miles1896

Bravo!

You seem to apply dramatic rules while transposing a script to another language and towards another viewer, yet you fail - 'cause you know what, some of them already watched the original movie, and knows the play script. You fail because you don't care about what "obsession" means. Take for example the "obsession" of the seemingly main character: Tourette. Does Tourette syndrome mean exposing unrevealed sexual instincts without any consciousness (by such direct "hit on words" like "yalarim", "o göte bülbül öte" and so on) ? Shame on you for debasing such a complicated disease to an underrated laugh material...

By the way, I am turkish and ashamed of you...

Late review after 22 years: I've looked it all around, but I couldn't find for a sample any other than this one: This one is a sample of what a movie is by showing the samples of it: showing the samples of what cinema is, it offers itself as what cinema should be: always sampling what cinema should be: meaning: cinema is sampling movies: as always what art does: being an example by showing the samples of what it does: before already it does.

Live long cinema, live long Bertolucci.

In 2003 the cinema died, just after Bertolucci made this requiem, which is more than a requiem, but a deadly resurrection.

A great movie from a great director. Nothing to criticize from the technical point. Yet, I would assert that it is a manipulative movie: No need to have so many flashbacks, no need to give a climax every then and now to the music, no need to (unprofessionnaly) make herds or people run! Herds or people, herds and people...Does that make sense? Herds or/and people...: That would be the title of the movie if I could give it a title of my own: "Herds or People". (Not "Of mice/boars and Men")

I would reccomend "Üc Kizkardes", another movie from the same director, as a chef d'oeuvre nevertheless...