The movie was really engaging in the first half and concentrated more on the psychology of the soldiers at the frontier outpost but quickly turned into a mess by feeding off on Turkish people's silly nationalist feelings about 'national pride', and 'love for the country ' and the rest of the classic 'ideals' nationalisms around the world love to live on. In other words the director decided to exploit Turkish people's low feelings of Turkish Nationalism and make some quick bucks. What's next a movie about how the Armenian genocide never happened? Turkish Nationalism reigns supreme in this horrible movie! By the way, this movie is WAY OVERRATED, a more fair rating would be 5-6 on IMDb but seems that someone is manipulating the ratings... I've noticed that several other Turkish movies are rated over 8.0 which is very high for IMDb standards. Considering Turksih movies are not really well known in English speaking countries the numbers are obviously manipulated.
Reviews
6 Reviews
Food, Inc.
(2008)
Sensationalist, biased & anti-science
17 November 2009
The documentary is based on assumptions that size and efficiency are inherently evil. During the 60 minutes of this program not once did the producer try to present the other side of the story. Instead, it never lost a chance to show "so and so company declined our request for an interview" leading us to believe that they must have something to hide so, there it is, they are evil! Well perhaps Mr Kenner the reason they declined was they knew the program will be one-sided and self-serving but we will never know since they did not want to talk to you.
Offers lots of criticism for the food industry yet lacks any practical suggestions or solutions to mass production of food (which does not personally excite me either).
Most of the suggestions are so out of touch with reality, such as having the farmer who prefers slaughtering his few chickens outdoors suggest that we should drive to his farm to buy our food! Wow! Can someone tell this guy that Americans and the rest of the civilized world prefer living in big cities, far away from any farms and that not many generations ago it was every farmer's dream to get out of farm life and move to a big city? Or are we to reverse progress so Mr i-raise-a-few-chickens-the-right-way farmer can feel good about himself? Oh I know, we should relocate all city dwellers to the countryside and save the planet. Afterall, it was done before, in 1976, in Cambodia...
The fact that this documentary had one purpose and one purpose only - to prove the author's firm beliefs (and increase the sales of his books/DVDs) without any real research is obvious throughout the program. One obvious case is the Hispanic family spending $12 to buy meal for four from Burger King and presenting it as if they did not have another choice. I'm no food scientist but I can easily feed all four of them with less than $12 and with food that is not only healthier but is also more culturally familiar to a Hispanic family - namely beans!(my favorite meal). A bag of beans costs $1-3 and easily feeds four people. Oh but of course it's not as convenient as a drive-thru meal! Well, people make the wrong decisions and some big corporations are taking advantage of it. Lets not just blame the corporations if people are in love with junk food.
We are what we eat, we as a nation prefer cheap and fast junk food so cheap junk food is produced and served to us! Unless we assume responsibility for our actions we will be taken advantaged of and suffer as a result.
Following this programs idea that size and industrialization is inherently evil is like saying Ford was evil because he perfected mass production of automobiles. Of course the planet would've been better off without Mr Ford's ideas, so lets all go back to driving horse-drawn carriages!
Mr Kenner ideas are simply ridiculous and typical of a pseudo-intellectual zealot's ideas that are neither sound nor practical and they serve one purpose only - to make the author feel good and smart.
I bet most of the advocates on this documentary drive large SUVs and have the refrigerators well stacked with cheap meat.
This show made a couple of good suggestions at the very end though, 1) teach kids at school about eating healthy and that less is more! 2) Cleanup school cafeterias from junk food. (We have PA meetings all over the country and we can easily change that)
Lets not just take the easy way out and blame our weakness on some corporations because they committed the 'crime' of figuring out how to be more efficient in what they do.
I have a few tips that I try to follow myself. 1) Do not east junk-food, never, just forget that it exists. 2) EAT LESS! 3) EAT A LOT LESS! 4) Stop eating so much meat. I personally eat meat maybe once a week and thats more than enough. 5) Avoid canned foods of any sort. Always! 6) Avoid processed food as much as possible. 6) Do not drink soft drinks, ever! 7) Eat a lot more vegetables! They are not that expensive and if you add the long term health benefits, they are cheaper than junk food. 8) Exercise (just a bit everyday is enough)
And ask you representatives to promote rules/laws that teach kids from a very young age about eating right! If we succeed in raising a generation of kids that tare health conscious, perhaps the big feedlots will disappear as they operate on economies of scale. If people stop eating meat 3 times a day then they will be no animals suffering, till then, blame it all on the meat-loving population - US!
Mr Kenner's unconvincing and unscientific zealotry cause more harm than good.
Offers lots of criticism for the food industry yet lacks any practical suggestions or solutions to mass production of food (which does not personally excite me either).
Most of the suggestions are so out of touch with reality, such as having the farmer who prefers slaughtering his few chickens outdoors suggest that we should drive to his farm to buy our food! Wow! Can someone tell this guy that Americans and the rest of the civilized world prefer living in big cities, far away from any farms and that not many generations ago it was every farmer's dream to get out of farm life and move to a big city? Or are we to reverse progress so Mr i-raise-a-few-chickens-the-right-way farmer can feel good about himself? Oh I know, we should relocate all city dwellers to the countryside and save the planet. Afterall, it was done before, in 1976, in Cambodia...
The fact that this documentary had one purpose and one purpose only - to prove the author's firm beliefs (and increase the sales of his books/DVDs) without any real research is obvious throughout the program. One obvious case is the Hispanic family spending $12 to buy meal for four from Burger King and presenting it as if they did not have another choice. I'm no food scientist but I can easily feed all four of them with less than $12 and with food that is not only healthier but is also more culturally familiar to a Hispanic family - namely beans!(my favorite meal). A bag of beans costs $1-3 and easily feeds four people. Oh but of course it's not as convenient as a drive-thru meal! Well, people make the wrong decisions and some big corporations are taking advantage of it. Lets not just blame the corporations if people are in love with junk food.
We are what we eat, we as a nation prefer cheap and fast junk food so cheap junk food is produced and served to us! Unless we assume responsibility for our actions we will be taken advantaged of and suffer as a result.
Following this programs idea that size and industrialization is inherently evil is like saying Ford was evil because he perfected mass production of automobiles. Of course the planet would've been better off without Mr Ford's ideas, so lets all go back to driving horse-drawn carriages!
Mr Kenner ideas are simply ridiculous and typical of a pseudo-intellectual zealot's ideas that are neither sound nor practical and they serve one purpose only - to make the author feel good and smart.
I bet most of the advocates on this documentary drive large SUVs and have the refrigerators well stacked with cheap meat.
This show made a couple of good suggestions at the very end though, 1) teach kids at school about eating healthy and that less is more! 2) Cleanup school cafeterias from junk food. (We have PA meetings all over the country and we can easily change that)
Lets not just take the easy way out and blame our weakness on some corporations because they committed the 'crime' of figuring out how to be more efficient in what they do.
I have a few tips that I try to follow myself. 1) Do not east junk-food, never, just forget that it exists. 2) EAT LESS! 3) EAT A LOT LESS! 4) Stop eating so much meat. I personally eat meat maybe once a week and thats more than enough. 5) Avoid canned foods of any sort. Always! 6) Avoid processed food as much as possible. 6) Do not drink soft drinks, ever! 7) Eat a lot more vegetables! They are not that expensive and if you add the long term health benefits, they are cheaper than junk food. 8) Exercise (just a bit everyday is enough)
And ask you representatives to promote rules/laws that teach kids from a very young age about eating right! If we succeed in raising a generation of kids that tare health conscious, perhaps the big feedlots will disappear as they operate on economies of scale. If people stop eating meat 3 times a day then they will be no animals suffering, till then, blame it all on the meat-loving population - US!
Mr Kenner's unconvincing and unscientific zealotry cause more harm than good.
Paper Heart
(2009)
Uninspiring, misguided, lost.
14 November 2009
From the very beginning it was obvious to me that Charlne had some emotional issues and is a highly insecure and clumsy person.
The crude and uninspiring interviews did not impress me a bit nor her awkward and most often irrelevant reactions to what was going on around her.
As time went by and observing her relationship with Cera I came to realize that this girl needs some serious psychotherapy. But thinking her relationship with this poor lad was for real I couldn't help it but feel empathy for her and pity for Cera.
After watching the movie I read on Wikipedia that her relationship with Cera was all an act! It made me laugh and realized I completely wasted my time watching this movie. I'd have rather watched a series of uninspiring interviews with real people than her so-called relationship with Cera.
All in all, the movie has absolutely nothing to say about love. Charlene seems to be completely lost and it all shows in the movie. A good example is the Asian lady getting married to an old guy 40 years her senior. Yep, that's love, green-card love! Charlene, you got it dear!
As another person pointed out this girl has issues and is seriously lost, perhaps she is a closet-lesbian after-all, that will definitely explain a lot of her unexplainable behavior.
This so called documentary teaches nothing that is of value.
The crude and uninspiring interviews did not impress me a bit nor her awkward and most often irrelevant reactions to what was going on around her.
As time went by and observing her relationship with Cera I came to realize that this girl needs some serious psychotherapy. But thinking her relationship with this poor lad was for real I couldn't help it but feel empathy for her and pity for Cera.
After watching the movie I read on Wikipedia that her relationship with Cera was all an act! It made me laugh and realized I completely wasted my time watching this movie. I'd have rather watched a series of uninspiring interviews with real people than her so-called relationship with Cera.
All in all, the movie has absolutely nothing to say about love. Charlene seems to be completely lost and it all shows in the movie. A good example is the Asian lady getting married to an old guy 40 years her senior. Yep, that's love, green-card love! Charlene, you got it dear!
As another person pointed out this girl has issues and is seriously lost, perhaps she is a closet-lesbian after-all, that will definitely explain a lot of her unexplainable behavior.
This so called documentary teaches nothing that is of value.
Death Proof
(2007)
Well-presented but worthless movie
8 November 2009
Well-presented, filled with obscenities and mindless violence. A completely meaningless movie. I mean it's not just the violence, it's the fact that the movie has no meaning whatsoever and tries to make up for it with a liberal dose of obscenities and violence. Are we supposed to find the girls sexy, a pervert will find them sexy.
Tarantino has always taken advantage of people's obsession with violence. If Tarantino is trying to prove a point that Americans will watch any kind of trash thrown at them as long as there is enough sex and violence in them then he succeeded. Don't waste your time with this movie.
Tarantino has always taken advantage of people's obsession with violence. If Tarantino is trying to prove a point that Americans will watch any kind of trash thrown at them as long as there is enough sex and violence in them then he succeeded. Don't waste your time with this movie.
State of Siege
(1972)
Great presentation but politically biased
6 November 2009
Another great movie by Costa-Gavras. It's a great presentation of the situation is Latin America and the US involvement in Latin American politics. The facts might or might not be accurate but it is a fact that the US was deeply involved in coups and support of Latin American dictatorships.
Despite this though the spirit of the movie follows the typical leftist/communist propaganda of the Cold War era. Costa-Gavras is a well-known communist sympathizer and his movies are always biased. For example he presents the US actions as brutal and inhumane, while representing Tupamaros' extremist activities as something positive.
As it turned out it was a blessing for Uruguay and the rest of the Latin America that the US got involved. Europe is filled with poor East European prostitutes. I never heard of poor Uruguayan or Chilean girls prostituting themselves en masse as it happens in most East European countries. The US was fighting a dirty war and god bless us all the monster of Soviet Communism was defeated. It is unfortunate the US had to do what it did in Latin America (and elsewhere) but sometimes you need to play dirty. This is not an idealistic world as Costa-Gavras and Matamoros like to believe. Had Matamoros come to power in Uruguay, we would've had another Ukraine in Latin America.
All in all this movie follows corrupt and bankrupt leftist ideology of times past and tries to pass it as idealistic and morally correct.
Despite this though the spirit of the movie follows the typical leftist/communist propaganda of the Cold War era. Costa-Gavras is a well-known communist sympathizer and his movies are always biased. For example he presents the US actions as brutal and inhumane, while representing Tupamaros' extremist activities as something positive.
As it turned out it was a blessing for Uruguay and the rest of the Latin America that the US got involved. Europe is filled with poor East European prostitutes. I never heard of poor Uruguayan or Chilean girls prostituting themselves en masse as it happens in most East European countries. The US was fighting a dirty war and god bless us all the monster of Soviet Communism was defeated. It is unfortunate the US had to do what it did in Latin America (and elsewhere) but sometimes you need to play dirty. This is not an idealistic world as Costa-Gavras and Matamoros like to believe. Had Matamoros come to power in Uruguay, we would've had another Ukraine in Latin America.
All in all this movie follows corrupt and bankrupt leftist ideology of times past and tries to pass it as idealistic and morally correct.
Attilas '74
(1975)
Well presented but sadly one-sided
21 October 2009
Cacoyannis is a great director and this documentary is very well presented except for the fact that is a one-sided view of the events. I admire his courage in filming the events of the summer of 1974 and what followed almost as they were happening. It brought back sad memories of those days as I have lived them as a child. Unfortunately it is a one-sided propaganda that Greek Cypriots so much love to repeat even to this day (perhaps even more so today).
I love the way he presents the human suffering of the refugees, it is real and shows the human suffering of war and its consequences. It is sad to see though that he completely ignores the suffering of the Turkish Cypriot refugees. Nor is he mentioning the terror they must have gone thru following the coup knowing its leader was planning to eliminate them. Nor does he mention the fact the T/Cs were forced to live in enclaves since 1964 by the Makarios regime and by their own nationalists. To his defense it would've been impossible at the time to interview T/C's because of the military situation on the island. But considering he fails to present things in an objective way I doubt he would've had any interest.
He does a great job in blaming the US and British involvement in the events of '74. He also does a great job in blaming EOKA B and the coup of July 15th that was the direct reason for the Turkish invasion that followed a few days later. Of course as a G/C I learned to call it an invasion. If one objectively analyzes the actions of Turkey and all agreements that were in place then invasion might not be the appropriate term. But whatever term we use the fact is the Cypriot constitution allowed the three guarantor powers (namely Turkey, Greece and the UK) to militarily intervene in case of a crisis. So Turkey had every legal right to invade since Greece was obviously behind the coup. Also knowing the person who was in charge of the coup had a lifelong dream for a "final solution" of Turkish Cypriots perhaps one might say Turkey even had a moral obligation to intervene.
However, to present Turkey as the innocent party here will be a stretch of reality as Turkey's plans of capturing part of Cyprus have been on the drawing board since the 50's (and of course so were Greece's plans). Also, after the invasion and since the early 2000's Turkey showed no real interest in solving the problem and withdrawing its troops. This shows that the welfare of the T/Cs was not the only thing on Turkey's mind.
I find Makarios's comments about the percentages of victims with the US population as moronic. This kind of cheap reasoning will go down well with most G/CS though as they've been so well conditioned by Makarios' ideology to find all kinds of excuses to prove that Turks are "barbarians" and that the G/Cs are innocent virgins no matter how you measure it.
Cacoyannis does a great job in presenting EOKA B' ultra-nationalistic views and actions. What he fails to mention though is that EOKA B is a mere splinter group of Makarios' nationalistic ideology that was dominating G/C politics since the 50's. The difference between Makarios's ideology and EOKA B is one of degree. Their immediate goals might have differed but the ideology was one and the same, one of nationalism and division. Let's not forget EOKA B's leader Grivas was Makarios' hand-picked military leader for years.
Cacoyannis fails miserably to apportion the blame on the mainstream nationalistic views that were dominating the island under Makarios regime (sadly these views are alive and well till this very day). Makarios had a direct responsibility in cultivating nationalistic ideology amongst G/Cs which Rauf Denktash among the T/Cs was following step by step. This is the true "Rape Of Cyprus" namely the nationalistic ideologies that were cultivated and supported by Makarios on one hand and Denktash on the other side.
Unfortunately Makarios's nationalistic views not only have survived to this day but have almost completely eliminated any other form of objective reasoning among G/Cs. And this documentary plays a role in perpetuating the myths and half-truths G/Cs are so in love in believing. For this reason I give it the lowest rating.
----------------------------- "Nationalism is an infantile disease"
I love the way he presents the human suffering of the refugees, it is real and shows the human suffering of war and its consequences. It is sad to see though that he completely ignores the suffering of the Turkish Cypriot refugees. Nor is he mentioning the terror they must have gone thru following the coup knowing its leader was planning to eliminate them. Nor does he mention the fact the T/Cs were forced to live in enclaves since 1964 by the Makarios regime and by their own nationalists. To his defense it would've been impossible at the time to interview T/C's because of the military situation on the island. But considering he fails to present things in an objective way I doubt he would've had any interest.
He does a great job in blaming the US and British involvement in the events of '74. He also does a great job in blaming EOKA B and the coup of July 15th that was the direct reason for the Turkish invasion that followed a few days later. Of course as a G/C I learned to call it an invasion. If one objectively analyzes the actions of Turkey and all agreements that were in place then invasion might not be the appropriate term. But whatever term we use the fact is the Cypriot constitution allowed the three guarantor powers (namely Turkey, Greece and the UK) to militarily intervene in case of a crisis. So Turkey had every legal right to invade since Greece was obviously behind the coup. Also knowing the person who was in charge of the coup had a lifelong dream for a "final solution" of Turkish Cypriots perhaps one might say Turkey even had a moral obligation to intervene.
However, to present Turkey as the innocent party here will be a stretch of reality as Turkey's plans of capturing part of Cyprus have been on the drawing board since the 50's (and of course so were Greece's plans). Also, after the invasion and since the early 2000's Turkey showed no real interest in solving the problem and withdrawing its troops. This shows that the welfare of the T/Cs was not the only thing on Turkey's mind.
I find Makarios's comments about the percentages of victims with the US population as moronic. This kind of cheap reasoning will go down well with most G/CS though as they've been so well conditioned by Makarios' ideology to find all kinds of excuses to prove that Turks are "barbarians" and that the G/Cs are innocent virgins no matter how you measure it.
Cacoyannis does a great job in presenting EOKA B' ultra-nationalistic views and actions. What he fails to mention though is that EOKA B is a mere splinter group of Makarios' nationalistic ideology that was dominating G/C politics since the 50's. The difference between Makarios's ideology and EOKA B is one of degree. Their immediate goals might have differed but the ideology was one and the same, one of nationalism and division. Let's not forget EOKA B's leader Grivas was Makarios' hand-picked military leader for years.
Cacoyannis fails miserably to apportion the blame on the mainstream nationalistic views that were dominating the island under Makarios regime (sadly these views are alive and well till this very day). Makarios had a direct responsibility in cultivating nationalistic ideology amongst G/Cs which Rauf Denktash among the T/Cs was following step by step. This is the true "Rape Of Cyprus" namely the nationalistic ideologies that were cultivated and supported by Makarios on one hand and Denktash on the other side.
Unfortunately Makarios's nationalistic views not only have survived to this day but have almost completely eliminated any other form of objective reasoning among G/Cs. And this documentary plays a role in perpetuating the myths and half-truths G/Cs are so in love in believing. For this reason I give it the lowest rating.
----------------------------- "Nationalism is an infantile disease"
Tell Your Friends