For those in doubt - this movie isnt worth seeing

im urkish and believe me(offcourse figuratively) someone can just beat you for not liking this movie and i am so much annoyed. this movie is just around 4.5. and dont even try for movies named yumurta süt any food name, they are just directors masturbating.(again figuratively). and that guy zeki demir"kabiz" he wont worth for knowing his name. fatih akin(director) is turkish-german and he rocks! try his movies.

Yes, you should stop watch movies and go back to see the scbooy doo

--->The Movie Boss<---

I agree with you completely. It's not a very good film at all. Another one of those movies with a suspiciously high rating yet, curiously, very few external critics reviews.

You mentioned the shooting scenes. Near the end Baran enters a warehouse or something and shoots about 8 people dead. Each of the (armed) victims waits until Baran has the gun on him before they attempt to pull out their own gun. Neither the sound of the gunshots or the sight of their buddies being blown away prompted them to pull their own weapons out sooner. Stupid. It's enough to put Chuck Norris and Stallone to shame.

Yup, spot on. The only reason I even watched this film is because a Turkish friend recommended it to me, even though I suspected it wouldn't be any good. Because, much like all the terrible, modern Bollywood films with very high ratings here, the reason for this film's high rating is the lack of wide release outside of Turkey, so of course the majority of the voters are Turkish. Now, clearly there's nothing wrong with Turks liking a Turkish film but it's a bit annoying for outsiders to be fooled into thinking they are about to watch some masterpiece.

On another thread on this board some Turkish guy noted how top 1000 voters gave this film a very low rating and scolded them for it. But top 1000 voters are major film buffs and cinephiles with much greater knowledge of cinema than the average person. And they are right; Eskiya is a slow, horribly written, badly filmed and directed film. Dozens of scenes that have nothing to do with the main story go on forever. And the camera work is laughably bad, just check out all the close-ups, the framing is so bad.
My rating: 2/10. I had to fast forward through the 2nd hour of the movie, so as not to turn it off completely. Also, please take no heed of the two threads on this board comparing this turd to great films like Leon and Oldboy. It's just another poor and tasteless attempt to tempt foreigners into watching it.
Same thing happened to me with another cheesy, melo-dramatic Turkish film called Babam ve Oglum, which has an 8.6!

Anyway, for people considering whether to watch this or not; please don't. If you want to watch a really great Turkish film I suggest Once Upon a Time in Anatolia. Which is the Turkish equivalent of Zodiac. The acting, directing and especially the cinematography is top notch.

'88

I'm going to have to disagree. I've seen a lot of films and studied film in university, and I have to say this movie was quite good.

I cinematography was pretty good, with a lot of unique and interesting panning and tracking shots. The editing was good with each scene moving well to the next.

I'm not sure what the original poster is talking about by saying that the story was "incoherent and untrustworthy." There were no superfluous scenes, every line of dialogue and every action had a reason. The story was complex without being confusing. The story was interesting. I must conclude that the original poster simply didn't understand the story, which is understandable if the original poster doesn't speak Turkish and was watching it dubbed or subtitled and had trouble following along.

The acting seemed pretty good to me. I believed the characters' emotions and motivations. I think the reason some people said that the acting was bad is maybe because some things don't translate well between Turkish language, society and culture because they are not their own. I've encountered this problem in the past with foreign language films, like how everyone is so rude to each other in American film even though people would never be that rude to strangers in my culture.

I think the original poster didn't understand a lot of what the film was doing and thus misunderstood a lot of what was going on. For example, there is a definite magic realism element to this story, so we should accept that even though this film is realistic, a certain amount of unrealistic, or even magical elements will happen in this film. The Bandit survived after getting shot like 50 times because he is strong and possesses a powerful will that allowed him to survive 35 years in prison and being shot previously. In the same vein did the original poster hate "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" because Michelle Yeoh flew away in the end? Did the original author hate "The Man Who Stole the Sun" because the police inspector survived getting shot and strangled? Did the original poster hate Grigori Rasputin because he was poisoned then shot several times before he died?

The gunshot scenes were terrific, and it is especially noticeable that real pyrotechnics were used in making these scenes after the huge number of CGI blood spurts and bullet strikes I've seen in the past few years.

Anyway, don't listen to the original poster, this film was great.

hey man you didnt understand the mean of this film.this is not an action movie.this is a drama and when you watch dont see much of holywood scenes.just simple and emotional.i think you shouldnt see any turkish film beacuse dont understand the meanings..

First of all; as you notice it's an old, low budget movie. Expecting the same performance with another high budget modern movies is unfair i think. Also it's an action movie, not a just storytelling low budget art movie.

As i realized you focused on the how visual effects or shooting badly is. I agree you with that, but acting... That's you're wrong. Best things about the movie were acting and story.

You complanied that killing scenes are not realistic. But i want you to think about Psycho. Was that killing scene realistic? No. Or jaws. No. Could you say that in Dark Knight Rises, police vs anarchist fight scene all the shooting from anarhist side aimed to the ground and all the first line of police officers are(nearly) alive. No you cant say that.Or Batman vs Bane first fight scene; when batman falls even Bane didn't hit him!. No. Because it's *beep* Dark Knight isnt it?

As you see, even in the billion budget milennium movies there can be mistakes. İt's acceptable. I can give you thousands examples more.

You have a right to dislike the movie. I can totally understand that. But watching Seven Samurai and lovin' it but criticizing this movie and evaluate as " bad " just because of the lackness of the quality and effects is hypocrisy.

And if you change your way of criticizing movies, you can shake of the hollywood domination.

Not giving the desereved value of the low budget independent movies because of the wrong factors, then complaining about how hollywood is mainstream is completely hypocrisy and ignorance.

I agree. Very disappointing for a movie with such a high rating. 4/10 from me.

(Edit: Nearly 14000 people have rated this 10/10, which is astonishing.)