If you can close your eyes to this kind of inconsistencies, then film is very, very enjoyable. Cast is very fluid and dynamic. I really enjoyed Gemma Chan and her melancholic/grounded portrayal of Sersi. Both Stark brothers Richard Madden and Kit Harrington fit really well. Selma Hayek played matriarchal role perfectly. Even usually obnoxious Kumail Nanjiani was fun to watch.

But the best part was Angelina Jolie, or rather very limited use of her. This reminded me of her similar role in “Wanted”, where she played character who had very little to say and instead perform with her actions. This, in my opinion, proves that she must stick to supporting roles and not main ones.

Director Chloe Zhao gave film a lot of exposition and dialogues, which is surprising for an MCU film. This mostly comes from her background of indie filmmaker. These scenes are heartfelt and well made. She tried to balance it out with action sequences (she said they were inspired by Revenant – spoiler alert – not even close). Unfortunately, those were not well paced, choreographed and edited.

Regarding writing, as with any MCU film, there is an incredible amount of plotholes (not going to dive into for spoilers, but hit me up if you have seen the film and we can talk about it). I also didn’t like attempt at “inclusiveness”, which in my opinion, was just a gimmick. Oh look, we have first hearing impaired character, LGBTQ+ character, Pakistani, Indian, Koren, Chinese actors. Ok. Good for you. Now how that serves the story?

The post Eternals appeared first on Kino-AZ.

I enjoyed every second of this film and I am right. It bears such a semblance of what I had in mind while reading the book. I mean HOW can you show desert and make it look sexy? Ask Villeneuve, he will tell you. Sands of Arrakis are spicy. Witches of Bene Gesserit are psychedelic. Baron is mental. Paul is accessible and reliable. And sandworms are, well, digging.

My companion didn’t like the movie. She said it was too simple. “Made for teenagers” is exact quote. And she is also right. In essence, the story that Part 1 tells is only a mere setup for the events that will follow. And to be honest, the whole first book of Dune series is a mere setup and is in my opinion one of the weakest in the series.

So, to really enjoy DUNE, you must read DUNE. Otherwise, it will be another big budget epic star opera filmed in a very peculiar manner.

The post Dune appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Good things first – Delroy Lindo finally gets to step out from playing supporting hard-ass generals, hard-ass detectives and hard-ass mob bosses to finally shine as a lead man. It is a shame that this actor could have been no less famous than Samuel L. Jackson or Denzel Washington had he been given a proper role earlier in his career. His Oscar-worthy performance was truly captivating and it’s what kept me watching this film.

Apart from Lindo, I really enjoyed Chadwick Boseman’s performance. Weird, because he spends a total of less than five minutes on screen, he managed to deliver every aspect that his character was described to have and then some. 

Spike Lee, though, dropped the ball. I was extremely confused not only with pacing, but the overall direction of DA 5 BLOODS. It starts as a buddy road trip into memory lane, then gets infused with nostalgia and family matters, then jumps into mindless action and ends with a cliche finale. It’s like Lee took someone’s screenplay and rewrote it to fit his vision. Wait a sec, Wiki says that’s exactly what he did. So, instead of having his usual structured film (e.g. BLACKKKLANSMAN) we get a mix of 3 other films.

And then we have plot twists that you can see from a mile off. Cliche dialogues and illogical decisions. Plot conveniences and plot holes. Overused aspect ratio changes. Old actors playing younger versions of themselves. Oversimplification of politics and war. And all this drags for 2.5 hours. At least music is nice, gotta give it to Lee for keeping that consistent.

The post Da 5 Bloods appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Screenplay is a pure ridiculousness and mishmash of random things. Our hero is an antenna repair guy who suddenly learns that his astronaut father might be alive stuck in the orbit of Neptune after losing contact for 16 years. And he might be responsible for recent power surges that threaten our Solar system. And he might be insane and trying to destroy humanity. Because, that is the most logical explanation of things, how can it be anything else?

So, overnight our hero turns into some John Wick of astronauts, single handedly landing rockets, piloting spaceships into dark vastness of space, performing orbital changes and whatnot. Oh, and also racing with lunar pirates, fighting off space monkeys (literally) and dealing with conspiracy to keep him away from flying to Neptune. And all that for our hero to overcome daddy issues.

Because, why not?

And then everything aesthetic – cinematography, music, visuals, psychology – falls apart. Acting is limited to Brad Pitt talking to the computer trying to keep himself calm and sane. Supporting actors drop in and out without any point but just to say 2 words and move along. In terms, it is even worse than cameos in 1917. 

AD ASTRA tried so much to be APOCALYPSE NOW in space but failed miserably. Instead, it is undeniably one of the most uncool space films I have ever seen, and, believe me, there are a lot of those. 

The post Ad Astra appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Seriously tho, 1917 is an OVERWHELMING achievement in cinema. If you can cast aside gimmicky one-take camera, you will be able to see one of the best and most intricate cinematography by genius Roger Deakins (who MUST get an Oscar for this). He utilizes colors, blocking and framing in a way that no one does. Secondly, big credit to production design, as the WWI sets look not only realistic, they look haunting, daunting and outright claustrophobic. 

An out-of-this-world soundtrack by Thomas Newman plays a great role in intense build-ups. There were several scenes that had me on the edge of the seat as not a lot of films do these days, due to incredible usage of music. Especially (no spoilers) night sequence is one of the best audio/visual sequences I have seen maybe in the whole decade.

What I didn’t like at all was the choice of one-take style. While it worked great in BIRDMAN, it gets tiring in 1917 really fast. Yes, it looks amazing during action sequences, but pacing drops to a halt when nothing happens on screen and because Mendes would not make a cut we have to literally walk with heroes in almost real-time – listen to their BS talk, watch them drink water or wash eyes or whatnot.

Screenplay troubles are even worse, because stripped of all glory of visuals film is about delivering a message from point A to B. There is miniscule character development, all actors do is react to whatever is happening at that moment. There is a huge supporting cast of familiar faces reduced to just 4-sentence cameos. 

1917 is full of war cliches you have seen a thousand times in a thousand other war films (some even ripped directly from SAVING PRIVATE RYAN), BS talks about the insanity, ridiculousness, wastefulness of war, copious amount of blood/amputee/cadaver money shots, and, sure, why not add another child into this to incite horror.

In the end 1917 turns into a spectacle of order of AVENGERS: ENDGAME, with all visuals and not enough substance.

The post 1917 appeared first on Kino-AZ.

But, not to digress, I was looking forward to seeing how J.J. Abrams would tie up and end this trilogy. After all, trailer did look nice and interesting. But, how wrong I was. It feels like instead of having a certain plot line in mind for the whole trilogy Abrams and Co. made up plot as they went along. Thus, characters so meticulously created and explored in previous films are either proved to be completely pointless (Poe, Finn, BB-8) or totally abandoned and shamelessly ignored (Rose). 

Instead we have scenes with Princess Leia (isn’t she supposed to be Queen by now?) that have been SO OBVIOUSLY stitched from existing footage of Carrie Fisher for previous films, answering in templates. And certain appearances of certain dead characters just to deepen the nostalgia that never comes. And, yes, C-3PO who can’t shut the f%$& up for a second. 

Regardless, “RISE OF SKYWALKER” is a spectacle of film when it comes to action. Lightsaber fights are extremely fun to watch and final space sequence also felt great to watch. However, the film is so jam-packed with these sequences that adding numerous nostalgia porn leads to extreme pacing issues. Abrams doesn’t even try to help the film here, throwing characters from one locale to another, sending them on a ridiculous quest that (surprise!) shouldn’t have been a quest to begin with. 

Overall, I did know that I would not receive  “RISE OF SKYWALKER” well, but I didn’t know it would disappoint me so much. And I am not even a Star Wars fan.

The post Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Film tells the fictional origin story of one Santa Claus, but in reality it’s a story of “good deeds incite good deeds”. And, man, how it does it! There are no Disney dead-parent story, no tree hugging dances and annoying songs, no propaganda and no message being shoved down throats. And consequently no toy sales, sequels, musicals or live-action remakes. 

What we have is a HAND-DRAWN spectacle of a film that relies purely on the story, character development, retribution, redemption and morality. It is funny yet exciting with certain drama, entertaining both for little kids (I watched, of course, with my little ones) and adults, with equal share of emotional context and catharsis. Ending was a pure joy to watch and I will admit it very much affected me.

From a technical standpoint, director Sergio Pablos uses all his experience working on Disney’s TARZAN and HERCULES and developing DESPICABLE ME to create amazing visual look. Combining hand-drawn animation with CGI volumetric lighting, he blends the distinction between two completely different techniques, taking the best of each. He complements all these with great pacing and editing. Voice cast also shines with likes of Jason Schwartzman, J.K. Simmons and Rashida Jones. 

For what it’s worth, I really hope KLAUS gets an Oscar nomination and (fingers crossed) beats FROZEN 2 while at it.

The post Klaus appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Why film worked for me was not that this was considered a comeback role for Eddie Murphy. And not even because it has an incredible supporting cast (Wesley Snipes, Keegan-Michael Key, Mike Epps, Craig Robinson, Tituss Burgess, Bob Odenkirk, Chris Rock, even Snoop Dogg being utterly hilarious). And definitely not because of feel-good screenplay. No, what struck me the most was the heart Murphy specifically and everyone else has poured into making this film.

And this heart is visible from the first scene all the way till the end. It is obvious how much respect and reverence they have for Rudy Ray Moore and his antics, that even film starts diving into some kind of quasi-parody style there is still some brains left on the table. We know Murphy is a great actor, but he really enjoys clowning (much like the rest of the cast), but in DOLEMITE IS MY NAME, even when they are clowning all the way it is done with class and appreciation. So much that even me, a person who has never ever heard of Moore or Dolemite was immediately drawn into the story and ended up reading about him and watching some of his performances.

The post Dolemite Is My Name appeared first on Kino-AZ.

What I enjoyed the most was casting and acting. Literally the whole cast has been stellar. Timothee Chalamet, usually reserved for moppy emo stereotypes is finally given a chance to shine. He does that perfectly, bringing boyishness and naivete and, at the same time, solemnity and determination that the role of Henry V required. Joel Edgerton, who has also been always cast as boorish macho is surprisingly cast in a mentor/friend/confidant role and, man, I was surprised how this role befits him. From the supporting cast Sean Harris delivered near perfect performance as Henry’s advisor, and Robert Pattinson (just like in THE LIGHTHOUSE) managed to surprise me with his take on French Dauphin.

I also would like to mention the stylistic approach with casting. We are used to kings looking like kings – grown up, macho, muscular and noble. Chalamet’s Henry V is none, which, if you actually think about, is exactly how it was in real life. By taking this realistic approach THE KING looks more authentic than any other historical dramas.

Writing is also commendable, as screenwriters are armed with history textbooks as source material and Shakespeare as a cheat sheet. You should be really bad to screw this up. 

What disappointed me was the pacing. I understand the choice of slow exposition and plot progression to show the inner struggles and insecurities of Henry, but sometimes director David Michod sets the pace down to a crawl. And it is a shame because there are a lot of energetic scenes, filmed and edited beautifully. There is one scene very much resembling BATTLE OF BASTARDS from GAME OF THRONES, this is how great it was filmed. And, yet, the slow moments are so slow that you will be checking your watch.

The post The King appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Film’s also not trying to be snobbishly smart or for elites. Even if there’s a message, this film is not a puzzle and shall not be dissected into an array of “explanation videos” on YouTube. I assure it’s a waste of time to watch any because none of the commentators know the answers. There can be no big answers when there are just too few questions. Events seem to happen because they happen. And just like some master art pieces this film needs to be admired and not questioned.

And there is a lot to admire. Firstly, this is one of the best cinematography I have seen in recent years. Robert Eggers uses blank and white just like masters of cinema of the early 20th century. Shadow play and highlights, camera setup, contrasts, even the hue of the black color truly reflect Kurosawa’s and Hitchcock’s works. This isn’t an amateur shooting in color and then grading the film.

Acting is superb. I can’t single out Willem Defoe or Robert Pattinson, because it is a duality of their performances that is phenomenal. It will be just a sin to award one and omit the other.

Atmosphere and build-up is tremendous. Eggers chose to shoot it like a true horror film instead of thriller. And unlike the other A24 horror creation THE HEREDITARY this time it works really well. In the spectrum of WTF-ery and dread this film lines up with David Lynch’s THE LOST HIGHWAY. But here lies some problems. As with most Lynch’s works film has some pacing issues. In THE LIGHTHOUSE tho they at times turn too vivid to ignore. Eggers is not Lynch, after all. Not yet.

The post The Lighthouse appeared first on Kino-AZ.