie to everyone.It dances in a thin line.There are a lot of fans of this movie out there.As a fan of American story-telling style.I only can say that I liked it.I'm not a fan,I can't even say that I may watch it again.But at least the attention to get into this movie will identify if you're a movie fan or just a watcher.I can't say this for every movie,especially for an European movie,but Belleville deserves it.

This movie says nothing new about science fiction, utopia, future, order...We can see all the reflections in books like Fahrenheit 451 or Brave New World or in movies like Dark City(not totally Matrix).A future which goes on with absolute peace in the price of destroying arts,forbidding feelings.People seem happy because of Prozima,the drug which makes them relaxed with an empty state of mind without questioning.This state of mind also makes them obey the absolute control of government.No wars,murders,deaths but no feelings,arts,sense. It seems to me like a 1984 vision in Brave New World.

As I said this movie says nothing new but it deals well with the things it has in mind.Of course it has a lot of blank points about ideology or logical mistakes in script.But I think the watcher should watch the movie as it is.Because the way it is done seems like an independent movie and it has the wave of some kind of comic book.It directly says what it has and tries to leave some edged points to make us think and consider what lies beneath and below.It is successful about creating the atmosphere and the structure of the city.The fight style,Gun Kata,is made by using a new technic and reminds the scenes in Matrix(at least we can compare this).The things that make this movie worth to watch is the strange common of things it tells and the way it tells.If director would take it more seriously,the all genre would go away.

The blank points,I think they are in more telling the ideology.I think the director shouldn't take a side between senses and the system going on.It would be better if he tried to make us think if the blood free world is worth of lack of feelings.The movie chooses a certain side and this is the most disturbing point to me.And he can question that if needs of individuals are more important than the betterment of the public.The feelings,by the way we talk about anger and pain in feelings,too,not only good feelings,are to affect the individual state of mind,to make it feel good or down.But when all the crime is gone away,the prosperity of the large amounts of people is the thing gotten,in governing,economic,and even maybe ethical.Maybe there won't be any feeling to appreciate it but there won't be any moment to cry for.Kurt Wimmer should have questioned this;is the right of individual to feel really more important than the reality of living in a safe time and world?

And Kurt Wimmer should have explained clearly the thing that makes people continue to take Prozima.When people stop to take it,the affect goes off.There is no addiction.If a big amount of people even forgot to take it,there would be a big chaos everyday.In Brace New World,soma makes people addicted to it and people would suffer without it.They would need it for their happiness because they see it as the only way of happiness.

Another thing about watching this movie is how to take side when it's compared with Matrix.Maybe the story,ideology don't have much in common but the genre and the way of the movies are in the same direction.The thing is 'If Equilibrium was before Matrix,would we call Matrix 'New Equýlibrium'?'.Would Neo be accepted as a new form of John Preston?Would Equilibrium be a world-wide accepted classic if there was no Matrix at all?The answers to these questions will mostly identify the approach to this movie against Matrix.

Equýlibrium is an important movie for the cinema age of this generation.Maybe it doesn't affect the cinema genre like Matrix or Lord Of The Rings but it is a 'worth to remember' reference point for this genre.And when discussions,articles rise about this style,there will be a lot of words spoken in the name of Equilibrium.To understand the approach of new generation's movie,it's an obligation to watch this one.It's not a classic,it won't set new styles,criterions but it is a movie which will be talked about a lot.

Egoyan is trying to tell the story as he builds another background for each of characters.So he tries to get us involved into their inner mind and world.There are plenty of characters and also stories.And each story gets connected with a point.This point is not going to a main point of view,a lesson for each one.I think this time Egoyan fails.He has problems about putting all family stuff into a familiar arena.And also it seems like he has some down stuff because of the obligation in his mind about representing the ideology.But I can say that this one deserves 5 of 10 as a movie.I think more than this will be supporting the ideology (like Armenian pals),not the movie as it is.

But my problem,as a Turk, is the representing way of the claim of genocide.All movie there is no scholar file or a point of academic research but they show these things as a historical truth.Their claim is not proved and it is not accepted worldwide.But after all these we are the ones to blame again.The speech that Egoyan claimed Hitler said is just a rumor of Armenians like Roger Ebert declared.

Our soldiers died with those men,freezing in the mountains.They didn't even shot a single bullet,not to an Armenian or an enemy.They died there to get Armenians to a safe place in the time of World War I.But everyone has a point of view and they see it as their hearts tell.All these can be discussed.But the scenes in the movie,hunting and raping,are nothing but lies.And they made me remember;In Turkey there are people that claiming the Armenian rebellions did these kind of things to Turk villages.But these are all claims and people should take a deep breath and carefully discuss this.

Well,I can't believe in Egoyan's benevolence anymore.Maybe you can say that it's doubtful to watch it objectively as a Turk but all I can say is ,as a movie and an ideology it is,this is what it seems to me.Egoyan's passion is burning so high that it even burns a part of the movie.It's like the first thing to do is presenting the claim,slander I call.

Facing window is the mirror of your life.As through you will see what you chose,what you choose.And after all you see will you choose the right thing?

This movie is about choices,regrets and breaking the circle.An old man comes into the life of a young woman who has problems with her husband and job.In this point she is the one trapped in the circle.As she learns the choice old man did in the past,she starts to think about the choices she's doing.Her relationship with the old man is kinda ironic.Because he made the choice between his gay lover and town people.Now she's about the take a decision;her husband or the guy from the facing window,the one that lives the life she wants.

'Facing Window' has a lot of elements;loving as a gay,wasting the life,being an inadequate husband...We're used to see gay relationships in the early works of Ozpetek (Maybe because he's a gay,too!).But in this one the reflection is not as strong as the other ones.And it feels like there is a gap between these elements.They can't get a position that they work as a whole structure.

But the shooting technique of Ozpetek comes all over these.He has a rhytm.This puts a soul into the movie.He uses the music and the cinematography very well.He is so successful about creating the atmosphere.All movie goes on like a song with wonderful lyrics and tune.

It's not hard for us to get into the movie.Because the story is not unusual.Everyone of us lives situations;left to make a choice and live with the regret,there to get the second chance and let it go.So I think one of the things that makes these movie so dramatic in the eye of the audience,it's a window to your life.The tears you cry,deep inside they're the tears for your mistakes.

Serra Yilmaz is so successful.She took a lot of awards for the performance in this role.Giovanna Mezzogiorno;her eyes just for a couple of seconds are worth a thousand words.You can tell all the story of her life just by looking through her eyes.

And the cream-cakes...This movie is not suggested to the ones in the diet.They are an important symbol in the movie.First,they are the major thing building the connection between Giovanna and Davide.And they're one of the things that makes this movie so poetic,flying in the air.

Early works of Ozpetek are better.But on of the things I like in this movie is the distance between the classic European story-telling technique.I never be a whole European cinema fan and the attitude of the movie makes me closer to it.So here I say;'God,let every worse movie be like this'.

A serial killer returning the the arena to pull the police in depression back.Does he do it for the police or for himself?It's a good irony but movie does nothing to get into the deeper,psychological side.I don't think movie is successful about entering into criminal mind.But it should do this.

Because the things happening in the movie,they are all directed by the killer.He pulls the policemen where he wants,he lets them know what he wants.But still we don't really understand what's the point of the murders.Actually we don't know anything about how and why the killer made Joel Campbell such an obsession like this.What we see is a chase (Another question:Who's chasing who) in which killer puts his reasons into a psychology about the cop.And the scenes that we see things in the eyes of the killer,I don't think they're enough to build the connection.That's the biggest missing point.

During the movie there are lots of clishes.Besides movie doesn't achieve the goal that getting into the criminal mind,there is a lot of well-known things in the progress.And I think the point,that no one knows or cares about the victim in spite of all the news,is not logical.So no achievement,lots of clishes,lack of deeper side but there is something in this movie to be watched.

First,there is a rhytm in the movie.It's not long so it doesn't make you bored much.I think the writer couldn't keep the screenplay longer.So for a simple watcher it's satisfying.And the color and the technical stuff like this is good.Because Joe Charbanic is a music video director,it's clear that he knows well about this side.

Then,the cast is surprisingly good.It seems like Keanu Reeves played in this movie just because he knows Joe Charbanic from a video of his group;Dogstar.I don't think he really wanted to play in this movie.and there is not much chance to watch James Spader and Marissa Tomei in the big screen,especially in big productions.There is not an acting-feast but but it's nice to watch them,especially together.

Finally,I think 'Blood Work' is better than 'The Watcher' in the 'killing for' killing idea.However it is good just as it is.But I think some movies have to be deeper because of their structure or story.The ones which miss this point are just 'movies'.And this one adds nothing to thriller,criminal genre and holds nothing to make it remembered.

This movie has everything to tempt you.First of all;the cast.Wonderful actors and actresses;some of them in the leading role,some of them just for a couple of seconds.But every second of it is a new surprise.Then one kind of work screenplay,the connections between the stories are simple,not hard to understand,the airport is a good symbol,the characters are amazingly funny,sweet and easy to make a connection for a watcher.and most types of love are in the screenplay.I think,except the story of Colin Firth,every story is very strong in roots,in dialogs and entertainment.In my opinion the story of the couple which plays in the erotic movie is the most successful one about telling the stress and shyness love brings with ironies.Also it should be appreciated that the success in creating different types of characters to be watched and loved.Especially 'Billy Mack' by Bill Nighy is a new kind of 'Kramer' in Seinfeld and 'Jeff' in Coupling U.K..'Jack Sparrow' by Johny Depp and 'Billy Mack' are the characters which entertain me most this year.

With this movie I get sure that English directors are much better than Americans' in romantic-comedy.I don't think there's any work worth to remember in this area since 'Pretty Woman' from U.S.A..Richard Curtis and his friends are the only ones to make this type of cinema stand strong since 'Four Weddings And A Funereal'.

Richard Curtis is a genius when it comes to romantic-comedy.He knows the most well-matched actors.He knows how to use the music.He knows everything of this genre.In movie there are witty remarks depending on director,too as there are ones depending on screenplay.

After this movie,just for a couple of seconds you'll forget all the sorrow you feel.You'll think everything is okay in the world,no wars or dying people because of poverty,violence,belief...Then maybe you'll remember 'FIGHT CLUB' and everything will be back to the way they used to be.

A pure kind of action.With real players,with real guns,against real players.Successful maps,guns,weapons.There is never an end,eternal challenge.But the minimum A.I. and maximum human factor never makes it seem again.And all these human factors;tricks,mistakes,different plans...makes the graphics not so important.More important than graphics maps are very suitable for seek and destroy,unstoppable rush,hiding somewhere to shoot in the back or big battles in big areas.The guns are so many and realistic so you don't stuck into a character during the game.It's not hard to learn how to play but so hard to learn to play well.But no matter how good or bad you are,you'll never get bored.Other thing about the game is,this one makes you a real hero.You're in a team and coordinate with plans but sometimes you have to stand up just by yourself and fight alone.By winning,you don't save a computer A.I. character;a real human character.So you can be the hero of the day.

It starts as a conspiracy movie.A man who is a spy of Nazis working for England.Then his identity comes clear and with important informations our man starts to escape.The chase begins.

Movie is really successful about giving audience the pressure of the timeline.But the most important thing is this movie holds the tension into the lives of people who has no connect with the war.Spy hides in the home of a family which lives in an island,far from war.They don't know who he is and police don't know where he is.So movie adds new level of adventure to its structure and gets some kind of thriller atmosphere.Will the secrets be in the hands of Nazis and what will be the end of the family.

Donald Sutherland plays a classical performance.The director does a good job about creating the tension.And the most beautiful thing is the movie itself.It has all the 70's spy movie genre and cinematography and holds the 'danger to the civil' factor besides all super-power states relationships.

And my conclusion for this movie is simple:No matter how far you are,the war will be knocking your door;in one way or another.

The saga continues.Even you're a hard person to find things good in later comers,you'll find all the things you loved in first one.Dark atmosphere,action with 'bullet-time' quality,high-level graphics...And in this one our guy is not alone;if you're looking for a femme-fatale keeping secrets,mysteries,it's Mona Sax what you need.A story with lies,deceptions.A man trying to find the ground from his eternal fall.That's what we call Max Payne genre.

The newest thing about the game is the change in the face of Max Payne.Deadsure this new look is better.The new holds all the sorrow,and fatigue which the years gifted to him.And besides Max Payne,Mona Sax's join gives game a new level.We can into the thoughts of her by the dialogs,the oil-printed screens between chapters.And in some chapters we are playing Mona Sax character besides Max Payne.That's another reason that when everything comes up to a conclusion in the end,we feel the loss,the pain in our hearts better.We exactly live the feelings these two characters live.

The screenplay is more complicated.The bad men,the conspiracies,the things tricky.We don't kill the men just because game wants,we don't go with the flow;we are aware all the going on.This is the success of the screenplay and the videos between the chapters to keep us in the same direction as the game is on the wheel.Also in some chapters we play in the events which happened during the chapter we played before.These are some of the developments about the cinematic and storytelling side of the second game.

There are two things I'd like to tell.First one;this one is not just a game to continue the series.It is connected with the first game both in story and character side.And it feels like it will go on.The second thing is the song playing in the end:Late Goodbye by Poets Of The Fall.Only the ones who play this game can understand how it makes you feel.

So play this game and see how it plays with the ides about 'falling' in your mind.Ask yourself:Is there anything he didn't lose as he lives in his eternal fall? and will ever be ground for him to reach?

If some still thinks that computer games are just for fun that means full of nothing,here stands one of the best piece of art of this generation.I am not afraid including 'MAX PAYNE' into art because if cinema is an art, this is standing above most of it.

'MAX PAYNE' uses the film-noir genre.Even in the scenes of action,you can feel the sadness of the hero.The music is so strong and the 'bullet-time' technical makes the action scenes more than just firing guns,shooting bullets.With the screenplay,this technical holds this piece of work into the level of cinema.

Speaking of screenplay,it's very suitable for this kind of games.It can be short but the details like playing Payne's nightmare make it easier to build a connection between you and the hero.The time is short but it leaves a taste in your mouth that will make you wait till the second one.Also it's not hard to play comparing with the most of these kind of games.The enemies are not so tough but most of the time you're dealing with 2 or 3 of them and the places you play make it harder for you.Besides there are a lot of surprises so after every man you kill you have to save the game.And the controls are easy to play and make sudden moves.

The screenplay is also so successful about creating a strong character.'MAX PAYNE' is a anti-hero film-noir classic.He is a cop who lost his family in the hands of killers and after a couple of years in a investigation he finds some evidences going back to the death of his family.So we find ourselves in the middle of a conspiracy.Also until the end of the game we learn some points of his past and will reflect into his future;second game.In addition in some points it builds a connection with the player that a movie can do hardly.And also there are plenty of dialogs and speeches you can't forget.

The cinematographic side of the game is especially strong.The screens which are oil-painted;reminding the comic books; are well-done about presenting the conversations and the situations between the chapters and they fit very well about keeping the player tuned.

Writing about this one,I really feel like I'm writing about a film.It feels like they planned and put it into the game world as thinking like they're shooting a movie.With its second part it becomes more complicated and seems like it will be a series whose parts will be connected to each other.And I think we should see 'MAX PAYNE' in the big screen but in the hands of masters.It will be a huge classic.What am I saying? It's already a classic.

Actually there is no need to speak long about this one.During the movie,you can not find a way to connect this movie into the samurai culture.An interesting idea but lots of clishes.This movie needs a director who knows how to get into action.<Actually when I see John Woo's name in the airport scene,I get some kind of hope.>The characters,the dialogs,the things happened,the things done;they are all well-known from the American movies.Besides,while there is nothing new in the screenplay side,the action side is worse.There are a couple of fight scenes to remember and the final fight going parallel with the PS2 game is just a brilliant idea.But there is no director to use these in the way they should be.So if you want to see something glorifying about Samurai,keep on sticking with 'THE SEVEN SAMURAI'

What do you expect from this movie?A good action?It's up yo what you mean.Scenes of war hold the glory,the big cinema feeling,the passion of the things to die for.But does it show the aesthetic of the samurai sword challenges?In most of the movie I don't think so.The angles director uses are so close to reflect the ballet side of these challenges.But as a war scene as I said it will be great loss not to pay attention.Besides action,do you expect a deep side of Japan and Samurai culture?If you do,don't!The scenes to show these cultures are more like a film called 'TODAY'S LESSON OF JAPAN'.The film is shallow and distant about this.I think director didn't pay the attention needed to this area unlike Tom Cruise did.

But if you want to watch a movie as it is,it is really good.But I think the lack of these two sides blocked its way to Academy Awards Nominations.And there are a lot of clishes.The speeches from the diary of Nathan Algren,the love of Nathan Algren.And it's so strange that in his first battle Nathan kills a big amount of Samurai and Katsumoto speaks his last words in English when Nathan knows Japanese as his mother tongue.Also the angles director uses are so ordinary.If the final battle scene wasn't that successful,it would be very hard to build the glorification of the heroes.I think instead of these,he should prefer more complicated shots with wide angles while the music of Hans Zimmer is already well-matched with this kind of scenes.

This movie is a certain proof of a thing;Tom Cruise is a great actor.With Ken Watanabe and Hiroyuki Sanada they are a great trio but in most of the movie all the weight is on the shoulders of Tom Cruise.This one shows why this guy is an actor worth 20 million dollars.

When it comes to ethical side,'Last Samurai' is very hard to analyze.First it shows the pangs of conscience because of the things done to redskins but then it doesn't take a step back about representing Nathan Algren as the white hero man in land of strangers.He gives the courage to Katsumoto and shows the right way to the emperor.But about ironies,it uses the the fact,that Nathan Algren regains his dignity,which he lost in a war,in another war,very well.On the other hand I think there is no success about building the irony between two cultures,two times.It would be better if the director didn't take a side between new age technology and Samurai culture.What will be the benefit of culture when it is standing in the way of prosperity of people and development of the country?Doesn't a culture become alive to keep the status quo and the realities of its time strong?What would it be when the time changes?

Finally, I think this movie is to watch just as it is.If you achieve to keep your 'classic-wanter' feelings,it will be a great cinema feast worth 100 million dollars.

To make a great movie sometimes all you need is a good director;not big stars, or huge special effects.The problem of this movie is this;the lack of a good direction.The idea and the story is good and Robert Patrick is enough for this one.But there is no one behind the camera to put it all into an order,to shoot memorable scenes or to create strong characters.In the screenplay there are a lot of logical mistakes but they could be put into a right way with someone who knows what to do.

Director wants to make a movie about crime,lie,people who can not be trusted or can not trust each other.And also he wants to add some kind of romance.We all see how this type of film-noir can be done perfectly by Tarantino,Coen Brothers and absolutely 'Red Rock West' by John Dahl.Besides all the mistakes in the script,lack of character analyzes this movie needs memorable dialogs,quotes,and a song.Sometimes a dialog or a song makes you remember a movie.But this one misses all of them;script,dialogs,music,characters.Speaking of characters am I the only one who is looking for a strong femme-fatale character?

I think this movie is more like to be watched to learn the things not to do in a film-noir.A good idea is not always enough and this one shows everything to turn this good idea upside down.

Con-Air is kind of movies that you don't look for a logical script,satisfying character analyzes or lessons for life.You just go and watch the movie.You remember that there were times that movies were just for entertainment.It helps you forget the day and enjoy the moment.And I think Con-Air does it very well,all of the special effects,explosions,gunfights.chases...It's hard to find a minute to breath and focus on another thing. Con-Air is the plane that all 'respected' and 'highly-reputable' criminals of U.S.A. are brought together for a transport.And of course there is a good man who will save the day.The bad guys take the control of the plane so you start to think with all of this cruel gang if there can be a top for the action.

The script has a lot of senseless points like if there is any way to put all these men together with such a lazy security or every agent in U.S.A. knows 'cutting the root' with exploding something no matter what the cost is the best solution for a problem.But as I said the action is so successful that if writers tried to write the script deeper,there won't be such a big chance to make this adrenaline crush.Seeing this movie I thought that Simon West would be good action-movie director but I still can't believe that is there any chance to make a 'going down' movie like Tomb Raider.Then I figure it out that the key to this movie is the script;it is too smooth.It has no mysteries,puzzles,dialogs to analyze so it lets the director create huge action scenes.Like Tomb Raider,if you try to tell a story,an adventure,too,Simon West is the wrong man.By choosing him you both loose the chance to tell the story or make great action scenes.

Con-Air is a typical Bruckheimer production:good cast,easy story,smooth script,a director who is familiar with action movies,culture of new generation and of course the explodings that are planned never to stop.After The Rock Bruckheimer chose a different path.I think Con-Air and Pirates Of The Caribbean are the best ones of this period.In movies like Pearl Harbor and Armageddon he tried to tell a story,too.But Michael Bay was the wrong man.To achieve this he finally worked with Gore Verbinski and 'right in target!'.Unlike most of his other productions the bad guys are another topic to speak.These guys are not just characters to be.In this movie Malkovich,Rhames,Trejo and of course Buscemi make the villains to watch.All of the action and humor are on the shoulders of these guys.

There is no need to speak about the cast very long.There can be great actors but the language of their performance depends on their charisma in this film;except Buscemi.Just for watching Steve Buscemi,this movie is one of the gifted ones.This guy is a great actor and after seeing the movie the longest talk can be about his character.

I don't say that this movie is a classic.Probably when there is John Woo,it's hard to remember this one.But in 1970's the Michael Caine movies are the purist tone of action movies.Now time has changed.There are special effects,new concepts and audience approach to action in different ways.And I think Con-Air is one of the examples of the pure action movie of these times.Besides sometimes you love a movie just because it's just a movie

In cinema history there are some movies that doesn't get the attention they deserve.They never become a mainstream hit or the main subject or the main example of a discussion,article...I think 'RED ROCK WEST' is one of the strongest examples for this kind of movies.

The reason for this 'less' reputation is probably this movie brings nothing new to film-noir genre.The characters,the events happened,the dialogs,the relations are so familiar.But John Dahl uses perfectly all these 'well known' film-noir classics;the people tempted by money,the people who gets nothing at the end of the adventure.And of course a perfect anti-hero character;Michael played by Nicholas Cage.I think another reason for the situation of the movie; this movie was shown in a few number of theaters after it was shown in Sundance Film Festival.It's just a thing ý don't get.John Dahl knows what he does,the cast is not bad at all and the work they do is pretty good.

The most influenced movies are 'BLOOD SIMPLE' and 'TWIN PEAKS'.In both three movies mysteries,a story with puzzles are the keys.Also the approach of the directors in both three movies are similar.They focus on the behavior,the character of the people when it comes the time to face the situation.Of course the light of the master directors are more realized.I think the plus points which make these two movies better than 'RED ROCK WEST' are in 'BLOOD SIMPLE' the directors use the stronger and in 'TWIN PEAKS' the director also focuses on the psychological side.Also after 'RED ROCK WEST','FARGO' and 'A SIMPLE PLAN' use the similar stories by using different levels of approach.

But 'RED ROCK WEST' is smoother and this is one of the pleasures movie offers.You can realize how this movie is good by just watching it as it is.The story can seem confusing but the reflection of it in the big screen is easier to focus.

The characters are not hard to understand.Like the story,the characters are also in the way of film-noir genre.'Michael' is a man who has no control over the situation he caused,just going with flow and trying to stay alive,played by 'NICHOLES CAGE'.'Wayne Brown',he tries to understand where they reached from a simple conspiracy how it became,by the performance of 'J.T. WALSH'.'DENNIS HOPPER' plays the character named 'Llye' who is a cold-blooded killer and just focuses on the job he does.This character reminds me the character,'Sentenza' who played by 'LEE VAN CLEEF' in 'THE GOOD,THE BAD,AND THE UGLY' more than the similar character in again played by 'HOPPER' in 'TWIN PEAKS'.And 'LARA FLYNN BOYLE',a femme-fatale character which every crime movie needs.She is also another mystery in this story with puzzles;you don't understand if she really loves 'Michael' the end of the movie.Another classic point from crime movie genre is used in this point,too;less characters with more tension between them.

A thing that hits me in this movie is the song playing in the end by 'DWIGHT YOAKAM' who also has a a small role in the movie as a truck driver.'A 1000 MILES AWAY FROM NOWHERE';in the lyrics,the tune,the harmony with the atmosphere of the movie makes an incredible work.

'ROGER EBERT' says that Red Rock West is a place we've been in many times.Really there are times we are tempted,out of control,no idea what to do,where nothing seems enough strong against money.In the beginning of the movie we enter the town with Michael by the side of the 'WELCOME TO RED ROCK WEST' signal and the movie ends as we leave the town by watching the train.It's like a period of our lives to stand tall and test our faith.In both cinema language and life language Red Rock West is a town we all have ideas how it seems.

A brilliant masterpiece; Leone created a genre of cinema that nobody can do the same<remember;Sam Raimi tried.>.You have to write a clever script that also includes adventure,good dialogs and of course a little bit of sarcasism.I like to see it as a John Wayne movie in Tarantino way. 'A Fistful of Dollars' is probably a movie to remember.Not only for spaghetti western,it's also a peak point for the century of our cinema time.'JOE' is one of the first anti-hero character of movie history.Because of this I think it is a root for the film-noir genre of the latest times. From the strange start, to the funny end we don't really find out that if it is all about money, or woman or maybe fun.But if we look at the end, does our hero have a lot of money?No,but a lot of scars.So this makes the movie the most 'anti-dollar' movie in dollar triology of Leone.But this don't prevent that we're face to face with one of the best movie ever. 'JOE' is a classic Leone character.We don't know much about his past and he lives a thousands of trouble during the movie.But we all watch these like it is a part of his life.We don't become surfeited with that situation.Also like every Leone character.everything he does is planned.He makes no mistakes.Just because of the intelligence of the enemy or a coincidence,he gets caught.Of course we can't forget Clint Eastwood.He doesn't kill the character for his name but after the movie we all know that the only one to play this role is him. The second character of the movie is of course music.The Morricone's work is first class <like it always was>.From a moment you come to a level that you don't need dialogs to learn emotions,thoughts....The music starts to talk and makes the atmosphere all ready.So this gives Leone the chance to create a scene that only a few director in movie business can do:Creating the tension without the words.Remember how he did it on the final duel scene in 'The Good,The Bad,and The Ugly' and the final gunfight in 'For A Few Dollars More'.He doesn't betray the tradition and he builds a scene that we will see in the future<Back To The Future 3>But the difference between this scene and other scenes is:On other scenes there is the speed of the hands of the characters,in this one Leone shows us that you also have to be smart when it comes the time to shoot,not only on cheating,running away,or following a trail. My final word is that here is classic.It includes all the style and genre Leone wanted to do in westerns.You can say the characters or the music is like other Leone movies but small roles make this movie impossible to put it to the same level with other stuff of Leone.Really characters like 'BARMEN' and 'COFFIN MAKER' are also the things that other 2 'dollar-movies' don't have.I'm sure that we all agree with 'The Good,The Bad, and The Ugly' and 'For Few Dollars More' are the greatests, but this one is standing on the top alone.It's the biggest chance to see what all Leone western is about and also to thank for all the influence on Coppola,Robert Rodriguez,Tarantino... <One last thing:You 'LAST MAN STANDING';you're just to realize how impossible to copy the Leone style.>

First of all ý must say that ý like this movie.I accept that it isn't as good or deep as the first two movies.But it achieves its first goal:entertaining us.With its great action scenes <the war in Zion or the brain-smashing fight between Agent Smith and Neo>,you will barely breath.And if you succeed to put the philoshopy side away <certain that this is impossible>,you will think that you watched one of best action

movies of the all times. About the philoshopy side,the movie continues to discuss the same issues in the second movie:machines that are getting human feelings and their point of view about these things like love,existence.This discussion started in the first movie when we heard Agent Smith told Morpheus that he hated MATRIX and he was searching to way to zion to get out of that unreal world.Then in the second movie we saw programs like Agent Smith and Keymaker which trying to continue their existence in spite they are programed to be ended and they were fighting between each other,too <like humans,when a program or a machine gets its intelligence,it doesn't take a step back about attacking to another programs or machines>.And in this movie we learn the human feelings that programs have and what they think about them <for example they don't consider love as a feeling>.before Matrix in BLADE RUNNER,RIDLEY SCOTT discussed the same issue.But Scott was more dramatic like the SPIELBERG in A.I..WACHOVSKY BROTHERS are more like KUBRICK in 2001;more specific. On the other hand it really has big spaces in the things it brought from RELOADED.For example they don't say anything more about the ARCHITECT and the talk between him and Neo or the identity of ORACLE.And about the 'MERV'.We just see Matrix in the beginning of the film;the talk between 'Merv' and 'TRINITY,MORPHEUS and SERAPH' and in the end we see it captured by Agent Smith.We see everyone turned into Agent Smith.But we don't know how he got a strong program like 'MEROVINGIAN'.Didn't he resist it's just one of the space ý said. Someone can say that there is too much romance and love.But isn't a new thing:There was love in the huge dance scene of RELOADED,too.Because WACHOVSKY BROTHERS are still taking referances from the ideologies they took in the first MATRIX;budism and tasavvuf.For example the biggest ideologist of tasavvuf;MEVLANA says that 'when you start to love the created you will start the to love the creator,this will save you from the unreal world that you are in'. Finally ý say that it is a quite movie.Just before you see the movie don't tell yourselves you are gonna love it or hate it.Wonderful action but middle-class philoshopy.And to the men who saying that last two movies aren't neccessary:It's obvious from the beginning that there

would be more and ý think they did it well.From the white rabbit in the hole to the sarcastic end of Neo it is a thing to see