Arama Sonuçları

Here we go again with another superhero movie review! Has the DC universe finally turned a new and exciting page, or are we still stuck in the same place? DC fans, you can breathe a sigh of relief: James Gunn’s Superman isn’t perfect, but it sure shows promise. Going in, my expectations were pretty low. James Gunn’s over-the-top, campy style usually either delivers something brilliant or crashes hard. Taking risks with tone is tricky, done wrong, it can feel awkward or absurd. Thankfully, Superman lands on the right side of that line. Honestly, we were all tired of DC’s endlessly dark universe anyway. Gunn instead brings us a softer, brighter world. The close-up shots, vibrant color palette, and campy characters (like Green Lantern) inject the film with playful energy, while the political messages and grounded human archetypes give us something to relate to. David Corenswet, as Clark, is spot on. This version of Superman shows us more of his humanity. He has soul and personality. The same can be said for the film’s overall tone. Moving away from the CGI-heavy, mechanical darkness of the previous universe was definitely the right call. Still, I didn’t love it as much as the recently released Fantastic Four: First Steps. Did the film lean a little too hard into the “don’t take it too seriously” vibe, or was I just expecting more? Let’s break it down by plot, characters, and more to figure that out. Plot The movie opens with Superman’s very first defeat, set in a snowy landscape, a solid start for a brand new Superman and a fresh universe. Like Fantastic Four, the origin story is skipped over, and honestly, that’s fine. With 4–5 versions already out there and Superman being one of the most recognized characters worldwide, we really don’t need to see the origin retold again. Soon after, we’re introduced to Superman’s “world”, his robots, his family, and eventually Clark Kent at the Daily Planet. We get a glimpse of his warm side, someone who can even bond with robots. We also see his relationship with Lois, highlighted by a 12-minute interview that somehow doesn’t feel like 12 minutes at all. It works beautifully: we learn key details about the main conflict while also getting to know the characters more deeply. Through this scene, we also hear their thoughts on war and ethics. The emotional connection between them is handled nicely, they have a small argument.That scene really stood out for me. Meanwhile, Lex is making deals with politicians, Jarhanpur continues to be invaded, and Lex manages to intercept a message from Clark’s family. He manipulates the missing piece of it to turn public opinion against Superman, mirroring the way disinformation spreads in our own world. Very quickly, the people turn their backs on him. Clark surrenders himself to the police, only to be imprisoned in a pocket dimension by Lex. From there, the mission to rescue him begins... One of the scenes I really liked is when Clark goes back home and talks with his dad. His dad tells him that who he is isn’t defined by his past or the responsibilities thrown on him, but by his own choices and actions. There’s also a sweet moment where Clark and Lois bond over listening to punk rock. All of this highlights Clark’s humanity. From another angle, it also reflects today’s world. With migration increasing everywhere, many people don’t know where they truly belong. That can lead to an identity crisis. Clark’s feelings aren’t so different. This is basically where the film tackles the theme of belonging. Another touching moment is when the children of Jarhanpur call out to Superman. Watching that scene, all I could think was, “If only we had a Superman in our world.” Sometimes it feels like the only solution to certain crises is someone with miraculous powers stepping in, especially when diplomacy fails. And then there’s the politician being revealed as the villain. No further explanation needed. By tying the main conflict into politics, adding Clark’s personal struggle with identity, and including characters that feel like real people, the film manages to go beyond just being another superhero action flick, it connects on a social and human level too. The final scene raises the stakes with Kara’s arrival, then closes on Clark looking through his childhood photos. I get why some people didn’t like that ending, it feels a bit small and repetitive for a supposedly epic superhero film. But to me, it’s harmless, nothing to blow out of proportion. Also, the fact that the end credits don’t  tease the next movie? Honestly, I think that’s for the better. We already got a hint with Clark’s scene with Mr. Terrific and Kara showing up. No need to drag it out. Characters Let’s start with Clark. This version of him has a strong moral compass and a clear sense of ethics. He values every life, saves whoever he can, stands up for the oppressed, and even takes political stances when necessary. You’d think most superheroes would naturally have these traits, but the movie reminds us how often that detail gets ignored. Usually, when a massive villain wreaks havoc on a city, countless lives are lost, yet most superheroes just focus on punching the bad guy. Buildings collapse, explosions go off, and the destruction is enormous… but does the hero even care? It’s all so normalized in these films that we stop questioning it. Superman’s attention to this detail, like not even wanting his enemy to suffer, makes him way more likable. I can’t help but compare him to other Supermen. Henry Cavill’s version left such a small impression on me that I can’t recall a single standout trait, aside from being dark and dull. Back then, I doubt anyone would’ve said “Superman is my favorite.” (Maybe I’ll rewatch and write a review someday.) But with this new film, I think that might actually change. This Clark feels more human, he can be vulnerable, charming, and kind. The fact that a character with so much responsibility and immense physical power can still come across as gentle is a big plus. Yes, he’s an alien, but he lives on Earth now. He feels, he observes, he’s affected by things. Just because he’s Superman doesn’t mean he has to be stoic, cold, and rigid. Some people argue he should be, but I don’t agree. To me, Superman should radiate light and embody hope. A lot of comments I’ve read actually support this. Many say Corenswet’s Superman feels closer to Christopher Reeve’s portrayal than Cavill’s, and that his return to a brighter, more hopeful vibe sparks nostalgia. It’s like he’s reclaiming the “hope” theme and channeling the gentlemanly energy of the 80s Superman. That makes him a comforting figure for longtime fans and a role model for younger audiences. I’ve even seen people online talking about how “being a polite gentleman, like Superman,” is becoming something men aspire to again. Clearly, even in today’s world where moral decay feels so widespread, there’s still a place and need for characters like this, they still resonate and inspire. That said, I do have one critique: Clark spends too much of the film losing or suffering. Sure, showing weakness adds depth, but it shouldn’t be overdone. At the end of the day, this is still an alien with near-invincible powers. I wish we had more moments highlighting his victories; epic, iconic scenes. For example, I love the train-stopping scene in Spider-Man 2. Superman could’ve had his own equivalent here, but we didn’t quite get it. The action was fine, but it lacked that extra punch. With bolder, more creative directing choices, some of those sequences could have been truly jaw-dropping. The movie leans so heavily on showing his defeats that it even starts with one. At one point, he’s saved by his dog, another time by the “Justice Gang,” another by Metamorpho, then by Mr. Terrific, and even by Lois, who’s just human. Green Lantern is the one sent to Jarhanpur instead of him. For the next film, I’d like to see a more formidable Superman. Not saying he should never struggle, but give us more action, more triumphs. Side note:  Characters this morally upright are always fascinating when they’re pushed to the dark side, even temporarily. Think Spider-Man 3. I still remember seeing black-suit Spidey for the first time in a trailer as a kid, it blew my mind. If they ever took Corenswet’s Superman down that road in future films, I’d be all in. And speaking of Corenswet… what a man, what a casting choice. I’ll admit, I can’t keep my “fangirl” side entirely in check here. Whoever cast him deserves a medal. Cavill may be bulkier and more mature-looking, but Corenswet is hands-down more charming and warm. Learning that he’s a Juilliard graduate just made me like him even more. From now on, he’s my  Superman. My thoughts on Lex are a bit mixed, because to explain them I kind of need to dig deeper. Like, what actually makes a villain evil?  Do they need a backstory to justify their actions? In this film, Lex doesn’t really have one. He’s just a spoiled, jealous, show-off rich guy. Do villains even need a tragic backstory? That’s debatable. Sometimes people are just awful simply because of their personality, no explanation required. And honestly, if you give them a backstory, there’s always the risk that it makes the audience sympathize with them, or worse, excuse their behavior. On the other hand, there are people who’ve been through terrible things but still choose a different, better path. So past trauma doesn’t always make the audience side with the villain. Here, though, since we don’t really get any of that, it’s hard to understand Lex’s real motives. Why does he hate Superman so much? Is it really just  jealousy? With the other villains, I can at least make sense of their motives, some of them are basically reflections of people we see in our own world. Why a president would start a war in Jarhanpur? Money, nationalism, greed, ego, and so on. But Lex? His reasoning is left pretty vague. That said, I actually liked Nicholas Hoult’s performance. The way he bullies his employees, yells, and throws temper tantrums reminded me a bit of Kylo Ren. And honestly, I don’t think Lex should be the classic cold, composed businessman type. We should  see his jealousy, his inability to control his emotions. Hoult nails that balance. It’s a big shift from his role as Beast in X-Men, and he pulls it off well. He really sells Lex as the pathetic, whiny son of a powerful father. My only gripe is the way some of his scenes were edited, constantly cutting back to him screaming ruined the flow of solid action sequences. For the first time, I actually liked a Lois adaptation. Amy Adams always felt a bit too old for the role, and the Smallville version was just average. Rachel Brosnahan, though, is a solid choice. As far as chemistry goes, this might be my favorite pairing yet. Lois and Clark should feel younger, more fun together and that’s exactly what we get here. Plus, Lois isn’t just stuck in the background as the romantic partner; she’s actively part of the action, which I really appreciated. My only critique since both characters are portrayed younger here; it would’ve been nice to actually see  how their relationship started. Instead, when the film opens, they’re already established as a couple. Still, I enjoyed their dynamic and thought their scenes worked well. Now about the Justice “Gang.” When they first showed up, I was honestly shocked. I wasn’t expecting that kind of cameo. But it went way beyond a cameo; they had enough screen time to almost feel like secondary leads. The choice of characters was surprising too, and I did like the guts it took to bring back Green Lantern (even if in a different version). It felt like a test run, like the studio wanted to gauge audience reaction before committing fully. Compared to the Justice League, this team doesn’t take itself nearly as seriously. They’re played more for comedy, less for “badass” moments. The thing is, Avengers also relies heavily on humor, but they still manage to look cool when it counts. This team doesn’t quite pull that off, whether it’s the script, the tone, or the casting, I’m not sure. They’re not bad, but I wouldn’t say they’re fully there yet either. That said, not everything fell flat. Mr. Terrific was great, he even outshined Superman in a couple of moments. I’d definitely like to see more of him if this “Gang” is going to be a recurring thing. Green Lantern wasn’t bad either, but only under one condition: they need  to bring in Hal Jordan eventually, because Guy is just way too goofy. On the flip side, Hawkgirl didn’t work for me at all. While the other characters avoided stereotypes, she was the walking embodiment of one, the typical “too cool to care” type. The real star of the film is Krypto. He’s such a great addition, not only does he give us another way to connect with Clark, but he also feels like a natural part of the story. Through Krypto, we see what Clark’s true weak spots are: his responsibilities, his friends, and his family. Lex threatening Krypto makes that crystal clear. Clark’s name can be dragged through the mud, he can be imprisoned, but the moment Krypto’s in danger, that’s when he completely loses it. And of course, whenever Clark is in trouble, Krypto is always there for him. There’s a reason they call dogs man’s best friend. The cameo of Krypto’s original owner was also spot-on. It builds excitement, sparks curiosity, and sets the stage perfectly for future films. And then there’s Eve, I actually liked her. At first, she felt like someone straight out of our own world, I was worried she’d stay shallow, but her crush on Jimmy and her decision to snitch on Lex gave her some depth, which definitely earned her points in my book. Jimmy, seriously, give the girl a chance in the next movie! Characters like Eve actually help balance the humor better. They feel familiar, relatable, and add a more grounded layer to the story. Honestly, there was no need to put so much effort into the Justice Gang. Light, fun, comedic moments are great, but they should also leave room for deeper scenes. When characters exist only for jokes, the story ends up feeling weaker.   Visual World & Technical Aspects Visually, the film finally gives us the brightness and color palette we’ve been waiting for. Like I mentioned earlier, the old DCEU movies were way too dark, overloaded with CGI, and almost robotic in their look. Try watching some of those scenes on TV in daylight, you can barely see what’s going on. I’m glad they moved away from that formula. It actually felt refreshing to see real colors again. Superman’s bright red cape and blue suit against the snowy landscapes looked stunning, and I think Gunn intentionally opened with that contrast to grab the audience’s attention right away. The close-up shots and slow motions add some personality to the film, giving it a style and identity. That’s Gunn’s touch, for sure. The characters, the color palette, the visual world, the costumes, everything comes together to give this movie its own vibe. “Camp” is always a risky choice, but here it’s used just enough to feel fun without becoming cringey. Of course, CGI is unavoidable in this genre, and for the most part, it’s handled well. But there’s one sequence that really took me out of it. Superman is trying to save both Metamorpho and his son while being dragged around in this surreal environment, and almost everything in the scene is CGI; the kid, the entire setting, even the ground he’s standing on. In scenes like this, the absurdity and artificial look really pull you out of the movie, or at least they did for me. Instead of staying immersed, you suddenly become aware you’re just watching a film, and it breaks the flow. On the flip side, I thought the flying scenes were pretty solid. Maybe if I’d watched it in IMAX, they would’ve hit even harder. I saw it in ScreenX instead. At first, the snowy scenes looked great in that format, but as the film went on, it didn’t really add much. So, yeah, it could’ve been better. As for the music—no complaints. The original Superman theme is still incredible, and I loved the score that played during Lex’s scenes too.   In Conclusion Superman (2025)  feels like a turning point for the DC universe. It’s clearly the start of something new. After years of being criticized for its dark and soulless tone, DC finally shifts toward a world that feels more hopeful and more human. The story manages to echo real-world conflicts while still delivering on the superhero essentials with its pocket dimension. The lighter tone, brighter colors, and more relatable, human characters bring back a long-missed sense of hope. Its biggest strength is redefining Superman not just as a “power show,” but as a character with empathy, political stances, and respect for every life. That human side makes it easier for the audience to connect with him. But it’s not without flaws. In trying to escape the darkness of past films, it sometimes goes too far in the other direction, feeling a bit silly or shallow. While the political themes and the focus on hope add depth, the supporting characters and humor don’t always land, leaving parts of the film unbalanced. The Justice Gang fails to convince as a team (sure, maybe that’s the point, but individually they’re still too weak), and Superman loses a little too easily and too often, leaving us with fewer epic, iconic moments than we’d want. DC’s long-standing “tone problem” isn’t completely solved yet. David Corenswet’s Superman, though, has huge potential. His performance isn’t groundbreaking, but it’s promising, and the overall cast is solid, even if no one really blew me away. And honestly, I’m proud of myself for keeping my inner fangirl in check and not just saying “It was amazing, 5/5!” without any technical thought. For me, Superman (2025) didn’t create the same level of hype as Fantastic Four, but it’s still a valuable step in helping DC rediscover its own identity.If they can find a better balance between being “soulless” and being “too silly,” they could come up with something much more successful. Going forward, they should either introduce new characters, put Clark through experiences that build on his strong foundation and trigger real character growth, or craft stories that deepen the existing ones - I just don’t know which direction they’ll take. But what they do have is a Superman full of potential, strong chemistry with Lois, and a new, brighter, better universe. The key now is to use these wisely, deepen them, and find the right balance. Overall Score: 3.5/5 Story: 4/5  - Political themes, identity, humanity; pocket dimension is interesting. Script: 3.5/5  - Clark & Lois are well written, but some side characters feel shallow; humor sometimes overused. Performance: 3.5/5  - Corenswet is a great fit, Brosnahan has solid chemistry, Hoult brings a different Lex, but no real standout. Cinematography: 3.5/5  - Color palette is strong, but moments of artificiality and excess stand out. Directing: 3/5  - Gunn nails the tone shift, shooting style but the humor-seriousness balance slips. Editing: 4/5  - Smooth flow and pacing, doesn't drag Music: 4/5   Costume & Production: 4/5  - Classic yet refreshed look Themes/Messages: 4/5  - Belonging, identity, politics, and hope are highlighted. Emotional Impact: 3.5/5  - Jarhanpur, Clark’s family, Clark & Lois scenes carry weight. Rewatch Value: 3/5  - Lacks iconic epic moments to make it highly rewatchable. Entertainment: 3.5/5  - Enjoyable, but could use stronger action peaks. Creativity/Originality: 4/5  - Bright colors, camp elements, political undertones feel refreshing for DC. Written By: Su Evci nsuevci@gmail.com

After two failed attempts in previous years and amidst Marvel’s downfall era, Fantastic Four: First Steps seemed to carry a heavy burden, but it looks like it fulfilled its duty successfully. It made $118 billion at the box office on its opening weekend, achieving the fourth-best debut of the year, and scored 87% from critics and 93% from the audience on Rotten Tomatoes. As someone who played with Fantastic Four Happy Meal toys twenty years ago and has witnessed the ups and downs of Marvel, count me in that 93%. The film gives a true sense that a step in the right direction has finally been taken. What attracted me the most before watching the film was the cast chemistry. In some Marvel movies (like Thunderbolts), I’m unsure about the casting or the chosen characters. Should there even be a film around these characters? Is there real chemistry? I sometimes enter the theater with hesitation. Thunderbolts stood out with other elements and managed to affect me that way. Fantastic Four, however, managed to impress me even before I saw it. So I entered the theater not with hesitation, but with excitement. And unlike some others, I was very satisfied with the casting. For example, some people didn’t find Joseph Quinn fitting as Johnny. He may not seem like the obvious first choice, but I knew he’d give a strong performance and my opinion didn’t change after the movie. Both the character portrayals and the performances were solid. I’ll get into that in more detail below. Again, unlike some, I didn’t see major problems with the editing. People say too many scenes were cut and the conflict was resolved too quickly. Someone even wrote that it felt “fragmented.” I kept that in mind while watching. Yes, scenes may have been removed, but I don’t think it affected the pacing. A fast flow probably pleased today’s audiences, whose attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. I’ll touch below on what might have been lacking. What would a longer Fantastic Four: First Steps look like? Why not, maybe we’ll get an Extended Cut someday. Plot The screenwriter assumes we can’t handle a third Fantastic Four origin story (thank you), so the first half hour quickly introduces the characters and what had happened to them. Then, we meet our first threat: Silver Surfer. It’s enough to spark curiosity. The core conflict begins when Galactus sets his sights on Franklin. The exciting chase scene with Silver Surfer ramps up the tempo. The movie had already started strong, and this sequence crowns the first half. I watched the film in IMAX 3D. My favorite IMAX scene was this one. But to be honest, I didn’t have a Dune-level experience. The 3D didn’t help; it might’ve been better in 2D. Returning to the scene, it ends with Franklin’s birth, making it even more meaningful. Once the team lands on Earth, we’re faced with an ethical dilemma: Would you sacrifice a family member to save humanity? I think basing the main conflict on an ethical dilemma was a great move. It’s more than the usual “bad guy wants to take over the world.” The idea of Galactus searching for someone to take his place to satisfy his hunger is not bad. Our villain doesn’t want to be evil, he’s doing this out of necessity, seeking someone to replace him. Even though the usual giant villain attacks the only city that exists in the World (New York!), this movie does stand out in other ways. The fractured relationship between the Four and the public, Reed and Sue’s struggle as parents, the tension between them, and the curiosity about Franklin’s powers bring fresh thematic layers. In our second and final conflict, we learn that Silver Surfer also didn’t do this willingly, she’s a victim too. Just as Johnny is about to sacrifice himself, she does it instead. It’s a meaningful death, and the brief backstory adds depth. Sue, using all her power in the battle against Galactus, gives us a scare. Her return to life thanks to Franklin is a nice touch. After an emotional scene, the movie ends softly with Reed, Johnny, and Ben struggling to install Franklin’s car seat. Throughout the film, there are classic Marvel-style comedic scenes. But Fantastic Four balances action, drama, and humor well. It’s never too silly or too serious. Characters What I liked most about the film was the characters. Compared to other Marvel films, it has a rather minimal cast and doesn’t rely on cameos. Honestly, maybe a surprise Ioan Gruffudd cameo could’ve been nice, but a film that shines on its own doesn’t need that kind of support. A simple cast and deeply developed characters are always more effective. The more screen time they get, the stronger the film becomes. The Four are not only shown in their conflict with the villain but also through their internal struggles and multi-layered personalities. Most importantly, they are portrayed as human first; facing relatable, empathetic issues, which strengthens the audience’s connection. Pedro Pascal and Vanessa Kirby also mentioned in an interview that they focused on highlighting their characters’ humanity while preparing for the roles. The family dynamics are well portrayed, you believe they are a real family. Let me start with Johnny, who shines the most and becomes more than just a comic relief side character. In previous films, Johnny was a major flirt. Here, he still flirts, but he’s also smart, thoughtful, even self-sacrificing. There’s nothing he wouldn’t do for his family. He usually channels his impulsiveness for good, sacrificing himself multiple times for the team. He’s not “booksmart” like Reed, he has more of a practical intelligence. I liked his scenes with Sue; they portrayed the sibling dynamic well. Joseph Quinn’s performance helps. His humor and flirtatiousness feel natural, not annoying. His friendship with Ben and Reed is also not forgotten. As for Reed, I think Pedro Pascal suits the role. Reed carries a lot: he’s a scientist, a leader, a husband, a father. People trust him and look up to him. We see that even more clearly when Galactus arrives. The public trusts the whole Fantastic Four, but Reed’s leadership carries extra weight. Pedro captures Reed’s anxiety well, and he feels convincing both as a scientist and a leader. His chemistry with Sue is excellent. Even during arguments, you understand his point of view and empathize with him. There was one scene with Franklin I really loved “I won’t study you anymore. You tell me who you are.” My only critique of Reed is his powers. He seemed more useful as a scientist and that’s how he stood out. His powers were a bit in the background. I have no complaints about Ben. Like in previous films, he’s used as a comic relief side character at times but he absolutely has a soul. Maybe we could’ve seen more of the struggles he faces due to his appearance. If we’d seen more of his emotions, it would’ve been easier to empathize. Since he underwent a physical transformation, I’d like to see how he’s changed over time. Still, his scenes with kids and dialogues with Rachel were more than enough to make me like him. And finally, Sue , who shares the heart of the film with Johnny. I saved her for last because she was a much more of a likable character compared to previous films. She’s definitely the strongest of the Four, both mentally and physically. Her solo defeat of Galactus was arguably the film’s most striking moment. Sue is by no means a stereotypical romantic partner. We can evaluate her separately from Reed. She has her own character, thoughts, and depth. And frankly, in 2025, it would be absurd if that weren’t the case. Like Reed, she carries a lot of responsibility, to the public and to Franklin, her baby. And Franklin is under threat from both the people and Galactus. I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes, it’s a tough situation. I also liked Vanessa Kirby in The Crown, such an elegant woman. As Sue, she keeps that elegance, but she’s far more charismatic, powerful, and independent. I loved how Sue being a mother didn’t overshadow her personality, skills, or profession, she still does everything she used to do. Vanessa Kirby said in an interview that she was especially sensitive about portraying this properly and I truly appreciate that effort, because it really comes through. Sue is the same person she was before becoming a mother. Of course, she’s changed emotionally, now she has someone else to protect. But the same applies to Reed. They raise Franklin as a team, and their character developments are parallel. In a film that emphasizes teamwork, Sue’s role being equal to the others , especially as a woman, is valuable. Maybe I’m overanalyzing because there’s been a real shift in how female characters are portrayed lately. Still, representing them correctly is important so we don’t repeat past disasters. This shouldn’t be done just to tick a DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) box. What matters is getting the character right, period. I don’t want to tie everything to feminism. Especially in a film where the characters’ genders feel irrelevant. I wish I didn’t have to comment on it. But society’s expectations around motherhood and the way female characters have been portrayed so poorly and unrealistically in the past, it makes it impossible not to mention it. A quick note on Silver Surfer. There were criticisms about her being a woman. I don’t think it matters whether the character is male or female. In fact, her being female worked better for the dynamic with Johnny. We didn’t see much of her backstory, maybe it could’ve been explored more. I think we’ll see her in future films, we should. I used to think she was super cool as a kid. Still do. Oh, and apparently her surfboard isn’t attached to her. 😊 Visual World & Technical Aspects Another thing I was excited to talk about: the Earth-828 Universe. The film takes place in an alternate reality defined as “retro-future.” Although it’s set in 1960, it features flying cars, robots, and advanced technology , reminding me of The Jetsons. This unusual world clearly separates the movie from classic Marvel productions and creates its own unique atmosphere. The old-fashioned clothes, tech, and color palette are very aesthetic. Cinematically, this choice enhances the film’s style and atmosphere. Also, while the costumes from previous Fantastic Four movies were cool, I really liked the retro designs here. The CGI was good, but could’ve been better. It’s normal to use a lot in a Marvel film , we should   be pushing the limits of imagination. The effects during the first Silver Surfer encounter were solid. Ben Grimm’s design, which was terribly bad in the old movies, was much better here. Some moments where he holds Franklin looked a bit off, though. Speaking of Franklin, I saw criticisms about the CGI/robot baby. It’s not an American Sniper or Renesmee situation, though. The baby was real in most scenes, but you could sometimes tell when it wasn’t. Maybe it could’ve been more seamless, I don’t know. It’s a sensitive area, you can only work with babies so much. I’m not a CGI expert either, so I don’t know how hard it is. But honestly, in a movie with flying cars and a flaming guy, don’t stress about it. My bigger issue is the villain design. I know it’s from the comics, but I’m tired of giant villains. A villain doesn’t have to be huge to feel “intimidating.” Ultron, for example, felt more threatening to me. So I hope for better villain designs in the future. That said, I liked the music. I was humming the Fantastic Four theme after I left the theater. FAN-TAS-TIC FOUUURR!!! As I mentioned, the part that felt a little lacking might be the team's process of convincing the public after landing on Earth. One review pointed out how everything seemed to return to normal too quickly after Sue’s speech, and I agree. Reed’s explanation also felt vague. As long time public protectors, they owed the people a more detailed message. The confrontation with Galactus could’ve been more intense. I even thought, “Why don’t you tie up Galactus’s legs like in Empire Strikes Back?” And of course, as I mentioned earlier, Silver Surfer’s backstory, maybe we’ll see more of it in deleted scenes. In Conclusion It’s been a long time since I approached Marvel this sincerely, with this much hope. The film was not just fun but emotionally satisfying. The characters and their chemistry, the depth of the conflicts, the balance of action and humor, and the unique visual world, everything showed that this was a solid first step . Telling a story about a new universe through one team and a single conflict felt like the refreshing change we’ve long needed. I hope they don’t break this dynamic in future films. Overall Score: 4.5/5 Story:  4/5 – Goes beyond classic Marvel tropes. Performance:  5/5 – Excellent casting, especially Joseph Quinn and Vanessa Kirby. Cinematography:  4/5 – The retro-future aesthetic works well. Directing:  4/5 – Good balance of characters, pacing, and atmosphere. Editing:  4/5 – Despite cuts, the pacing is strong; easy to follow. Music:  5/5 – Fits the scenes, memorable. Themes/Messages:  4/5 – Family, teamwork, responsibility, ethical dilemmas. Emotional Impact:  4/5 – Especially strong connection with Johnny and Sue. Rewatch Value:  4/5 – Fast-paced and character-driven, worth a rewatch. Entertainment:  5/5 – Balanced humor and action, never boring. Creativity/Originality:  4/5 – Retro universe and fresh character takes. Written By: Su Evci nsuevci@gmail.com

Organized by the Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (IKSV) and sponsored by N Kolay, the 44th Istanbul Film Festival  will run from April 11–22, 2025 , showcasing 139 feature films and 15 shorts  across 13 thematic sections and seven venues in Istanbul. This year’s selection includes films by master auteurs such as François Ozon, Tom Tykwer, Michel Franco, Burhan Qurbani, Mahdi Fleifel , and Gary Hustwit , along with restored classics by David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino, Wim Wenders, Jacques Demy , and Robert Bresson . The festival opens with Cologne ’75 , directed by Ido Fluk , which premiered at the 2025 Berlinale. Das Licht Competition Highlights The Golden Tulip Competition , now combining national and international entries, features 15 feature films judged by an international jury chaired by Indian director Shekhar Kapur . Notable titles include: Psycho Therapy: The Shallow Tale of A Writer Who Decided to Write About A Serial Killer  (Tolga Karaçelik) Super Happy Forever  (Kohei Igarashi) Under the Volcano  ( Pod Wulkanem , Damian Kocur) Harvest  (Athina Rachel Tsangari) Maldoror  (Fabrice du Welz) Short films will compete in an expanded international Short Film Competition , while the New Visions  section, dedicated to debut or sophomore Turkish directors, will award the Seyfi Teoman Prize . International Awards and Premieres The festival features multiple award-winning titles from major festivals: Dreams  ( Drømmer , Dag Johan Haugerud) – winner of the Golden Bear and FIPRESCI at Berlinale The Last Showgirl  (Gia Coppola) – Jury Prize at San Sebastián Simon of the Mountain  ( Simón de la Montaña , Federico Luis) – Cannes Critics’ Week Grand Prize The Blue Trail  ( O último azul , Gabriel Mascaro) – Berlinale Grand Jury Prize Star-Studded Galas The N Kolay Galas  present high-profile premieres, including: Dreams  (Michel Franco), starring Jessica Chastain Eno  (Gary Hustwit), a generative documentary about Brian Eno When Fall Is Coming  ( Quand vient l'automne , François Ozon) The Light  ( Das Licht , Tom Tykwer) Diverse Sections and Documentaries Sections like Young Masters , Around the World , and Specter  highlight global perspectives. The Documentary Time  strand includes 21 titles covering topics from war photography ( The Man I Left Behind ) to experimental music ( Max Richter’s Sleep ). The Antidepressant  section offers feel-good stories such as The Penguin Lessons  (Peter Cattaneo) and Four Mothers  (Darren Thornton). Restorations and Retrospectives The Turkish classic Desperate Road  ( Amansız Yol , Ömer Kavur) will be screened in a newly restored version. The festival also honors Zuhal Olcay  with the Lifetime Achievement Award and retrospective sections on Norwegian auteur Dag Johan Haugerud  and late editor Ayhan Ergürsel . Industry Events The festival’s Meetings on the Bridge , celebrating its 20th year, will host panels and project development events, including a new mentorship award for emerging producers in collaboration with Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival . Screenings and Events Films will be screened at seven theaters across Beyoğlu, Şişli, and Kadıköy. Discussions with directors, including Haugerud  and war photographer Larry Towell , will complement the screenings. More information and full schedule are available at film.iksv.org .

I finally got the chance to watch A Complete Unknown , one of the films that dominated the 97th Academy Awards nominations! First of all, my expectations were high because it combined three things I love: biographical films, music, and Timothée Chalamet. When I heard that James Mangold was directing, I got even more excited, considering how well he brought Logan  to the big screen. Unfortunately, the film did not meet my expectations.   Bob Dylan was, for me, just as the title suggests—a complete unknown. I don’t know why, but he never really caught my interest before. I had never researched him; I didn’t know his life story, his songs, where he was from, anything about him. In fact, I only just found out that he is still alive. So, I thought this film would be a good opportunity to learn more about him and get to know him. Did I achieve my goal? I don’t think so. The film starts in 1960 and, if I’m not mistaken, ends in 1965. What did he do in the remaining 60 years, and why didn’t we see any of it? Like a classic biopic, the text at the end informed us that he released many more albums and even won a Nobel Prize. If only you had cut down on the concert scenes, maybe we could have seen some of that, Mr. Mangold. We already listened to the same songs in Walk the Line . But I think even the filmmakers knew they didn’t introduce Bob Dylan well enough because, even after watching the film, he remains a complete unknown. I can interpret this in two ways: either Bob himself is a mystery, and the film reflects this by avoiding details, or the film simply failed to delve into his life properly. I haven’t watched any interviews about the film yet, but maybe their goal was to celebrate and showcase folk music rather than Bob Dylan himself. If you ask me what the film's main theme is, I would say: Bob Dylan’s folk music era. Folk is so important to the film that we see many folk musicians throughout. They aren’t just cameos; they are supporting characters. In addition to Bob Dylan, we also see artists like Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, Woody Guthrie, Johnny Cash, and Bob Neuwirth. I actually liked this aspect of the film. But having so many folk artists in the spotlight only reinforces my belief that this is more of a folk music movie than a Bob Dylan biopic. To be fair, Bob had enough screen time—his presence was well-balanced. The real issue was that when he was on screen, we didn’t actually learn anything about him. He was either composing songs, writing lyrics, playing guitar, or hanging out with one of his girlfriends. He had almost no depth. I would say I know just as much about the supporting characters as I do about Bob himself. No matter how much screen time Bob got, folk music ended up overshadowing him. Edit:  After doing some research, I learned that A Complete Unknown  was originally planned to focus on the controversy surrounding Bob’s transition to electric guitar. The film was almost titled Going Electric . Even so, I don’t think this was the best decision. When you have an actor portraying Bob so well, why limit the story to just five years of his life? If those were the only years he was active, fine—but the man has a rich biography! Characters Maybe when I say the film didn’t meet my expectations, I actually mean Bob Dylan himself. In the film, Bob is portrayed as a reserved, aloof, womanizing, cheating, self-centered man who tries to introduce new songs at a folk festival full of people who just came to listen to folk music. He’s almost arrogant and mysterious, and not much is known about him. I tried to frame him as an anti-hero, to like him that way, but I don’t think the film showed enough positive traits to make that work. Most of what we learn about him is negative. By the time you leave the theater, there’s no reason to like him. My friends and I all agreed that Bob acted like a bit of a jerk. Of course, there were a few positive moments: dedicating a song to Woody Guthrie and his songs about war show that, deep down, he can  care when he wants to. But even then, he only expresses this through his music. Among the supporting characters, Joan Baez and Johnny Cash stood out the most to me. By the time Bob was starting his career, they were already famous. While I don’t love folk music, I liked Joan’s voice and style. Most importantly, I liked that she didn’t put up with Bob’s nonsense or act lovesick like Sylvie. This may have been influenced by the fact that she was financially independent and had built her self-worth thanks to fame, especially considering the era. Bob and Joan had completely opposite personalities. Bob was impulsive, careless, and self-centered, while Joan was thoughtful, considerate, and traditional. Their scenes reflected this contrast. In one scene, they were on tour, performing a duet. Joan wanted to play a well-known classic that the audience loved. Bob refused, and the crowd naturally started booing. I think he ended up leaving the stage, while Joan stayed behind and reassured the audience that she would give them what they wanted. Think about it—if you go to a Michael Jackson concert and he refuses to sing Thriller  or Beat It , instead only playing songs from his new album, wouldn’t that be frustrating? Sure, he can introduce new songs, but he also needs to perform the hits that made him famous. Otherwise, he should be ready for the kind of chaos Bob Dylan faced. I would like to mention another one of Joan’s queen behavior. Bob spends the whole film with either Sylvie or Joan. There’s a short time skip where he becomes famous, and neither Joan nor Sylvie hears from him. Then, in the middle of the night, he bursts into Sylvie’s house and wakes her up. Apparently, she has a boyfriend. Seeing there’s no chance there, he goes to Joan’s place and wakes her up. Joan lets him in, but Bob doesn’t really pay attention to her, he just strums Joan’s guitar. (Then why did you come? Okay, fine, since you came, why don’t you let the girl sleep?) Of course, Bob gets scolded by Joan and is kicked out. Let’s talk a bit about Johnny Cash. I haven’t seen it yet, but James Mangold had already introduced Johnny to us in Walk the Line . I have no doubt now that Mangold is a big Johnny Cash fan :) In the film, Johnny is portrayed as a cool and legendary artist. When I say “portrayed as,” I mean in terms of how it looks. I have no idea about what kind of artist Johnny is because it’s not an area or artist I follow or know whatsoever. In the film, he plays the role of a mentor, guiding Bob. They correspond through letters, and I liked that dynamic. But there’s one thing I didn’t get. When Bob expressed that he wanted to make new music with an electric guitar, Johnny supported him. But at the folk festival, he seemed to disapprove. Maybe he changed his mind due to the reaction. Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie could also be considered the mentors that Bob looked up to in the film. I don’t have much to say about them except that I enjoyed their roles. Maybe if I were more familiar with folk music, seeing these artists portrayed would have meant more to me. Let me give another example from the film: Bob was chatting in an elevator with someone he didn’t know, and from the conversation, I could tell that person was also an artist. I waited eagerly to find out who it could be. He later introduced himself as Bob Neuwirth, but this name didn’t ring a bell for me. I decided to look it up on Google, but still, nothing came to mind. If it had been someone I recognized, maybe it would have meant more. For example, Bob Geldof from Bohemian Rhapsody  (2018) or the artists about to perform in the Live Aid scene... Music I heard someone in the background during the film say, "If I wanted to listen to music, I’d just open YouTube, they shot this for no reason." Honestly, I agree. Was it really necessary to listen to that many songs? Well, we’re watching the story of a musician, but after all, this is a film, not a concert. If I am saying this as a musical lover, there’s a problem. The songs I’m talking about could have been used during scene transitions; that would have been much more enjoyable. But instead, we sat and watched a dozen concerts... I’ll use Bohemian Rhapsody  again as an example of how to use songs successfully. Queen, with 188 songs across 15 studio albums, used their best songs during scene transitions. I entered the theater with 3 Queen songs and exited with 24. They used different songs for different scenes, like the concert where they spilled beer on the drums, the studio sessions where they recorded their songs, the I Want to Break Free  video, and the Another One Bites the Dust  montage where Freddie is partying. They did this with great balance, never playing the whole song so we’d want to listen to the rest at home. That made the film much more smooth and engaging. I wish I’d seen that dynamic in A Complete Unknown  instead of Bob Dylan singing for 10 minutes with his guitar... Maybe it’s because I don’t like 60s folk songs, but I went into the film expecting to like a few Bob Dylan songs. None of them stuck with me. They all sounded the same. (Sorry, boomers) Again, I’ll compare it to Bohemian Rhapsody , Queen is also from the same generation as the beloved boomers. Both films ended with an important concert for each musician's career. But in just one of them, I didn’t check the time even once and sang along to the songs as if I were at a concert. As I said, maybe it’s because I don’t like the genre. Edit : Since I didn’t learn anything about Bob from this film, I did some research online and, even though I don’t really like his music style, I must say I like his lyrics. I can’t ignore Bob Dylan’s value as a poet and lyricist. Additionally, I’ve warmed up to his songs, but I still don’t think I’ll play them regularly. Performances I have no complaints about the performances. Timothée already physically resembles Bob Dylan quite a bit. Knowing Timothée’s real-life voice and mannerisms, I appreciated his acting. His ability to convey Bob’s nasal speech, accent, and his coolness / indifference proves he’s one of the best actors of our generation. Apparently he sang all the songs in the film, played guitar and harmonica, and even performed most of the songs live on set. The film’s guitar coach, Larry Saltzman, says Timothée worked hard to learn Bob’s unique and rough guitar technique. The film’s sound mixer also mentioned that Timothée varied his voice to accurately portray Bob’s vocal style. To show Timothée’s dedication to the film, director James Mangold said that he didn’t communicate with his friends or visitors on set, and even when there weren’t any shootings, he was called “Bob” on set. His work since 2019 on this film shows that there’s nothing that the combination of hard work and talent can’t achieve. I also think Timothée has managed his career quite well. Despite being 29, he’s starred in four films that were nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Who else at 29 can claim to have films like Interstellar , Call Me by Your Name , Lady Bird , Beautiful Boy , Little Women , The French Dispatch , Dune , Don’t Look Up , Dune 2 , Wonka , and A Complete Unknown  in their filmography? Being actively involved in acting for only 10 years and already getting lead roles and nominations for prestigious awards is a huge accomplishment, in my opinion. I must also mention his theater background— I love watching his performances on YouTube . With his appearance, you’d think he’d be a typical frat boy, but in films like Dune , he becomes so imposing. You almost start to believe he’s  Lisan al Gaib.  Okay, I'm done gushing about Timothée, so I’ll move on to other performances. The one who really shocked me was Edward Norton. I didn’t even realize it was him until halfway through the film. It wasn’t until I looked up the cast list on Google that I figured it out. That happened by accident— I didn’t even think, “Is that Edward Norton?” How can a person be this good at playing the Southern sweet uncle (Sorry, Pete Seeger). In the second half, I kept thinking, “How is this Edward Norton?” If it had been someone else in this role, like Hugh Jackman, I probably wouldn’t have been so surprised since the guy is naturally so sweet. (He also proves he is a versatile, good actor by playing a wild character like Logan). But when it’s Norton, I was shocked. Normally, I don’t find him likable because he usually comes off as threatening and cold in his films. This was nicely explained in a Reddit post : he’s not someone with a strong physical presence on screen, but he can become imposing when he needs to, especially in roles that are hard to carry, like those of the soulless, threatening man. Timothée is similar— you can interpret his physical appearance, posture, and body language in a certain way but once he starts acting, he becomes someone else. He just plays more emotional male characters compared to Edward Norton. For Norton, I think this film proves that he has a wide acting range, as he portrays a positive character rather than a negative one. Norton, as Pete Seeger, is calm and reassuring. He’s also traditional enough not to abandon folk music. This really shows how good of an actor Norton is. Monica Barbaro, as Joan Baez, was also successful. When I compared her to real photos, she really resembled Joan. Of course, it’s not just about looking like her, I also appreciated her acting and song performances. Just like Timothée, the fact that she performed all her songs herself shows her talent. In addition to Monica, Edward Norton and Boyd Holbrook, who played Johnny Cash, also played and sang their parts themselves. Timothée, Edward, and Monica, all three are currently Oscar nominees for their performances. I don’t think they’ll win because other performances stand out more, but I do think they deserve the nomination. Finally, I can’t go on without mentioning how Scoot McNairy, as Woody Guthrie, had no dialogue yet did it an excellent job.   Final Thoughts As I reach the end of this review, I want to talk about something important: some films are just made for certain people. When I looked at this comment  on IMDb, I noticed that people who watched the trailer with tears in their eyes, have listened to the songs repeatedly, and lived during the time the film is set, enjoyed it much more. This is very normal because nostalgia plays a big part. But it’s not just nostalgia, these people really love folk music and Bob Dylan. And this film is made for them . Maybe you don’t like Queen’s music, but you’ll probably enjoy Bohemian Rhapsody . But to love A Complete Unknown  enough to give it a high rating, I think you need to be a little older person who likes this genre of music. I might be wrong, I don’t know. But I think a boomer would enjoy the film more than a Gen Z-er. Does this mean Gen Z can’t appreciate older music? Definitely not. It’s just that the film’s pace, how much it focuses on the music, and its insufficient portrayal of Bob (since older generations already know him) support this idea. Folk music’s popularity and who enjoys it are also factors. Genres like pop and rock, which still exist today, are loved by Gen Z. But I can’t say the same for genres like folk, country, and blues. Now, let’s see if boomers would like Miss Americana  :) Are there things I can take away from the film aside from Bob Dylan? Yes. I can talk about themes like the birth of new concepts, the process of change, artists not wanting to be put into molds, and the rightness of declaring one’s freedom. The film gets bonus points for asking these questions and making me reflect. While watching the festival scene, I actually sided with Bob; it’s completely normal for Bob not to want to stay the same as new artists and concepts emerge. But then I think, the Folk Festival wasn’t the right place to introduce new music... Though the performances were amazing, I’m not sure if the events Bob Dylan lived through between 1960-1965 were worth telling. As I mentioned, a more comprehensive biographical film could have been made. Does it emotionally affect you? Maybe if you’re 60 years old. Is the message valuable? Up to a point, depending on how much you can connect with the experiences of famous artists from the 60s. Overall Rating: 2.5/5 Story: 3/5Performances: 5/5 Cinematography: 3/5 Direction: 3/5 Editing: 3/5 Music: 3/5 (COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE) Themes/Message: 3/5 Emotional Impact: 2/5 Re-watchability: 2/5 Entertainment Value: 2/5 Creativity: 2/5 (I'm Not There & Walk the Line?) Written by: Su Evci nsuevci@gmail.com References TodayShow. (2024, December 30). Is Timothée Chalamet really singing in new Bob Dylan biopic “a complete unknown”?   TODAY.com . https://www.today.com/popculture/movies/timothee-chalamet-sing-guitar-a-complete-unknown-rcna185787

The series “Invincible” is an animated superhero show adapted from the comic book of the same name by Robert Kirkman and has garnered great acclaim from viewers. The show stands out, particularly with its in-depth character development and unexpected plot twists. As I said, the unexpected plot twists leave all viewers more amazed with each episode. Especially those of you asking about season 4… What was that episode 8 of season 3! It made an amazing debut on IMDb with a 10/10 rating within the first 24 hours. Currently, it holds a 9.9/10 rating based on around 26,000 reviews. Rotten Tomatoes? 100%! As for the answer to our main question, although there hasn’t been an official announcement, many sources predict that Invincible season 4 will be released in early 2026. Hopefully, it will arrive sooner, but even waiting is fun.

Toys, robots; anything that looks like humans. As a technology lover who used to work with software and build robots, I have to admit to you that my biggest fear is robots and artificial intelligence. I saw the movie Megan and now I want to talk to you a little bit. It was an extraordinarily scary experience for me. Yes, a 6-axis Kuka or Fanuc robot doesn't scare me. What scares me and other people is that they look like us and have limbs and a face. Today we are not afraid of artificial intelligence. They are doing it on purpose and getting us used to it. First we started with ChatBots, now we are getting voice feedback. I'm sure they will have faces in a few years. That's when we'll have great droid friends. The Megan movie is not a Chucky the Killer Doll movie. So don't expect gory scenes, horror, suspense... There is, but it's used appropriately. In fact, this movie tells us about the first mistake humans made. These are the mistakes that people make to replace what they have lost or what they see as missing. I think people's inability to discover themselves, their souls, makes the people around them invisible. This is very well described. Let's focus on Cady now. Her mother protected her a lot and isolated her. She didn't send her to school. This shows that she is a non-socialized person. In fact, another proof of this is that you have a smart toy. In the car-inside scene at the beginning, we saw how attached she was to him. It shows that she gets the attention from him that she doesn't get from her family. After the car accident, she didn't even mourn for her family. What was good for her was the toy she saw on the shelf when she came to her aunt's house. Of course, things changed when her aunt Gemma, who did not touch those toys, made her a toy. Now let's talk a little bit about Gemma. Gemma is a software developer who makes smart toys. Think of it like companies like OpenAI or Meta today. Gemma created that toy, Megan, at the request of her niece Cady. Someone who could be her companion, someone who could fulfill her wishes, all her desires. When everything we love is offered to us, no one can say no. And what Cady lacked was not her family, but what her family didn't offer her. What Megan offered her. Let's go back to Cady. Near the end of the movie, when the murders increase, Gemma's jaw drops and she realizes that Megan is the one who did it. When she packs Megan up and throws her in the trunk, Cady gets so angry... This aggression is one of the behaviors we should give when we lose a person. Cady's like she's lost her family. She had already lost her family. We can count these behaviors as mourning for her family. Fortunately, children are fast learners. Cady was able to figure out that he was a killer. When Megan was about to harm Gemma, Cady's approach to Megan was again not out of trust in people or love for her aunt. Reacting naturally to a harmful element, she turned to the robots she trusted. She remotely controlled a robot named Bruce to cut Megan in half. At that moment, Megan's face-reading system read that Cady trusted her. But it was trust in the other robot. And they reminded her that robots can make mistakes too, and that a mistake is the work of a human being. No matter how much we focus on creating perfection, the reason why self-developing artificial intelligence can make mistakes is again the mistakes we humans make. Artificial intelligence is helping us humans in many fields today. But if we start making them do our own work, we will be alone in this world. Artificial intelligence cannot even be our enemy. Let's think a lot before making mistakes.

After 5 years, I would like to say that there is only 1 after credits scene in DC's Aquman movie. There is no need to extend the article, you will learn whether there is a scene or not and close the page anyway. But don't forget to follow us before you go! Be informed when we analyze Aquman!

The last episode of Loki season 2, Marvel's most successful Disney Plus series, aired on November 10, 2023. Although the ratings dropped compared to the first season, it still managed to be among the greatest productions. It is constantly on the tongues of fans. In the first season, we saw that Kang (The Conqueror, The Remnant; he has many names) is a really powerful being and can do anything. In Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania, we met the 616 variant of Kang, but he was in exile and was easily destroyed by the heroes of the 616 universe, who could rule multiple universes. In the second season of Loki, we met Professor Timely, so we learned where the variants of Kang came from and how he was raised. We also learned that Kang is not invincible, it's just a matter of time. Once you understand how time works, everything becomes possible. I'm going to be a bit spoiled from now on, just so you know. In the first season we learned about Kang'i and what the TVA was. It was presented to us that the multiverses were frighteningly numerous and that their order was very important. The second season showed us what happens when this order is disrupted. This is actually a preparation for Secret Wars, which we will see in the 616 universe. The merger of universes and what will happen as a result will be presented to us. According to the statement made by Loki's creative teams; "Season 1 was half the story, season 2 is the other half. It's complete for us. We don't know what happens next." We always thought that Loki would be included in the 616 universe, but now it seems a bit difficult. At the end of the series, Loki solved the problem of time slippage and now that he can bend space and time, he took Kang's throne. Loki has taken on the form where he keeps all timelines safe with his own hand. People in universes no longer die and the Kang'in genocide is over. Even the endless Kang variants are no longer growing. As I said, Loki now holds the throne. In my opinion, there will be a big uprising in the movie Kang Dynasty. The Kang variant that died in the movie Quantumania attracted a lot of attention. Kangler was afraid of this universe that ruled the multiverses. This was even reported not only by Kangler but also by TVA. According to the report prepared by Mobius at the end of the series, a Kang variant caused an incident in the 616 universe. This was either a reference to the AntMan movie or the Kangler has declared war on the 616 universe, the battle in the fifth Avengers movie could be happening. They saw that early on. Because now they can go to any time in any universe they want. I've said that the merger of universes is scary, but you know it's going to happen. In fact, we saw the preparation for it at the end of The Marvel movie. Just like in No Way Home, there were tears and crossovers between universes. We saw Monica crossing over from 616 to another universe where she met her superhero mom Cap Rabuae. What surprised us was not this but the fact that there was an X-Men with her. Beast said hello to us. New universes will bring new heroes together and great battles will ensue. And to fix the broken universes, One Subscribe All will come to restore the Marvel Universe. So we'll also get a reset movie universe. Let me answer the question in the title. I don't think Loki season 3 is coming. I don't think it's supposed to.

The Amazing Story of Sugar Henry was written by Ronald Dahl in 1977. These short stories have such an imagination and storytelling that they could be made into a film. It was made, it was not late or early. I think Netflix brought this story to the screens at the very right time. Because it was important that Wes Anderson reinforced himself and that there would be no opportunities to be filmed in the past. Wes Anderson, yes! He's the director and writer with the best storytelling in my eyes. The incredible story of Sugar Henry is no different from other films. This film, in which stories are told, is a film that presents an intertwined narrative. Again we see that a diegetic voice is involved in the film. But this time it is completely animated. Instead of the world of the characters in the story, this is a game that is completely presented to us. That's why it was turned into a short film. In order to make it short, fast narration and a lot of images are already welcoming us. I don't want to summarise the film but to tell you quickly, the author of the book starts by talking to us and how a story he found came from Henry Sugar, how he can see without using Imdad Khan's eyes, how Dr. Chatterjee, who investigates this situation, still can't believe it, and the person who is the source of this power is also mentioned (I forgot his name.) Now I will tell you about 3 important characters, firstly Imdad Khan, secondly Dr Chatterjee and finally Henry Sugar. After Imdad Khan is taught this power, he joins circuses like every other person with strange features. People don't believe in this power of his and he wants doctors to prove it. Dr Chatterjee is a scientist and such people believe in physically provable findings. He is very curious to know where this inexplicable meta-physical sense comes from and he just listens and Imdad Khan tells him. Henry Sugar is a greedy and selfish character. When it comes to seeing what the eye cannot see, he immediately thinks of seeing the bottom of the card while playing blackjack. He trains himself for years to cheat and make money, and every day he starts to see without using his eyes more and more quickly. He wins a lot of money and throws it away and an officer warns him. Instead of wasting it on people, donate it to charity, don't be spoilt. He appoints an accountant and from then on he starts to donate all the money he wins from gambling to organizations in need. They know the power. Imdad here wants to tell people that they should open their 3rd eyes and that they cannot see what they should see. Dr Chatterjee, on the other hand, only listens to his 2 eyes because he prefers to touch rather than believe. Henry Sugar, as I said, is a manipulative arsehole. But he believes in this power so much to make money. He wants more, and he improves himself. He starts to see more. He has a clearer vision now. That's because he can see through himself. In both senses. He sees a clot in his heart. He realizes he's going to die. He realizes that he can share what he has not only with himself but with all of humanity. I think this shot below was one of the best indicators in the film. This indicator symbolizes the ability to discover oneself and to see one's inner world rather than a clot in the heart. How one looks at an event is very important. Using not only our right and left eyes but also our invisible eye can change everything.

The Guardians of the Galaxy are Marvel's most colorful productions. In this series, which reflects James Gunn's spirit, we not only witness a visual feast but also enjoy a film series that delights our ears. As always, James Gunn has chosen great songs for this movie. The previous films had music from Peter, who left Earth in 1988. That's why the 70s and 80s music were dominant in the first two films. Star-Lord (Peter Quill), who came to Earth during Infinity War and Endgame, had discovered new music until the 2000s and then returned to space. In this movie, we also listen to great music. It is evident that the songs he chose reflect his longing for Earth and his family. "Creep (Acoustic)" by Radiohead (1993) – In the opening sequence, it is playing during the Knowhere scene. "Crazy on You" by Heart (1975) – It is playing when Adam Warlock flies to Knowhere and attacks Rocket Raccoon. "Since You've Been Gone" by Rainbow (1979) – Rocket is injured and The Guardians of the Galaxy are trying to save him during the scene where the song is playing. This song was also featured in the trailer. "In The Meantime" by Spacehog (1995) – This song is playing during the scene where The Guardians of the Galaxy are trying to infiltrate the Orgoscope. It was also featured in the December 2022 trailer. "Reasons" by Earth, Wind & Fire (1975) – It plays during the scene where Groot is fighting in the Orgoscope. "Do You Realize??" by The Flaming Lips (2002) – We hear this song as The Guardians of the Galaxy travel to the Counter-Earth. "We Care a Lot" by Faith No More (1985) – This song plays when they arrive on Counter-Earth. "Koinu no Carnival (From Minute Waltz)" by Ehamic (2018) – This song plays on the radio of the car that Peter, Nebula, and Groot ride in as they go to the High Evolutionary. "I'm Always Chasing Rainbows" by Alice Cooper (1976) – It plays in the Bowie (the spaceship). Rocket is in a coma, and The Guardians of the Galaxy have gone to the High Evolutionary. "San Francisco" by The Mowgli's (2012) – This song plays when Gamora is flying Bowie. In that scene, Bowie is forced to land and nearly crushes Groot and Peter. "Poor Girl" by X (1983) – This song plays during the gambling scene at Knowhere. "This Is the Day" by The The (1983) – This song plays during the scene where the Guardians of the Galaxy go to rescue Nebula, Mantis, and Drax from High Evolutionary. "No Sleep Till Brooklyn" by Beastie Boys (1986) – This song plays during the battle sequence at High Evolutionary's. "Dog Days Are Over" by Florence + the Machine (2008) – Everyone gathers in the square at Knowhere for one last celebration. Even Drax dances in this scene. "I Will Dare" by The Replacements (1984) – It plays during the Credits. "Come and Get Your Love" by Redbone (1974) – Rocket plays this song in one of his missions. He says he wants to play a song that everyone knows. This song can also be considered as the final word in the script. The second song played in the series is also the second-to-last song of the series. "Badlands" by Bruce Springsteen (1978) – It's the last song. It plays just before the after-credits scene, as a reference to the time when Peter was born.

Although the documentary seems to be based on Friedkin's commentary on the Exorcist film in its introduction, it is about his entire directorial approach, his view on movies, and his personal life inferences. We can say that it is unique for enthusiasts. It's impossible to watch from outside the US. I don't know why the documentary was not opened to the public. First and foremost, the most significant event in the documentary, in my opinion, is a secret revealed for the first time by Friedkin. That is, the film says that the author of the novel will give Friedkin all the proceeds from the film to play the role of Reverend Karras. Of course, Friedkin denies this and casts someone with no acting experience in the film, but the role seems tailor-made for him; after all, "the camera loves him (Miller)" At the beginning of the documentary, Friedkin says that he created the shooting plan for the film based on the novel, not the original script for the Exorcist adaptation, for which Blatty won an Oscar for "Best Adapted Screenplay." He clearly explains why, while writing the book, the initial Iraq scene seemed "unnecessary," even to the editors who included it in the film. Those scenes create a great deal of mystery and tension for the events that will take place in the movie. He talks about how important those scenes are, even though they don't seem to be necessary without big things happening in both northern Iraq and Washington. In fact, those scenes set up what will happen next and prepare the audience. The scene in the iconic poster of the movie is inspired by René Magritte's painting The Empire of Light. We knew that, and of course, he says it again. When the high priest (Max Von Sydow) fails to perform well in the exorcism scenes, Friedkin suggests that because Sydow has worked with Ingmar Bergman for many years, he should invite Bergman to the set and call Bergman. The actor says that the problem has nothing to do with Bergman; he just couldn't get into the role because he doesn't believe in God. It is strange that someone who has even played the role of "Jesus" before would make such a statement. "There I was playing the human Jesus," he says. Friedkin is good too; when you say play like that, the role of Merrin we see in the movie starts to perform. This is an anecdote that sounds ridiculous to me. At the end of the movie, the controversial scene is Father Karras telling the devil to "get inside me" after his fight with Regan and Karras jumping out of the window when the devil leaves the little girl and enters Karras. Friedkin sees this page as a small stain on the white sheet, which he still sees as a problem 50 years later. Because there are things in his mind that are not understood and do not fit. Suicide is a great sin. Friedkin claims that even if Karras sacrifices himself to the little girl and jumps with the devil inside him, knowing he will die eventually, he will not be able to live.So, is the devil taking over Karras and throwing him down? Friedkin asks the author. The author says no. He claims that if he jumped consciously, he committed suicide.In the end, even if his friend, who is truly a father, comes to confession, committing one of the greatest sins can still have the same meaning as the devil's victory... or it can be shown as the reason for regaining his faith by sacrificing such an event while Karras claims to have lost his faith as a director.He says he can't defend the stage. He talks about the meaning of the small moments of the movie, the scenes that seem to repeat each other. For example, Chris sees the nuns walking towards the house. The nuns are in white. They are happy. Chris is happy. We see two children dressed as witches running after the nuns, chasing them. We hear a phrase thrown at Father Karras by a homeless man on the subway, pronounced by Reagan with a demon inside him. Karras isn't quite sure there. Was that what the man on the subway said the other day? Maybe even this small detail is one of the deceptions that we have witnessed that the devil fulfills in the movie. In one scene of the movie, Father Karras is startled by a sudden phone ringing. Friedkin, the phone didn't ring there. "I shot," he says. "It was a method for the director to have this kind of mobbing with the actors in the filmmaking concept at the time," he says. "We saw it that way," he says. After dealing only with the content of this movie, which I have become obsessed with, it never occurred to me to mention its director and writer. I can say that Friedkin does not have a single known film in Turkey other than The Exorcist. Even if "French Connection" did win an Oscar, few people know it's a Friedkin movie. I haven't watched his other movies, and I don't plan to watch them either. Sometimes I think one movie is enough to love the director and learn about his style. And in the documentary, he talks about some of the patterns in all of Friedkin's films, specific to auteur cinema. Finally, my favorite thing about Friedkin is that, even at this age, he talks about movies with a passion. In addition to having definite judgments about the subjects, it is completely unknown why we came, what is happening, and what it is to live, but it is full of life. In the last 10-15 minutes of the documentary, he talks about how valuable it is to have stones that have been found since ancient times during his visit to Japan and Kyoto, the existence of civilization, and the ability to come to these days and engage with them. This causes him to marvel at all kinds of things and derive great pleasure from the little things. Therefore, I listen to all the interviews I come across on the internet. The majority of his interviews spanned nearly 50 years; even what they say in this documentary is the same. It's like a repertoire is always getting new pieces, but the main structure stays the same.

(Spoilers Ahead) It has been a month since I shared my expectations about The Crown Season 5 right here on this site, and boy was I unprepared. It was much more and less than what I was expecting. I expected more historic 90's events but it was more involved with what's happening in the mansions inside. I also expected the same for earlier seasons, but got Royal Family drama again. I don't know why I keep expecting more when the series' name is literally The Crown, which tells the story of the Royal Family. I guess it's because they're able to tell historic events so well and so detailed that I forget it's supposed to be a show of the Royal Family. The episode I loved the most called "Mou Mou" told the story of people outside the Royals and it also got the most votes on IMDB with 8.5 rating. So I guess it's time for me to tell Peter Morgan that we need another historical drama. Definitely a show which takes place somewhere between 60s-00s , I don't have the patience for any type of media that involves World War II. There has been so many. Enough, really. Anyway, I found this season very well-made, well-written, and well-shot in The Crown fashion, just like earlier seasons. You can tell it's the same series despite the whole cast being new. Some episodes stood out more, like "Mou Mou", "Couple 31"and "Annus Horribilis". The only thing I didn't like was probably the slow start with the Royal Yacht that I'm sure nobody gives two shits about, and the gruesome and terrifying scene at the start of "Ipatiev House". The whole episode was dark and unsettling, I was a fan of the work put in, but not in the story. The ugly truth of war, ego and politics... Russian politicians though. Yeltsin cracked me up when he talked behind the queen NEXT TO the queen. I loved the way they opened season 5, the scene where the queen has an appointment with the doctor. Such a simple way to tell "we switched the cast! and now they're older!" It also describes the monarchy. It's like the monarchy is getting old & having health problems as the queen does. The other queens and kings probably did not face such drastic social change in their reigning years. Elizabeth has seen it all, War, Communism, Liberalism, Globalization,Technology etc. She has been a queen since the 1950s. I think It's pretty normal to fall behind after some time, and one of the main arguments of this season was this. How can you "lead" multiple countries with an old mindset in a changing world? We understand that better in the last episode. Britannia the royal yacht gets decommissioned, Queen-lover John Major leaves his place for Tony Blair and Hong Kong finally sets free from British colonialism. ( I love the shots of the Hong Kong scene though, I would like to add that.) The queen is seen worrying about her precious yacht while there are people living in poverty outside her mansion. This might have made sense in 1800s but it's the 1990s. We're talking about sovereign countries and human rights. We're also supposed to believe Charles is this modern royal who believes in"New Britain". I guess he sees himself as "modern" because he defied the church & monarchy with the affair, divorce and Camillagate (the dirty phone call) Charles, to begin with, you wouldn't even have half the fortune and privilege you have and we wouldn't be asking your opinion with "New Britain". Enough me being over with the monarchy, but still I'm glad the show is questioning the place of monarchy in modern times. Even seeing a bit of 90's TV channels were a pleasure, when William was switching channels, until he went back to boring BBC upon his grandma's request. I didn't mind the episode with Prince Philip and the close family friend finding themselves a new hobby. I felt like I was not watching a member of the Royal family, just a woman who was grieving and an old dude enjoying life. Which also made me extra happy, since you won't see those people having fun in the slightest, one should be grieving and one should act old (whatever that means in this society) So, yes, I enjoyed it. I'm not sure about the Prince Charles episode where he had this interview to save his reputation and apparently established a foundation which supported diversity? And we're supposed to feel sorry because his dirty calls with Camilla went public. Nope, I won't buy it because Dominic West is handsome as hell. (Charles is nowhere near as charismatic as he is! I see what you're trying to do show runners. You tested me once with Josh, and you're still testing me) I know for a fact that no one is all white or all black. He might be a good person in real life (I mean I don't know him in real life, I haven't lived/know that much to judge) but it's a fact that he's not in the best royal members club. The episode did not have to put his charity work at the end, after his scandal went public. What was the point if it's not to make us sympathize with him? I don't know, I'm very confused about Charles, is he the victim or the villain? Maybe even both. The show is not helping me decide either. One thing is for sure that something about him and Camilla sounds and looks wrong? Maybe love is like that, defying the odds and falling in love with the wrong person. I also don't know that, this was supposed to be about me reviewing The Crown. Yes, I found the last bit of the episode lame, where he gives a speech about being different? That audience will never be as privileged as you are Charles (or in that case the character Charles, since I don't know if it was his exact words) , and you're different because of your choices. I have always loved the video where he tries to breakdance though, so maybe you're forgiven The Crown. Some highlights in the season could be the whole storyline with Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend reuniting. I saw that coming, but the way it was told was beautiful. Margaret getting excited like she was 16, her snapping at her sister at last, and the old couple having one last dance... The flashbacks also made it better, I forgot that they were that madly in love. I just love Margaret to be honest. Any scene with her is going to be a delight, I'm pretty sure. As for Diana, anything with her in it, I was hooked to the screen. I don't know why, but I just want to know any possible thing about her life. Not in a creepy way though, as in admiring and trying to understand. How was she mistreated and how did she cope with it, did she deserve the treatment she got? Those are the questions I previously asked myself. I also did not live in the same time span as she did, so I'm always curious to know more. I loved her interview scene, her relationship with Hasnat and Mohamed, just her in general. Give me 20 hours of Diana, and I would still watch that. Something about her just feels very sweet, organic and charismatic. What do I think about Elizabeth Debicki though? She had Diana's mannerisms, the look with her doe-y eyes, voice that alters towards the end of the sentence etc. But I also wanted to see her being "People's Princess", getting her energy from them and her showing kindness & empathy in return. Seeing her alone and suffering was quite depressing. People using her and her just wanting to be loved... Her treating everyone equally, like Hasnat, just a regular doctor guy when she is a world-renowned, rich PRINCESS. You might say, what about it? Trust me, if you were a princess, you wouldn't be at that hospital anyway. And the scene where she almost crashes the car? Too soon, dear show runners, too soon. I see your foreshadowing and I don't like it. I loved the Couple 31 episode, just everything about it. I'm a psychologist who took couples counseling classes, so seeing other couples describe their marriage and breaking point was extra interesting for me. The 15 minute conversation between Charles and Diana? It was CHEF'S KISS. Well, to me, at least. I could have watched an hour of that. The fact that they were talking about their real feelings and struggles after their divorce tells me so much about how much they had this pressure to stay married. I also saw that Diana truly loved Charles, which is very obvious in the way who is trying to save the marriage and who is ruining it. Diana's stance in every scene she's in, I'm behind my tv yelling "Exactly, make them suffer, you deserve it". Like the scene with her voting against the monarchy, doing the scandalous interview, telling literally everything to the guy who came to collect info for his book. Her just going to the queen"Hey, So I made this interview, I talked against you guys, K. Bye." What didn't sit right with me was William's behavior towards his mom. I always saw Diana and her sons as this inseparable loving trio. The boys were always smiling and having fun next to her, and she took them to unusual places, so that they could have fun. These were in the pictures and videos though. It's the media, I don't/can't know the truth. But you can't fake such a bond like mother-child to look good to the media. I really don't know where Peter Morgan got his source from, but i hope it's not true. He even preferred his grandma? Very weird. Harry is also nowhere to be seen. What is he doing while William's at school? The house seemed empty so I guess they forgot to add him? Poor Harry. Let's talk about Mou Mou now. The pacing and character development was brilliant. The fact that we are finally witnessing an actual Arab playing an Arab is extra important. Since I'm familiar with their culture more, I was able to sympathize right from the first minute and was curious about how they reached their success. We have been watching people who were born into privilege, wealth and royalty most episodes in The Crown, so episodes like this are just like a breath of fresh air. Mohamed's character is very interesting; he is ambitious but in an obsessed kind of way. Dodi is also very interesting, you wouldn't think the son of a rich guy would want to become an ambitious filmmaker. The whole episode them trying to fit in to the English culture is interesting and pathetic, on Mohamed's side. His obsession is very weird and unnecessary. You can't take the culture in you that easily when you were born & raised in a somewhere else and you shouldn't need to. Anyway, I'm glad that they were able to make it in the U.K., that really is a success story and an example that cultures do not matter when you're good at what you do. The reaction Mohamed gives when Dodi says he wants to make movies though, that my friends, was so close to home, the ungrateful "My son wants to make "useless" art when I want him to become a businessman or work in a socially acceptable job". The storyline with Sydney, I loved it. Again, someone outside the Royal Family, being more interesting than them in like 20 minutes of screen time. And finally, the end of the episode, shows two of the outcasts meeting and bonding, Mohamed and Diana. The father and son duo returns in the last episode, to my surprise and joy. Like I said, they make things more interesting and flow-y. The episodes go faster when they're around, when The Crown is supposed to be a dialogue based historical drama. I was surprised when I found out Dodi had a girlfriend though (they even got engaged!!), because I thought Diana and him would have met by now. It was getting closer to the tragic event and I wondered how they did not even meet. So I looked it up on the internet and apparently, Dodi may have called off his engagement for Diana? And when they passed away together on that car accident, they have been going out for 2-3 months. This means that we are very very close to Diana's death, I wouldn't be surprised if she doesn't make it for the most of the episodes next season. Looking that up and knowing that Diana's packing up & getting ready for her own death, made me quite emotional I'm not going to lie. Thank you Hans Zimmer and Martin Phipps though. When I'm feeling something, 80% of the times the score is pretty damn good. Now, to sum up, (yes I've talked a lot) I liked this season as much as I did the other seasons. Seasons 3 and 4 was a tiny bit better for me, but it may be because of the excitement of getting to meet grown up Charles and Diana respectively. Now that we know them, their awful marriage and the story, it might have been a little less exciting. It goes downhill as the years pass by anyway. Another criticism I had was that the show focused too much on Charles and Diana's marriage or them as individuals. I think more than half was about them. Not that I'm complaining but what about the queen herself? I feel like she wasn't that present as much as she was in the previous seasons. It's pretty ironic when she and Philip show up to a party, they dance for like 30 minutes then go straight to their beds. The party seemed to start right when they left, and this was exactly how the season went. The real drama (party) happened when they weren't involved at all. Elizabeth was just a little jealous, that's all. It had been decades since the two got married and it was obvious they had different lifestyles. You should've understood that by now, Elizabeth. Kudos to them for staying married that long with that many differences though. Plus, I wanted to see the drama between Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson. Divorces and marriages of the queen's other children were not prominent. Well, the children were not prominent either. I guess there wasn't any material to cover up, but they could have prevented this with making less seasons and earning less. Since we know that isn't going to happen, it's good to enjoy the ride. They make more seasons, and I get to enjoy it longer. Somebody just make me stop now, I can talk about this show forever. Su Evci nsuevci@gmail.com