Kosmos

I think the director was so obsessed with the underlying theme, he forgot about the story needs to be on the screen. I gave it 5 out of 10, because I don't know what happens in the second half. But from what I've seen in the first half, I know not much is on the way.

I think this is one of those movies in which the theme is so complex (philosophical) that even the actors can't get it. A good movie needs to have a good story that can be followed by an average audience ,and needs to have mind challenging subtext for more complex viewers. In case sub text precludes the story, I'd say it might be a better idea to write a philosophical book ,since such a load of ideas can not be gotten across audience via a movie through two hours. Second, movies must have story , when the subtext comes in the first place in terms of importance, this also obliterates the reason for making a movie.

Reha Erdem's Kosmos is a barren land, a desolate white town inhabited by ghosts, ghosts that are as real as you and I. In this cosmos, chance encounters have the power to throw things in and out of their orbit, and miracles are just as imminent as death.

Through the masterful camera-work we follow the main character Kosmos (remarkable performance by Sermet Yesil) as he wanders through the snow-laden wilderness in eastern Turkey. His presence has a prominent role in the villagers lives, lives that are so wrapped up by borders and boundaries, real and imaginary, that never have come to grasp their true selves.

The strength of the film largely benefits from the expressive performances from all of the cast. Thank you Reha Erdem and everyone involved with this spellbinding film for restoring my faith in Turkish cinema.

It is a sad sight when a talented filmmaker allows themselves the luxury of their own vanity.

This film is unfortunately within that category. A mishmash of previous efforts and constant spoon feeding of style without substance, the viewer can hardly follow the plot line. Such an experienced filmmaker should have known that visuals and atmosphere is nothing without a solid plot line.

Erdem's previous efforts were better, but Kosmos unfortunately is catered to the inexperienced standards of Turkish film-goers as an art film. For those of us in Europe and America however, it is mediocre at best.

Watched this with a friend of mine from Kars (the lands where the movie takes place). I was very fond of the atmosphere this movie created. The sound work was great, the constant military maneuvers in the background and usage of loud sounds without reserve was nice. The visuals and camera work were also professional. The isolation created by large fields of snow is a perfect setup for a movie.

But all of these positive aspects are lost when the plot starts to unravel -- to say more clearly it doesn't unravel because there is no plot for the audience to follow. The audience are expected to be satisfied with bits and pieces of characters, events and visuals (like running goose, cows being slaughtered) that are thrown at them and after a solid 2 hours you are left wondering who did what why and what was it all about.

Now I am aware that Reha Erdem is a talented director and I like a surreal movie as well as the next guy, but unless you are sure you are ready to be compared with really masterful movie/directors like Yavuz Turgul (Gölge Oyunu) or lets also give an example of Lynch, one should stick with solid plots.

As a last note, seriously Mr.Erdem, what was with all the religious mambo-jumbo voiced by Kosmos character. All were alienating moments when he spoke - and no, it wasn't even a good alienation.

Granted this movie is one of the best Turkish films in its visual aspects. it is so wonderful to see this in a movie that has a very pale color scheme. you can pause most of the scenes and exhibit them as photographs. and i would be glad to hang one of them on my wall.

and it had a symphony concert affect to my ears. I cannot articulate what else to say about that. defining sound is as hard as defining the taste of an apple.

however, a director should always bear in mind that having a wonderful visuality and delightful sound necessarily suggest a wonderful film. I understand that this movie tries to separate itself from the rest with claiming that it has some issues to share, it wants to show you people something and do not want to make these so obvious because it is afraid of being a mainstream trash with its storytelling.

but this kind of an approach also bears the risk of being an outcast which limits the number of theaters that wants to screen it because the movie has the risk of not being understood since it avoids the traditional storytelling. therefore director's complaints about not being able to find a big number of theaters is meaningless when a director sets out for this. there is no way that this kind of festival movies will get closer to 100 000 viewers.

To conclude, wonderful photography, frantic sound but a weak plot and storytelling which leaves everything all over the place and above all such a weak script (which makes you think that it was intentional but I did not feel that) ends up to this. max 7 thousand viewers and a discouraging step for the following filmography. (for the director, for the producers, for the theater and most importantly for the viewer.)