Reviews

Being a movie and a football lover at the same time, "Looking for Eric" combines two of my passions. And being a football commentator, I have to be a step ahead of those who admires Frenchman's ability on the pitch... I have read most of his interviews and watch many DVD's about him because it is my job. So I can say that the Cantona, Eric dreams at "Looking for Eric" is the real thing.

His advices might seem simple but they are affective and the lines are carefully chosen. Just like his interviews... If you don't believe me, you can check it out on November 2008 issue of Four Four Two (171) where he talks about women when his opinion about his chair-mans and his managers is asked...

But although he is the main attraction on the posters and the name suggests it's a movie about the player, the Eric we are (and Loach are) looking for is the one that Steve Evets is playing.

It is a good movie, while concentrating on a man and his issues with his family and at work, it still digs in deep football matters like the raise of the ticket prices and how football is being taken away from it's real owners, which are supporters.

It is funny at parts, touching in others, and fine when you think it all over. It is a movie that suggests there is always hope and who knows, may be some advices of the flamboyant Frenchman might be useful for you too.

There are many "stupid", or the way I call them "absurd", masterpieces.

Marx Brothers had their own formula 70 - 80 years ago and repeated it perfectly in their handful of movies. A bunch of young British geniuses had their shot and they were outstanding. From "Meaning of Life" to "Holly Grail", Monthy Python brought us some of the finest examples of "absurd" comedy. Later the famous Z.A.Z. team produced likes of "Top Secret" and "Airplane". Not everything they did was as successful as these, but they set a fine standard.

To call "Anchorman" a great stupid movie is quite an insult to those guys, and many others I couldn't name here.

Will Ferrell is not my favorite actor, but after seeing him in a Woody Allen project (Melinda, Melinda) and watching extraordinary "Stranger Than Fiction", I was convinced he had more talent than he showed on "A Night at the Roxberry". So I decided to give a shot to "Anchorman", which also contains pretty Christina Applegate.

But the result was disappointment. Every character is a cartoon like most absurd comedies, but the jokes are not raining like they supposed to be. This brings out the flaws of cartoons on the screen. In the good examples of the genre, like those I mentioned above, you probably miss some jokes, while you are laughing on others. In this you won't risk of missing anything because they are well apart from each other.

If you think lines like "Sixty percent of the time, it works every time." are funny, this movie may do the trick for you. You'll laugh anyway, I admit I laughed, but not enough to make this experience worthy.

"Anchorman" has one of the most overrated notes in IMDb, I'm afraid.

"Moonlighting" was where we first saw and love Bruce Willis. The portrait of an annoying but also charming detective, David Addison, who takes life on the light side but his love more serious than he would like to show, gained our sympathy. I remember him saying "this story is as weak as a toilet paper" in one of the episodes. I really don't know the original script but at least it was translated like that to Turkish. When I saw old David Addison as Harrison Hill in "Perfect Stranger", I recalled that line.

The movie has got the beauty of Halle Berry and the name of Mr. Willis on board and I assume they thought that would be enough. The story is shallow, many misleading clues make you suspect every character you meet, but in the end this bore one rather than raise his interest. You have to bypass your logic in order to watch it without calling some occasions and reactions by the characters rubbish.

"Perfect Stranger" also has a problem with genre... It seems to be a thriller - suspense movie but in times it was shot as if it were a horror movie. Halle Berry is way far from her Oscar winning performance. Bruce Willis who acted in many good movies, but also has a habit of not disappointing his fans even with his average flicks delivers a wooden performance as Mr. Hill. So you wonder in the end why did he opted to play in this movie, although he has an ability to recognize a weak scenario from his "Moonlighting" days...

Sahara is an entertaining adventure movie. It starts with a historic scene but do not follow it like "Indiana Jones", "Mummy" or "National Treasure"... You can neither call it a comedy or a romantic movie but both has their share in Sahara.

McConaughey or Zahn are not great, but you don't expect them to be in this action packed movie. Macy has a small part but makes his mark. Some of the scenes make disbelief but you can also forgive them because Sahara does not take itself so seriously.

Penelope Cruze is the object of beauty. Although she appears in many serious movies I really don't see her as a great actress. But her lack of acting doesn't bother me for the first time in Sahara. She is really beautiful and it's enough for this movie.

For me one of the greatest things in the movie is the use of the ball. Everyone who played football on the streets probably chased a lose ball to an unknown place. For those Sahara holds a beautiful surprise.

For those who expect decent facts, a strong plot without flows, Sahara is a very bad choice. But if all you need is some entertainment without focusing too hard, this light-adventure probably won't disappoint you.

We, average movie lovers, are a little tired of Vietnam movies. Hollywood mass-produces them and indifferent films with different casts parade on the theaters.

But the thing we are really tired of is Anti-Vietnam movies, with the message "We Shouldn't Be Here" written all over them. I don't argue that America should battle there, but the message has become boring after watching it over and over again. "Platoon" brings together everything I hate about Vietnam movies so it's the worst example for me, with "Born on the 4th of July" close behind it.

But I know that Kubrick and De Palma used the same setting to produce masterpieces "Full Metal Jacket" and "Casualties of War".

"We were soldiers" does not excel like the two I mentioned above, but is definitely a good movie despite those negative criticism it got from the critics. First of all it is an anti-war movie, not anti-Vietnam. It has a humanitarian attitude. "Thin Red Line" has the same attitude but so much that it was a distraction. Randall Wallace, gives a good mixture of combat and humanity.

Mel Gibson is his usual self and does not disappoint. Gregg Kinnear delivers a decent performance as "Snake" and it was an interesting change to watch Sam Elliott without his legendary mustache.

Violence and bloody scenes can disturb the ones with a weak stomach, but if you like a decent war movie, forget the critics and watch "We were Soldiers"

I don't think anybody expected such a bad movie from Spottiswoode, Stallone, and Getty trio.

Roger Spottiswoode was a director who made a great job in "Under Fire", and proved to be able to make people laugh and cry in one movie with "Turner & Hooch".

Getty was the best, and arguably the funniest of the "Golden Girls".

And finally Stallone, who had just finished "Oscar", one of finest mob comedies ever made. We were used to his muscles, but had just discovered his ability in comedy.

This is how the expectations were raised. The movie is worth seeing, because it's really not possible to tell how bad it is. I watched "Oscar" in the theater twice in one week and laughed so hard that tears ran out of my eyes on both occasions. If I had the habit of walking out in the middle of a movie, I would definitely do on "Stop! Or my mom will shoot", which couldn't manage to produce a single smile.

First of all, this is not a Ferhan Sensoy movie, he only acts in it.

The popular writer, director and actor of Turkish theaters, delivers some trademark dialogs but "Sans Kapiyi Kirinca" which could be interpreted as "When Luck Breaks Down the Door" to English, is not his work.

The movie is important as a rare opportunity to see Ferhan on the silver screen, because not all has the chance to see him in flesh acting at his own theater.

The story is familiar, it reminded me Ivan Reitmans' "Dave" (Kevin Kline-Sigourney Weaver), and Paul Mazursky's "Moon over Parador" (Richard Dreyfuss).

Yurdum family wins a trip to Barboonia, an unknown (fictional) island in the Caribbean, and things start to get going when the guy in the hotel reception realize that the father of the family Kuddusi, played by Sensoy, looks exactly like Carlos, the president of Barboonia.

President Carlos who is trying to avoid a routine suicide attempt, jumps on the opportunity and makes a plan to use Kuddusi as bate.

Almost entire movie was shot at Cuba which could be an attraction who are fond of the place.

"Sans Kapiyi Kirinca" loses its tempo from time to time and some of the jokes are so used that you can't even smile. But there are enough interesting and funny parts to make the experience amusing.

Not a great piece for Sensoy fans, but he makes it worthy to watch, and if you don't know the master, this could be a decent chance.

To watch King Arthur, you have to forget everything you know about King Arthur, Lancelot, Guinevere and the knight of round table. Because Antoine Fuqua's movie tells a different story.

Lancelot is a Sarmatian, because of a long term agreement with Romans, (yes it's true, Roman Empire in King Arthur story!) young Sarmatians with their legendary ability as cavalry, has to serve as knights. Something like military service but lasts 15 years. And if this isn't good enough for you, Arthur is Roman!

Fuqua made a decent movie with Sarmatians, Romans, Saxons and Woads. Acting is satisfactory, my favorite was Ray Winstone as Bors, the powerful knight who has managed to produce 11 children between his fights.

Since Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" it's not easy for a movie to make a surprise by using violent and bloody scenes. This one is no exception to the rule.

If you like historic movies, watch this one without prejudice.

"Islands in the Streams" takes place in the Carribeans and Keys during World War II, as one of Hemingway's favorite settings.

If you like Hemingway's work in general, you won't be disappointed by this movie. Talented George C. Scott puts on a fine performance and although his association with director Schaffner on this one is no match to their masterpiece "Patton", it successfully adapts Hemingway's story to the screen.

Scott's character Thomas Hudson lives on an island surrounded by a few friends, works on his art, analyzes his relationship with his children and previous wives, with opportunity rising by the visit of his children.

The fishing scene is the best, but lack of technology makes the movie less convincing.

It seems to me that a great director, Martin Scorsese, after making magnificent movies like "Taxi Driver", "New York New York", "Goodfellas", "Raging Bull", "Casino", is creating disappointment lately with "Gangs of Newyork", "Bringing out the dead" and ultimately with this movie, "The Aviator".

It lacks depth in many ways. The plane crash scene is very far from reality. The only relationship of Howard Hughes that is given properly is the one with Hepburn. Ava Gardner and the others comes and goes without making sense.

DiCaprio is awful. I think he performed very well in "Catch me if you can" but Howard Hughes proves to be beyond his acting skills.

The first part of the movie was promising, with the shooting of "Hell's Heroes" and the affair between Howard Hughes and Katharine Hepburn keeping the pace up. Cate Blanchett is doing a wonderful work playing the legendary actress.

But after the first hour the movie turns its interest to the aviation war and Hughes as a producer and film maker disappears from the scene. Further developments and the changes in Hughes character is getting more boring with each minute. Leonardo DiCaprio is not convincing and Scorsese could not manage to pull it together properly.

the way of the gun has a great cast, and thats the reason I got the movie. I think both Phillips and del Toro are talented actors and Juliette Lewis is one of my favorites.

Action starts with one of the most unusual scenes and catches your attention immediately. I guess it reminded many people of Tarantino. Then the interview dialogs in Quentin style at the unemployment office sets the expectations higher. But it stops there and the rest is quite a disappointment for me.

Two bad guys and the atmosphere of the movie reminded me of "from dusk till dawn". And you can see as much blood in this one too. But the way of the gun lacks the humor and musical support you found in Tarantino movies.

Inventive car chase and gun fight scenes are mostly illogical, and I could not keep myself from wondering how the boys (Phillips and del Toro) got those expensive guns, sniper rifles etc. while they couldn't afford 50 $ to repair their car.

You can guess most of the surprises and twists in the movie. In the end though acting was quite good, I did not like the film, but I would not call it a waste of time either, so watch it if you like bloody action films with some inventive scenes and decide for yourself.

Red Planet may not be sufficient when rated as a science-fiction, but for people who watch the movie for its plot and not with expectations of very high technology and special effects, its not a disappointing one.

It starts with a slow tempo, and although the whole movie takes place far from earth, we are not blinded by non-stop special effects. Instead Anthony Hoffman gives us the story he is telling and does not care much whether he satisfies the science-fiction lovers. By staying away from the unnecessary effects, he keeps our attention on the theme.

The suspense in the movie is quite good, although not many big surprises occurs.

Biggest negative point for me (as a guy not interested in effects but in the way the director tells what he has to say) is Hoffman fails to show us the relationship between the crew and gives us his characters with simple out lines. I guess he knows his weakness here, and so he makes his captain (Carrie-Anne Moss) describe all her crew members one by one.

Finally if you are not especially looking for a science-fiction but say you can watch one, Red Planet will not be a very bad choice. I rate the film 6, but its 6,5 actually.

Here is another piece of work with an impressive cast, but also a disappointing outcome.

The guy we all loved and appreciated as Oscar Schindler, Mr Liam Neeson makes a bad choice by deciding to play in this one. May be they payed him good enough to make it bearable, but its a step backwards for the talented actor.

Catherine Zeta Jones, who showed everyone in movies like 'Traffic' and 'High Fidelity' that she is not just a pretty face, but also can act as good as anyone, is not as impressive as in those works of her. Including the leading actress Lily Taylor (Gaudi afternoon, Ransom, High Fidelity) and Owen Wilson (Armageddon) although none of the four are at their best, I still can say that the acting is the only thing that makes you watch it till the end.

This is neither a "guys & girls from school goes to a deserted camp & got killed" movie, nor an old fashioned thriller. Computer tricks supposed to scare us but most of the time it does not. I think the best word for the plot is dull. Instead of being scared, you got bored. You notice some logical mistakes while you are watching and this was a huge distraction for me.

The director, Jan De Bont - who I must admit is not one of my favorites - was much successful as a cinematographer by involving in movies like Lethal Weapon 3, Hunt for Red October, Flatliners, Shining Through and Die hard. But if he insists on directing than I thing he is better in Action (Speed) or disaster (Twister) movies. I am not a huge fan of those two but I definitely can rate them higher than this one.

First of all I must admit that when I first saw the movie coming I tought it would be a great one. Besides two of my favorite players, (Turturro & Blanchett) there were two decent players in the leading roles. Ricci and Depp.

But when the movie started, after 10-15 minutes I saw that one can make a very bad movie with such marvelous players. If we look at the whole movie, (by the way there is no such thing, the movie does not come together) the characters are like cartoons. Director gives us very shallow characters. In a movie which has no acceleration -like this one- there should be depth in the characters but the director completely forgets this.

And in particular my two favorite players are simply wasted, and Johnny Depp is like the company of the white horse, because except 2-3 scenes we see him with the horse. As if the main actor was the horse and Johnny was there to hold it!!!

There were many little details to mention about but the main thing is the movie does not make any sense.

The only good things to tell the truth was the music and the scene that gypsies began to play the song that Ricci sings.

For the last words: if you did not see it, you haven't missed anything!!! (especially if you like Turturro and Blanchett as much as I do)