Ulak

That was what Cagan Irmak said before the movie was seen "if you are expecting clichés, you will not be satisfied". This movie was totally different. The style, the life, the people in the movie was kind of weird. However, everything was great, well prepared. Movie tells a tale about a "messenger" in ancient times. The tale tells people every side of a life, a woman lets men use her daughter for money, a bad man, a crazy woman, a boy and a girl that can not be together... Cetin Tekindor (Zekeriya) played nearly perfect in the movie. In addition, kids played their roles awesome. They were too natural, and they were living the environment. The soundtracks are great, images are impressive. One of the bests, 9/10.

this is a timeless film and a timeless story, full of hope and humanity. the actors are magnificent, especially the children and the storyteller.

altogether a beautiful experience that instills hope in everyone. in a way it is very realistic and based in a seemingly real village. then the film shifts between two stories which are linked and share some actors.

it is encouraging because it exposes evil-doers and gives hope that ethical behavior has still a great value. another plus is that the film shows a life-style of old with beautiful costumes and embellishing of the women's face and is set in a rural place which makes you quite nostalgic.

This film definitely has its own way of telling a story. While watching, it gives you the feeling of listening to a fairy tale, which I haven't felt for many years. I must admit that the film has religious implications, because of the story in the background, but they are not necessarily negative criticisms. By choosing children as the main audience in the "messiah story", this film separates itself from any other religious-story-telling films or books. The costumes, acting and conversations all have that fairy tale style as a whole. I see "hope" as the main theme of this film as "even an unrealistic hope can change people's lives". Please don't watch and judge this movie with your or others belief-defending opinions. It just shows the power of imagination. Also it is a good and a different step for Turkish cinema.

First of all I'm really happy to see that Turkish cinema has reached international standards in terms of technical features of film making. The movie "Ulak" has very decent camera work, lighting, costumes and scene creation. Almost half of the movie is shot in the night and everything is well done. We can see every bit of the scene yet we're convinced that it's dark. This is not we're used to see is Turkish film making.

Now let's come the movie itself. I'd never seen a Cagan IRMAK(the director) movie before. I did not have any expectations actually. I was very much neutral. After watching the movie I questioned myself and thought about it over and over but I could not figure out what all it was about! There is a promising story but it is very vague. One can get different messages from it or not. Neither I can say who the people are in the movie nor what the era it is they live in. It looks like they are one of the Turkish tribes before Ottoman Empire living in southern parts of Anatolia. But no one can say it is for sure. So, place, characters and the time is not so clear to the audience. Therefore we cannot know what to expect or how to interpret the story.

And my last but not least complaint is, and I think this is the biggest problem of Turkish Cinema, the movie looks much more like a theater play than a cinema movie. Let me say why; most of the cast is coming from theater origin yet this is the least important cause of the problem. It doesn't feel like "Cinema" because it's shot in almost three places, a hand build village stage, a barn yard and some very short outside shots. Acting can be considered quite well if they were on the stage of the theater, in front of the audience. But the acting is much more dramatic than it should. One might say it's epic, but I could not see where the saga is.

So, our directors are so keen to shot sagas and tales but before that they ought to learn how to tell a story on the big screen in a solid manner. But of course, they need to have a solid story and scenario beforehand.

First of all, the ''Turkish Cinema'' had produced the same things throughout. But this idea of making something different contrary to the meaningless, cheap movies of bad filmmakers is a very venturous business. I think that we owe Çağan Irmak therefore a debt, because his early work was ''Babam Ve Oğlum'', which was very successful in the box-office. Irmak has tried something at least but the transformation of the idea of telling a myth is done very bad to a movie. The development of the movie is very choppy, the characters are sketchy without any deepness, the music was predominantly weird and the overall performance of the actors were common to bad. But the biggest point is, that the movie was too theatrical. This attribute is not appropriated to cinema,you can find it in theaters. The director wanted to give the messages in a artless way, which made some scenes and the filmmaker funny. All in all it's a good try but nothing more...