kulabas
Joined Oct 2003
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings964
kulabas's rating
Reviews18
kulabas's rating
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.
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.
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.
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.