Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006)
"America is addicted to oil" says President George W.Bush as he commits the murder of the Electric Car
When somebody asks your opinion about what will be different in future, the answer you're going to give to that person will not be the same answer after you watch this brilliantly thought-provoking documentary.
In the recent years I became a volunteer member of the World Future Society via the U.S. based monthly magazine called Futurist. WFS is a society established in 1966 by the Baby Boomers, who had the prevailing sociological demographics of being afraid of the future and technology. Wherever and whenever the more you read and the more you make research about what's upcoming with the future, you end up finding yourself in a strictly controlled mechanism...
A strictly controlled mechanism of making people afraid of the future is a Globalism vista. This is what 99 percent of today's scientists all over the world face, as they keep running after their dreams to effectuate an EASIER LIFE for the whole world in the future.
When I say "easier life" I am daydreaming about a future with less obligations, less touch of economy in every little thing of life, less time wasted on waiting things, less time wasted on waiting your flight/waiting your bus/waiting for the traffic lights to turn green and there comes the vision of spending less time on daily transportation.
But the vision of spending less time on transportation is restricted with the Global Economy. Until the Earth's oil resources are totally drained coming to a point of depletion, the people of Earth will still be obliged to use refined petroleum to fill the gas tanks of their cars; since this Global Economy is based on the money you spend to fill out your gas tanks.
Whereas since the early 1920's Ford and General Motors have already developed the idea and possibility of running automobiles with use of electrically charged batteries. This is the initial introduction of the Electric Car in this feature documentary. The science of Electric Car has come back to development in the 1980's once more. As General Motors company developed the technology further, they have introduced their first publicized Electric Car in a 1989 fair opening. The pioneer electric car in America has been named GM-Saturn EV.1 (EV stands for Electric Vehicle).
In the late '90s in the states of California and Arizona, a total of 78 electric cars have been purchased by public. Ford Think, Ford Ranger EV, Toyoya RAV4 EV, Toyota Hybrid, Nissan Altra EV, and Honda EV Plus are the electric cars that are sold. Along the documentary, which is very nicely done through public interviews, we get to lend our ears to the satisfactions of electric car drivers.
92 minutes of running time in this documentary features two main themes:
1/ the introduction of Electric Cars and their manufacturers, principals of their engines and fuels, electric vehicle charging stations, and the EV owners
2/ the investigation of the obvious question "How come there aren't any Electric Cars in the traffic today?" that is followed by "Who did take off the cars from the traffic?"
This investigation covers every little and every crazy possibility that comes to your mind when you think of who killed the electric car:
Western States Petroleum Association, California Air Resources Board, American Petroleum Institute, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, President George W.Bush, California Fuel Cell Partnership Group, car companies, lack of marketing, emission requirements, lack of public demand.
Which one is guilty, or who is guilty? Who is behind the fact that Electric Cars are taken off the traffic?
The writer and director Chris Paine has done a great job putting together a list of suspects, as if this is a case and as if the act of justice needs to punish the guilty.
This documentary of course cannot offer solutions to what to do about this guilt. It is the mission of the American Justice System. But as long as USA doesn't approve Liberalism for its regime, no one is going to punish the guilty. Yet this is only my opinion. This professional documentary doesn't have any political stand, and it doesn't force you to anything. It is just to let you know, and let you think.
Rebel with a Cause - a very week social drama due to disregard of psychological science
An author and a movie-maker are two totally different career personalities. It isn't always easy for an author to turn his own novel into a feature-length movie. Even though there are exceptions, in general the idea of writing a drama novel develops through emotions and thoughts, whereas writing a movie requires thinking in visuals and in character motives.
As a novel "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" has published by MTV in the year 1999 for Young Adult audiences. Examining social psychology as a subject matter is the leading concentration herein. This novel has several references from English Literature works and Western Philosophy movements. Author Stephen Chbosky reflects his opinions on struggles of an adolescent growing up to adulthood in a western society where the adolescent has to face isolation and alienation while delving deeply into individual freedom as it is the case in Nihilism, Absurdism, and in Existentialism.
The refusal of loneliness is the concealed and driven force of being a wallflower. Being a wallflower for an adolescent in this film stands for acting the cool guy, and acting the wanna-be-popular guy. According to Albert Camus, the French philosopher, this is the definition of being a "rebel".
But the promised concealed and driven force of being a wallflower isn't displayed in the film, which is the initial problem of the chain of other continued failures. The reasoning with choosing to be a wallflower is explained through shyness. If the Charlie character is made shy, how can he easily strip down his clothes in front of a hundred people on the Rocky Horror Picture Show night? The psychological trauma awaiting after committing such a "rebel" action for a shy person may be very severely grievous, or may be not. Let's hope it may not.
The ease of dialogues and interactions between Emma Watson's character(Sam) and Charlie are also improper with the given character motives. She types "write about us" to Charlie's typewriter. And what does Charlie do in return? He types "I will". This is just nonsense. Later on she goes to sit on her bed sort of inviting him to sex. The moment as a couple they were about to start making out, as Sam touches Charlie on his inner thighs, Charlie recalls his sister who is dead. How can you recall your late sister while your dream girlfriend makes love to you as she touches your thighs? Reality is that Charlie's character is not directed to be a shy character. He is just a cool but abnormally depressive character. And this has nothing to do with being a wallflower.
Charlie is the next James Dean. Everything he did to lure girls, so did James Dean the same way. For over 65 years in Hollywood, being the cool and rebel guy always created more impression on girls rather than being a nice popular guy. This is a huge and inexcusable directing inferiority.
Whoever loved this film, loved it because of the resolution at the end. Whereas also whoever hated this film, hated it because of the revelation at the end. The Perks of Being a Wallflower film has two main themes:
1/ Finding the love you deserve 2/ Finding the meaning of becoming an adult
Each theme is in contradiction with each other. This film offers us the resolution that seeking the love you deserve keeps you away from becoming an adult. And it offers us the revelation of finding the meaning of becoming an adult in Nihilist freedom of an understanding that you cannot run after love, love will come to you.
Failure in "Thinking Differently" : a Poorly Marketed Good Drama movie about an Epoch-making Achievement, and absolutely not a Biography movie
Steve Jobs(R.I.P) October,5th,2011.
jOBS is not a biography movie like Citizen Kane, Gandhi, The Last Emperor, The Last King of Scotland, Malcolm X, and Gladiator. But it takes all the genre clichés from these movies, while following the same story structure of Social Network.
Since I mentioned David Fincher's movie Social Network, I will start my review with the major problem in jOBS: Considering Social Network was an aptly marketed everyone's hero style of an average business-drama movie, in order to market a Steve Jobs life story appropriately, this wasn't the right choice. The cause of this marketing errors are the trailer, the poster with Ashton Kutcher on it, and the movie itself with Ashton Kutcher starring in it.
Then what is jOBS about? jOBS is just a simple telling of a person's epoch-making achievement like Schindler's List, Spartacus, Raging Bull, Braveheart, Papillon, The Pianist, and even David Lnych's The Straight Story. jOBS has more than a few things in common with those movies including the pain of sacrificing your beloved ones in order to succeed in your career, including similar character traits, similar ethical beliefs, similar moral decisions. jOBS is only a brief telling of what Steve Jobs gave to the Macintosh computers, just like what Oscar Schindler gave to Jews, and what Braveheart gave to Scotland. You can't expect to see the birth and death of Steve Jobs in this movie. This is not a biopic, instead it's a drama, poorly marketed good business-drama.
There are both strong and weak points in the technical side of jOBS. As a start, having no narration is a strong point, yet having not explained why Steve Jobs dropped out from college is crucially a weak point. Ashton Kutcher takes his girlfriend and goes behind bushes in the country and smokes weed. Then we get to figure it out that Steve Jobs has dropped out from college because he smoked weed and got his girlfriend pregnant. Refusing the birth of his first child due to his busy work schedules, Steve Jobs character has been made more weaker and weaker minute after minute. There is certainly a rule of character growth followed in this film, but none of this film's audiences have really bought that character growing incidents.
This is an average business-drama movie, set in the world of entrepreneurial minds. You're lonely, you always keep a positive mind but always looking for a person to trust, you are goal-oriented, you take maximum risks for every little achievements in your life, you are a reliable friend to your colleagues but they are always afraid of you, and you see every step in your life as a competition with someone else's steps in their lives...
This is a strong premise that killed the sense of making a Steve Jobs movie to honor his memory. This movie should have been made in 1997, when Steve Jobs have become the de facto chief CEO of Macintosh. And this movie could have been titled "Think Differently" as this is what it is only about. If this has been a movie called "Think Differently" made in 1997, then it could earn some recognition. Now people would come to you and ask "What did Steve Jobs do for the last 14 years of his life as a CEO in Apple?"
A great Zombie movie and a must-see on Halloween
There are only some minor spoilers in my review, and those spoilers are in the technical and structural aspects of movie-making. I'm not going to spoil the story to you, because it's very brief like a prime time news story. I just want to mention the opening segment of the sci-fi movie District-9. The style used in District-9's opening segment is inspired from Rec.
This horror film has been made within a first person point of view live action perspective, and shot by a single hand-held camera. The ultimate challenge is that the entire movie goes until everybody dies. There are no bad guys, and no good guys. Everybody is a victim. Everybody must die.
All along the movie we are controlling Pablo's camera, and we are in his point of view. If you ever played FPS(first person shooter) computer games, you'd like this even more, because this film is entirely in FPS gaming style. We are always in point of view of Pablo's video camera. If the battery dies, the camera shuts down, then we can't see anything. If the audio receiver is disconnected, we can't hear. If the camera lens gets broken, we'd take off the lens, and start filming via night vision. This is a very strong premise, and absolutely this is what made me keep watching till the end. Otherwise zombie movies for me are just unreal and nothing interesting or scary, and always guessable too.
I'd recommend this film for adolescents who want to have fun on Halloween. As a unique zombie movie, it deserves multiple views. Turn on the volume and just join the fun.
Üç arkadas (1958)
Golden Age of Stars lapsed into reverie
Remember the times when movies are made with stars. Remember the times when there is no story to tell, if there is no star to play it. It feels so sad that oldies are archaic. Like a golden statuette, you can't be part of its drama any more, no matter how close you look you hold and you feel it.
Three Friends is one of those oldies which belong to bygone days, when the movies were only following one side of a story, very straightforwardly. You'd easily know who the protagonist and antagonist are. But you can never see a scene where protagonist is not present. There is no other story happening in the background with side characters or with the antagonist. There is only one plot, but with many different themes that is enriched: Heroic themes, love themes, friendship, innocence. It's fully a drama.
Because there has been a revision in 1971 of the same movie played by different actors, shot by the same director onto the same script, you can easily tell how the modern cinema has evolved by time. Particularly this is a story of three poor friends who are helping out a blind vagabond girl by sharing their food and home with her. In the similar setting of Charlie Chaplin's City Lights with lots of inspirations from the Tokyo Story and Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, Three Friends is a highly emotional social drama which focus is on friendship and innocence. Highly recommended for all lovers of classic drama movies.
Hare-Way to the Stars (1958)
Hare-Way to the Stars(1958) vs. Haredevil Hare(1948): Chuck Jones refines his work
The original premiere Looney Tunes version of the first Marvin the Martian stories has this simple promise:
"Marvin the Martian is a diabolical genius who wants to destroy the Earth, but Bugs Bunny stops him"
Michael Maltese writes a script for Haredevil Hare(1948) following the promise above. In Haredevil Hare, Bugs Bunny is sent to Moon for a given mission: To establish the first radio contact between Moon and Earth. So he goes to Moon, just after he thinks he is the first creature to land on Moon, he meets with Marvin. Marvin wants to destroy the Earth. But Bugs distracts him, so he accidentally blows up his spaceship. Not only Bugs saves Earth from being destroyed he also completes his mission. But the plot-hole, a huge logical deficiency, here is that the space engineers establishing the first radio connection with Moon, doesn't know that a Martian wants to destroy the Earth, and even at the end of the episode Bugs Bunny didn't tell them so.
Director Chuck Jones and writer Michael Maltese make a revision 10 years after Haredevil Hare, naming it Hare-Way to the Stars, to keep it easily marketable rhyming it both with that earlier episode and also with Ella Fitzgerald's popular country song title(Stairway to the Stars). This way it became one of the most marketable cartoons of Warner Bros all time. In the production side, not only that the problems with the plot are fixed, but also Looney Tunes wanted them to create a more funny, more combative, more challenging cartoon. So Jones and Maltese started a new opening image and a unique set-up, putting Bugs in a bad morning mood after he wakes up to go and get himself a nice morning shower. The first funny and challenging moment is here in the set-up that, Bugs is not aware that he is going to Moon, unlike Haredevil Hare. Also when on the Moon, even though the same story 10 years ago follows its identical sections step by step, this time Marvin the Martian is more prepared to the combat, he has back-up for everything Bugs does. Bugs find himself in a tough challenge killing Martian soldiers one by one in most funny ways possible. And ultimately at the end, again unwillingly and uncontrollably, just like how he came to Moon, Bugs returns to Earth bringing Martians with him, creating a perfectly funny and suspended ending.
The next most noteworthy episode of Marvin the Martian story with him trying to blow up the Earth is "Mad as a Mars Hare"(1963) a Merrie Melodies touch to the Marvin the Martian series. What's different production-wise than the Looney Tunes episodes is that, as always Merrie Melodies are more concerned with the humour not with the story. In Mad as a Mars Hare, we will find Marvin the Martian more prepared to fight, more angrier, more challenging and hence more funnier, with cool sci-fi ideas that only add more booze to the excitement of the episode.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)
The premise is hard to fit into two hours and into this sort of plot-structure
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, a movie adapted from one of the best Cold War era crime novels, with the same title with a slight difference: "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy". When you put commas as they appear on the 1974 novel cover, you get to understand that a tinker is a spy, a tailor is a spy, and a soldier also is a spy. And when you think of it, you get to ask yourself this question:
"Why would a tinker turns a spy, and a tailor, and a soldier too?"
Take a guess to answer the question above. 'Cause if you don't, the movie, which is terribly directed, won't tell you what the spies are trying to find out. Here is the truth after the unknown. The truth lies underneath a tongue twister game Children of the Cold War in Britain used to play. The tongue twister is this, as it appears on the prologue of John le Carré 's novel:
"Tinker... Tailor... Soldier... Sailor... Rich... Poor... Beggar... Robber, take the sea-shells and take the jacket buttons, trade in daisy leaves and trade in sunflower seeds, now you did, we are friends, we are friends, we are friends"
While reading the novel, which is consisted of 42 episodes, 7 episodes for each occupation from the children's tongue twister and there are 6 pieces in the game of Chess. 7 times 6 equals to 42. When you pair them with each other, you get to solve the mystery:
Chess pieces from highest rank to the lowest rank: "King... Queen... Rook... Bishop... Knight... Pawn"
Let's pair them: "Tinker is King... Tailor is Queen... Soldier is Rook... Sailor is Bishop... Rich is Knight... Poor is Pawn"
When Bishop(Gary Oldman as Smiley) explores the Rook(John Hurt as Control)'s chess board with the names and photos of his subordinates(Knight and Pawn), even Smiley didn't know that he was the Bishop. And when the Knight(Mark Strong as Prideaux) is assassinated, what should the Rook do next? That's what the movie is about.
Since the promise is a heavy secret, which both the screenwriters and the director hides away from the audience, to fit the story into this sort of plot-structure ; then you don't have much to tell.
John le Carré 's novel is one of the best boring novels I've ever read in my life, even though it has a unique mystery. Yes, it's a mystery, but in fact there is nothing happening at the present time. It's just all thoughts and ideas about the events in the past, in order to find the mole that destroys the organization's plans. Should every crime story necessarily be involved with a mole?
So, don't expect nothing original to find, when you're watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, except some unique production aspects as follows:
1- Unpredictable hero 2- No bad guy to challenge against 3- An unrevealed secret turns good guys into bad guys 4- Suspicion, kills! 5- Spectacular views from some European cities, the shots from the city of Istanbul are the most accurate ones(except the Hotel shot) after other hit movies such as Eastern Promises, James Bond: From Russia With Love and a Jackie Chan comedy/crime flick
If you really want a good crime/thriller/mystery watch Robert De Niro and Matt Damon 's The Good Shepherd(2006), since in this specific genre and sub-genre mix no better movies filmed yet.
The Spirit of Christmas (1995)
Jesus, Santa Claus and Brian Boitano visit South Park for Christmas
The Spirit of Christmas (a.k.a South Park The Un-Aired Plot of 1995), is actually the second instalment of South Park Christmas shorts, with 1992 The Spirit of Christmas: Mr.Frost being the pioneer. And if you are looking for an original South Park short with what every fan loves most about, you shouldn't miss this one. And here is why:
* A strong character goal -->> Stan and Kyle seek the true meaning of Christmas during a discussion
* One Amazing Story Catalyst -->> Jesus descends into town in the middle of Stan and Kyle's discussion
* Not a character driven story, but story driven characters -->> One of the unique episodes that doesn't follow what Stan does, it follows instead what Jesus does
* Memorable lines -->> (1) Jesus: Tomorrow is my birthday
Stan: Your birthday is on Christmas? That sucks dude!
(2) Cartman: I say we help Santa Claus.
Kyle: Your just saying that because he brings you candy.
Cartman: Hey I don't have to take that kind of sh*t from a Jew.
Kyle: Your such a fat f*ck Cartman that when you walk down the street people go darn that kids a big fat f*ck.
* Kenny is getting killed losing her nob, alongside to 6 other Southpark civilians, her screaming for death is her only line
* And the best of all -->> Jesus combats Santa Claus hand to hand.
If my research is not wrong, this animation short has come out just before the Chipmunks' Christmas Special that year, remember where Dave tells the chipmunks that Christmas is not just about presents when Alvin collects money to buy himself a Christmas gift. Of all the Christmas animations and cartoons, I'd vote for the South Park Christmas short. This is pure and original fun.
Sevistigimiz günler (1961)
Prince Charmings exist only in teeny dreams
Sevistigimiz Gunler is a typical socio-economic story of three roommate girls in their early 20s' who are hoping to find their Prince Charmings. With a lot of references to Billy Wilder romance flicks, writer/director Halit Refig who is one of the best in early Yesilcam Cinema, tells a lesson of relationships in a humorous and playful way. The biggest factor what makes this film to stay in the list of '60s memorable Yesilcam Cinema, is the quality story-editing work of Orhan Elmas, over Bulent Oran's original screenplay.
This film is unique in its content development ideas. And those ideas give significant social messages at the end of the run. The run is all about a bet of the three girls laying off against each other promising that whoever falls in love with a boy pays the monthly rent of the house they share together. Things go crazy and wild, and even Wilder(!), when they both fall in love with three men. So their lives change dramatically as they forget about the bet, and come on the edge of marriage and pregnancy. But are the men whom they fell in love with, really worth considering as Prince Charmings, or are they just cheaters slickers? Perhaps it's about the time the girls should realize that they are all grown up fast to find out that there is no such thing as Prince Charming.
When Art goes beyond expectations, everything else falls behind it: Money, love, family, crime, suicide. Everything else.
Turkey's auteurist filmmaker Sinan Cetin, portrays an aspiring film director who struggles to get a filming approval from the national government for a socialist movie. The film Kagit, is not about what happens if this movie is shot. Instead it's all about how easy to disregard this movie if it has different political views; even before seeing it, more even before reading the first page of its script.
Following the formulaic structure laying out a simple screen-story, Kagit has a very basic idea, a pure theme and a pretty straightforward message. The title "Kagit" stands for "paper" in Turkish. A signed sealed and delivered government paper is able to ruin anybody's life. We witness how can and why can this be happening: Ruining somebody's life, if a movie is not approved for filming. When this theme of the film is stated in the opening segment, even before the story is set up, Sinan Cetin forces the viewer to get curios about the visual results of a certain problem. Like the painter in Andrei Rublev(1966-Andrei Tarkovsky) so colourful but so Godless, like the beastly composer in Amadeus(1984-Milos Forman) so truthful but so lonely ; the young aspiring filmmaker in Kagit is so talented and so hopeless. He finds great deals of obstacles on his path of making his first movie. Fighting these obstacles, Kling Klang King of the Rim Ram Room may feel ashamed of himself, but the King of self-belief will never feel so.
A realistic social drama, very painful and very true, reflects one overlooked truth in a real-life example. When art goes beyond expectations, everything else falls behind it: Money, love, family, crime, suicide. Everything else. But does Art really worth losing them all? Watch and decide.