It starts off nicely tho. Film is presented in a lively manner, interjecting narrative with explanations a-la manual on what are shell accounts, fake corporations and how rich people can avoid legally paying taxes. I was really intrigued by this. We dive into a story of a widow who tries to unravel the mystery behind non-payment of her dead husband’s insurance claim which takes her into a firm in Panama. Then suddenly plot shifts to China, with new characters coming and new story taking over the main plot. Then we go off somewhere else (I honestly can’t remember where) and new story pops out that has nothing to do with the previous two stories. And then suddenly it all finishes with a weird lecture on how USA has allowed this tax shelters to exist blah blah.

I was quite surprised that Soderbergh did take this project and for the first part “The Laundromat” it actually works well. There is a HUGE cast, with big names (do me a favor and look it up, it’s just a very long list of wasted talent) who keep appearing and disappearing almost instantaneously and suddenly I felt myself to be in the middle of sinking boat that doesn’t even know it is sinking. It was a very weird feeling, I’ll be totally honest. 

I am not sure of artistic license behind the project. Maybe it did sound better on paper than making it into a regular documentary. Whatever was the reason, “The Laundromat” really disappoints with weird choices of Soderbergh. I consider him as one of the great visionaries of modern cinema, but this movie just sucks.

The post The Laundromat appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Yet, when I heard that Vince Gilligan was making a sequel about Jesse Pinkman’s fate, I was thrilled, to say the least. Not because I cared about Jesse, but because Gilligan is one of my top 3 most favourite directors. Actually, top 2. Well, since Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s failure with “Wild Pear Tree”, Mr.Gilligan is my most favourite director. A kind that you’d queue up for hours and blindly throw your money at.

Now, the 2 hours of El Camino is over and I am not as enthusiastic as before.

El Camino is a finely directed and produced movie. It is thoroughly well-written, too. Murad argues that it does not contribute to the overall story line, but maybe it was never about the story line. I could easily write a dozen of very decent quotes from El Camino. People from all walks of life could talk about Jesse’s situation and decisions for hours. And that is the art that Gilligan delivers, which he usually magnificently weaves into a superb story line. So, no matter how perfect, the story line has always been secondary. Therefore, it could very well be that Gilligan didn’t seek to contribute to the overall story with El Camino, hence why he failed in that department (read Murad’s opinion on why and how he failed).

But this failure was not what made me uncomfortable watching Jesse driving off in Alaska and the credits rolling.

Let me go back to saying that Vince Gilligan is my favourite director and I adore his work like no one else’s. Every time I say this, tho, I pause for a second and think about Hancock.

Until now, that feature was his only mediocre work in the past two decades. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, as he was not the one who wrote the original script, it was his first feature, etc. But El Camino completed “the Gilligan puzzle” for me.

Vince Gilligan has a peculiar story-telling technique. He sets up the scene carefully and sweats every detail, gives us insight into the characters’ emotional situation, provides the necessary background (isn’t he big on flashbacks), and then triggers the action. No wonder that action ends up making perfect sense and leaving a lasting impact. And apart from being a genius writer and a skillful director, he needs one essential ingredient to achieve these – time. Which he usually has plenty of. Take Better Call Saul – four seasons in, and it is only just stepping into what the story is really about. Long story short, it is Gilligan’s signature to roll a slow introduction into the action.

He does not have that luxury in a feature film.

If you tried to elevator-pitch Breaking Bad, it would have sounded mediocre at best. Unlike Inception, Slumdog Millionaire, Catch Me If You Can, et. al. Yet, Breaking Bad is a masterpiece that made a bold mark in the history of cinematography. This paradox is rooted in the fact that its storyline is secondary. Thinking of El Camino, that is the one phrase that comes to my mind – an elevator pitch of upcoming series.

Murad said that El Camino felt like three movies squashed into one. I claim that each one of those three could be made into a season, especially considering Gilligan’s narration techniques. That’s exactly what I watched in those 2 hours of Netflixing – an abridged supercut of 3 seasons of a brilliant series that will never exist.

Going back to “the Gilligan puzzle” – the missing piece is his elevator-pitching skills.

Now that Jesse Pinkman sorted his vacuum cleaner, are we back to Saul Goodman’s path to his Hoover MaxExtract 60? I certainly hope so, and I want to see my favourite director back at doing what he does the best.

The post A <s>Breaking</s> Bad Movie appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Show is very well done. It is obvious that Amazon has not kept the budgets tight and production thus is very impressive. Acting and writing is very good. I really enjoyed how much show spends time developing minor characters and giving everyone a certain evolution arcs (kinda reminded of another show that did that for 7 seasons and then managed to magnificently screw it all up in 8th). Thus just like in Watchmen, there are not good or bad guys, there are light gray or dark gray guys (whole 50 shades of… damn, nevermind).

Show is not without faults, as usual with streaming shows pacing slumps in the middle, but then explosively picks up. I also didn’t like the ending much. It seemed more like an end of episode and not a certain full stop of season finale.

And if you are not convinced that this show is awesome – I watched all episodes over a weekend, with last 6 of them in one single day. Last time I binge-watched a show like this was first season of Stranger Things.

4.7/5.0

The post The Boys appeared first on Kino-AZ.

But aside from nostalgic points, film doesn’t bring that much to the table. Let’s start with that it would be impossible for anyone who hasn’t seen the show to even understand what is going on. Film doesn’t even try to establish known characters, and why would it? In the end, “El Camino” is essentially, just a 3-episode miniseries edited into one single film. Yes, the storyline is engaging and exciting, but I didn’t see anything grandiose akin to explosive “Breaking Bad” plot progressions or even close to what my expectations were. Weirdly enough it feels like film embraces this whole motion of serenity. Then again, maybe, just to quote one character “quiet is all that you (Jesse) needs right now”.

The post El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Casting is just AMAZING! You could just lay back and enjoy EVERY SINGLE PERSON on screen go crazy doing what they do best. DiCaprio blew my mind with everything he put in his character. Pitt still got all his magic and then some. Robbie shines encompassing wild and carefree, yet very accessible Tate. I literally could write a whole post about each of them and the rest of the stellar cast this film has.

My only complaint is with portrayal of Manson Family. Tarantino, known for giving his characters in-depth backstories, gives them almost nothing. We are to know that they are bad. Why? Even in “Inglourious Basterds” Tarantino shows Nazis do horrible stuff. Atrocities of slavers in “Django Unchained” are painted vividly. These are the characters far better known to everyone to be bad already, yet he still spends time to establish them as villains. Same doesn’t apply for Manson Family in “Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood”. He shows them as a bunch of hippy, dumpster-diving, free-spirited girls who might have some weird tendencies. I mean I do know they are bad people and the whole ordeal, but only because I googled where Marilyn Manson took his stage name. Because of that for me the ending seemed to be a little off.

Overall, I REALLY enjoyed this film and would urge you to watch it, if only for MIND-BLOWING acting. And shirtless Brad Pitt.

The post Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

John Wick has one hour before his “excommunicado” verdict kicks in. In exactly 60 minutes the bounty on his head will attract every single member of crime family and will make him a living target. Wick knows how difficult his task to survive has become. So, he rushes across town to his old “friends” hoping they will fulfill their duties and provide him safe passage overseas. But his path is riddled with people who want to collect bounty and so Wick has to do the thing he is best at – hunt. Meanwhile, two people who helped him in Chapter 2 – Winston and Bowery King meet a mysterious figure The Adjudicator. She informs them that since they have helped John Wick they have seven days to vacate their posts or face the wrath of High Table.

Writing

On one side, there is very easy task for screenwriters of “John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum”. Just put the character of Keanu Reeves into a corner where he has to fight his way out. Then repeat that over and over until “The End”. Nothing fancy, right? Wrong. In the best tradition of previous films, “John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum” doesn’t take an easy route. Yes, essentially Keanu does fight his way out of corners through the film, but setup for each skirmish is different. Interwoven with intricate details on previously established glamorous world of underbelly of society, film takes it one step further. We find out (if only briefly) the history of John Wick, who he was and who he became. What exactly drives him and why he actually wants to stay alive, despite losing everything and being on edge of mental and physical breakdown.

We are introduced with new locales and new supporting cast. He travels across the sea to find the only person who owes him and would be ready to face consequences of helping him. In this kind of film, new characters usually go in and out, because the main star is John Wick. They do the same in “John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum”, but how they go out is completely different story. And every single supporting character has a backstory, motivation, story arc and a appropriate exit. Yes, we are here to watch Keanu kick ass, but also why not see others do the same?

Where screenwriters specifically excel is in having a coherent story that takes John Wick from point A to point B, while maintaining the overall logic and not drowning in the absurdity of what is happening. I mean how else can you explain that I can ignore the fact that according to film there is apparently more assassins on the streets of New York than tourists? Or that John Wick is able to ride a bike, while fighting with horde of other bikers. Or that he can sustain multiple deadly injuries without collapsing into agony. This all happens because film manages to put us into such a deep trance of storytelling that we are ready to forget and forgive all this glaring details and just enjoy the action instead.

Directing

And action we have! Chad Stahelski returns as a director, but again this time without David Leitch. Stahelski has John Wick fight anything the he can lay his hands on. Everything is deadly in his hands – guns, knives, swords, axes, bike helmets, even horses and dogs. You might think you have seen it all, but Stahelski still manages to surprise us with more elaborate choreography, crazier opponents and wilder kills. And he does that all while maintaining the intricate plot and keeping viewer totally invested into the film. And while “John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum” is not as emotionally heavy as previous films, it instead embraces the fun aspect of it.

It is fun maybe because of multiple homages to different movies that “John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum” provides. In one scene, John assembles a revolver, just like Tuco in Sergio Leone’s “The Good, the Bad and The Ugly”. In other sequence, John has to fight with swords and background music is extremely similar to Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill”. How about the scene where John has to fight an assassin played by NBA player Boban Marjanovic? Isn’t that direct reference to famous Bruce Lee fight with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? By using all this small details, Stahelski basically assembles a very solid action film.

Acting

That Keanu Reeves was born for this role leaves absolutely no doubt. If someone didn’t believe that in previous films, in “John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum” that is beyond obvious. He is a very talented actor that has shined in hundreds other roles, but in John Wick he finds his true self. With Nicolas Cage-like dedication he delivers such out-of-this-world performance, that for a long amount of time you just continue seeing him exactly as John Wick and not as an actor who plays the role.

Supporting cast includes already established characters played by Ian McShane, Lance Reddick and Laurence Fishburne. I did enjoy new additions, even though Halle Berry was surely included only to up star level of the film. But even her character doesn’t appear too superfluous and she has her fair share of action. It was also very nice to see Mark Dacascos again on big screen. My only complaint was about the character Adjudicator played by Asia Kate Dillon, who was supposed to be all business and no fun, but somehow felt too fake.

Summary

“John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum” continues tradition of previous films, giving viewers wall to wall action and endless fight sequences, all while maintaining very interesting plot and expanding on the previously established rules of the world that heroes live in.

The post John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Nels Coxman works as a snowplow driver in Colorado mountain resort town. He is just doing his job, keeping roads open during heavy snow season, says Nels, while humbly accepting Citizen of the Year award. Right at that time, his son Kyle is kidnapped by some shady characters. Next morning police calls Nels to inform him that Kyle has been found dead from heroine overdose. Nels’s life is shattered in a moment. He doesn’t want to believe that Kyle would ever use heroine! Then Kyle’s friend shows up at his shop. He tells Nels that Kyle was actually mistakenly murdered by local dealer “Speedo” who thinks he stole drugs from him. Nels is furious, but one name is enough to set up a man to a path of revenge and destruction.

Not even snow can stop Neeson

Writing

Of course, there is a certain variation to the formula of Neeson’s Revenge. Nels is not a special agent, he is not anyhow proficient in martial arts nor has he acquired skills during his tenure as a snowplow driver that might be useful in killing and tracking people. He is an everyday man (though, honestly, I couldn’t quite make it out how a regular snowplow driver can afford a lavish mountain villa). Nels is broken and aimless when he learns about his son. But what brings him back to life is immense desire to bring justice to people who killed Kyle.

Whereas most of the films would have gone full action, “Cold Pursuit” takes different approach. In what can be considered as best homage to Tarantino and post-Pulp Fiction era crime cinema, film takes us deep into dark humor and irreverence territory. Secondary and tertiary cast is humongous. People talk random stuff, that has very little to do with the plot, other than give an (at times completely redundant) insight into minds of members of crime organization and what not. Script introduces characters, gives them several lines to say or do, just to have them die in a weird and gruesome manner. And though it might seem annoying, this trick actually brings much needed fresh air into the film and, I will have to agree, is extremely fun to watch.

What do you do with the body of dead drug dealer?

Directing

“Cold Pursuit” is a remake of Norwegian film “In Order of Disappearance”. In fact, both films have same director – Hans Petter Moland. He approaches the subject not with action film in mind, but philosophically. And when I say philosophical, I don’t mean “You Were Never Really Here“, but “In Bruges” and “Seven Psychopaths“. Film is full with beautiful landscape shots of snowy mountains and winter sky, complimented with sudden blood splatter of brain and guts. And the more I think of it, more I see comparison of styles of Moland and Martin McDonagh. In fact, towards the ending, “Cold Pursuit” definitely steps into “In Bruges” territory with all the weirdness and chaos.

Problem is – Moland is not McDonagh. Film somewhat loses itself in transition from reality to surrealism. Final confrontation, that was supposed to be grandiose and explosive, feels rushed and kinda incomplete. Not anticlimactic, just incomplete. And while watching it, I constantly was thinking that something is missing.

Enemies meet face to face

Acting

Since this is nth revenge film for Liam Neeson, he brings nothing new to the character. He is still same old man, who despite his calm appearance and demeanor is ready to choke people and knock their brains off using a shotgun. Even in “Widows” he was mostly the same. There is a huge supporting cast, naming all of whom would be pointless, but to name few who stand out despite given limited screen time – Tom Bateman (as drug lord Viking), Domenick Lombardozzi (his bodyguard Mustang), Tom Jackson (White Bull) and William Forsythe (as Wingman).

Summary

“Cold Pursuit” is classic Liam Neeson revenge film with a twist. Dark humor and irreverence of the tone does make it stand out from similar action films and will surely entertain fans of this genre. Others, probably not so much.

The post Cold Pursuit appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Veronica is happily married to famous thief Henry Rawlings. She knows what he does and how they can afford live in luxurious apartment and have a chauffeur. She stays away from details of his job and accepts all risks coming from his profession, because in his thirty-year-old career Henry never made a mistake. He uses same experienced crew every time, meticulously planning his next heist. But something does go wrong. Henry and his team are assaulted by police during their latest heist and are killed in a fiery explosion. Veronica is in deep sorrow, but she has no time for grief as local crime boss Jamal Manning pays her a visit. Apparently Henry was stealing from him when he was killed. See, this was the money he set aside for his political campaign. And Veronica has just one month to return what Henry has stolen from him. Veronica realizes that her only chance to maybe survive all this is to gather a team and execute the next heist on Henry’s list. And she knows who to turn to – widows of Henry’s teammates.

Veronica (Davis) explaining her plan

Writing

Let me just stop you there. If you think that it turns into “Ocean’s 8” you are very deeply mistaken. In probably the only realistic way possible, “Widows” show these poor woman not as random professionals who have heist skills that complement each other as jigsaw puzzles, but as broken individuals who have to deal with aftermath and consequences of their husbands’ deaths. You will be surprised how well each of them is defined. Veronica is a teacher who is used to posh life Henry provided her with. Linda’s husband lost all his and her money on gambling and even pawned her clothing store. Alice was constantly beaten and abused by her husband. Amanda is left with 4-months-old baby to look after.

These women are against Veronica’s proposition. But they know that the won’t be able to survive on their own. Each and one of them are so intricately written that it is almost impossible not to feel for these women. And pretty soon we understand why they agree to execute the heist. Yet, they understand they know nothing and possess no skills. But unlike guys in “American Animals” they don’t sit and watch heist films to find out how to operate. Instead, they solve one problem at a time. Or try to solve.

Linda (Rodriguez) and Alice (Debicki) contemplating whether to join Veronica

Tensions gradually increase and reach peak at the final heist, which you also might expect to be a big bang deal. But you keep forgetting that heist is not the main plot of the movie. Heist is fast, brutal and feverish. Nothing like fun and intricate adventure of “Logan Lucky“. No sir, you will witness completely different action. After all it is all about characters.

Speaking of characters. There is so many characters, maybe the only movie that had bigger list would be “The Departed”. But unlike Scorsese’s masterpiece, “Widows” spends time with each of them, defining them, showing who they are, what motivates them and what they want. These characters are so colorful, so vivid and so dimensional that they will not leave your mind long after film ends.

Jack (Farrell) offering “help” to Veronica (Davis)

Directing

I am a little on the fence about Steve McQueen‘s direction. On one side, he does an impeccable job. Shots are well filmed, cinematography is amazing, editing precise, acting flawless. There were several shots in “Widows” that surprised me in intricacy and attention to detail. One shot is a continuous shot of Jack jumping into his car with his political aide and driving through town to his house. Other shot is a tracking crane shot that starts with a train on a railroad and then pans to the driving car. Both of them just made me want to stand up and applaud McQueen right there in the cinema. You can feel that he has total and complete control over the artistic aspects of the film.

And here is where I had some reservations. McQueen spends incredible amount of time on deliberations and problem of main heroes and exploration of secondary and tertiary characters. This drags overall pace of the film at times to total halt. Don’t get me wrong it works well, but you can feel that maybe he could have sped things up and get to the point faster. Sometimes even best directors need to have someone to oversee what they are doing.

Jamaal (Henry) scouting Veronica with Jatemme (Kaluuya)

Acting

Attention to each and every character implies that each actor portraying said characters need to perform on top level. And this what makes this film shine. Viola Davis is a national treasure and role of Veronica is just made for her. She steps into her shoes and never even once give an impression of falseness. It is so spot on that actually even gets creepy, to be honest. Supporting cast doesn’t fall behind from her. Elizabeth Debicki, who is usually reserved in her performances is almost unrecognizable as simple, but determined girl. On the other hand we have Michelle Rodriguez who seems to be eternally stuck in “Fast/Furious” franchise finally get a proper role to shine and does that brilliantly.

Then we have a supporting cast of such heavy-hitters like Colin Farrell, Robert Duvall, Liam Neeson, Daniel Kaluuya, Brian Tyree Henry, etc. This list goes on and on. And you might think are there just for sake of being there, but “Widows” gives each one of them something to do and showcase their acting range.

Summary

“Widows” is very well made heist film which redefines the whole concept of a heist film. With incredible attention to characters and surprising performance by whole cast, film captivate throughout but slow burn ultimately affects the overall pacing.

The post Widows appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

There is not a proper reason to describe the decision of two childhood friends Spencer and Warren to plot a heist. Disillusionment? Rebellion against parents? Boredom? Both real life Spencer and Warren claim in their interviews they did it to experience something they never have done before. But what kind of reason is that? After all they can’t even agree not only who first entertained the idea of heist but even when did it happen. Warren claims it was at a party. Spencer is sure it happened when they were driving to convenience store. Regardless, one thing is sure – Spencer tells Warren about an amazing collection of rare books in the library of Transylvania University. The pinnacle of the collection is John James Audubon’s “The Birds of America”, said to be worth millions. And the best thing is that it is being guarded by an old librarian. Simple enough, isn’t it?

Warren (Peters) going over the plan

Writing

“American Animals” is written and directed by Bart Layton. Film claims that it is not based on a true story but is actually a true story. For that it intermingles the fiction with documentary style interviews of people involved in the heist. With that not only we get to see what is happening, but also are given a narration to explain or question certain actions of the heroes. This helps the movie tremendously, because “American Animals” tries to get inside the heads of the main heroes. All to give us an explanation of why they did what they did.

And explanation is highly needed, because even for an untrained eye it is obvious that none of them know what they are doing. They have never participated in any serious criminal activity and possess absolutely minimal knowledge of forensics. Early in the film, Warren literally googles “how to organize a heist” and then they collectively binge watch heist and robbery movies. I mean, this is the level of sophistication the group uses when organizing what it seems to them as an infallible plan.

Group and their “ingenious” plan to dress as elderly

“American Animals” takes big deal to give us complete breakdown on every decision before the heist and it does so correctly. Just by looking at the weird and dangerous plan the group comes up first thing comes to mind is as what on Earth these idiots were thinking when concocting this mess. And something I enjoyed a lot is that film gives viewer a chance to figure it out himself. Unlike pure documentaries, where sometimes the bias starts coming pouring from all directions, film strays away from pushing any specific ideas. The interviews of the heroes are supposed to paint them in a good way. After all they were just kids, who didn’t know better, they keep saying. But viewers feel that whatever interviewees are telling is not necessarily true and is not what the filmmakers had in mind.

This effect is also heavily supported by “Rashomon” style narration. Witnesses can’t agree on a lot of basic stuff. Like who exactly Warren was talking to when trying to find a “fence” or who first came up with the idea of the heist. Or who decided that they needed to have extra people involved. At some point, even Spencer laments that he has taken some stuff that happened to Warren at a face value and questions whether whatever Warren has told him really happened or was just a figment of Warren’s imagination. This back-and-forth creates an extra dimension to narrative and makes film interesting even in dull moments.

Speaking of dull moments. The ending of the film, though I admit works well, felt long and preachy. Film very successfully builds up all the way to the heist, but the rest of the film after heist feels a little out of whack. Maybe, that is how it was intended. I am not sure.

The book.

Directing

To support this intriguing screenplay, Bart Layton provides us with a compelling directing. Here he does something experimental to independent cinema – all his directorial decisions are actually not artsy or experimental at all. There are no ultra-wide or super close-up shots. Very little shaky camera. Steady color scheme. No long takes. Carefully designed framing. Fluid editing. In fact the only thing that is worth mentioning here is director’s choice to use lenses with very shallow depth of field. This forces the heroes go out of focus really fast in some scenes.

And I am surprised it all works pretty well. His cuts complement fast nature of the film, constantly shifting perspective from interviews to dramatizations. Thus, film is very easy to watch and despite pretty long runtime (116 minutes) and subject material never bores you.

What I wanted to specifically compliment is the way Layton shows the heist itself. It is the moment of truth for our heroes, moment of understanding that their plan is not only bad but is also extremely stupid. Immediately concentrating on each of the heroes individually, Layton shows us the true raw reactions to realization what exactly they have done.

Moment (maybe) when the plan was actually made.

Acting

I have to commend acting as exceptional. Evan Peters steals the spotlight as Warren. He is extravagant, rebellious, narcissistic, practical. He is a natural leader. This all despite the fact that real-life Warren mentions multiple times that he is not and never was a “ring leader”. Peters’ performance begs to differ. Barry Keoghan plays Spencer and, in his portrayal, Spencer is a totally believable character. He is soft, enabling, lonely young man, who thinks he needs to life-altering experience to become a man. Blake Jenner and Jared Abrahamson play rest of the gang. Ann Dowd masterfully plays the librarian, Betty Jean. I was also surprised to see Udo Kier in a small role as an art dealer, but he is as charismatic and iconic as he has ever been. I really wished that he was used more.

Summary

“American Animals” is an excellent example of film that uses all advantages and tricks of independent cinema and turns it into something exemplary. Outstanding screenplay is complemented by wise directing choices and elevated by genuinely good acting. This film is highly recommended to watch.

The post American Animals appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Los Angeles is drowning with riots. Nonstop fights break out between civilians and government. In all this chaos two brothers, codenamed Waikiki and Honolulu decide to rob bank. Their plan goes awry and Honolulu gets heavily injured during ensuing gun fight with police. There is only one place brothers can turn for health assistance and protection – an infamous, underground, criminal clinic “Hotel Artemis”. It is run by an enigmatic “Nurse” and her bouncer and orderly “Everest”. Together they provide an exclusive service to criminals of Los Angeles for a nominal membership fee. The only condition Nurse imposes on her clientele is that they follow the “house rules” to the point. Otherwise guest won’t be staying on the premises for long. Waikiki and Honolulu show up at Hotel, thinking that the hardest part is over. But they are not the only Hotel guests – there is weird, psychotic arms dealer, Acapulco, and a deadly assassin Nice. And soon they all find out the lord of underbelly of Los Angeles, The Wolf King himself is heading to the hotel.

Writing

“Hotel Artemis” is written and directed by Drew Pearce, who is known for writing “Iron Man 3” and “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Nation.” But unlike these films, “Hotel Artemis” turns out to be a very messy film and I think it all starts with the screenplay.

Waikiki (Brown) tells Acapulco (Day) how dangerous Nice (Boutella) is

The biggest problem is that there is a big identity crisis with the film itself. “Hotel Artemis” just doesn’t know what it wants to be. The film has great amount of cartoonish violence that is in direct conflict with serious dramatic scenes. There are comedic undertones and then dramatic backstories. This back and forth creates a weird feeling that the film was made of several ideas just thrown in together and mixed for no reason whatsoever.

Story itself is mediocre at best. Heroes are very underwritten. There is very vague explanation to their actions, they only speak in quotable proverbs, and come and go as they please. This total lack of concern to the heroes really downplays drama that film tries to build between them. Then there are actions of the characters that are in direct contradiction to who they are and what they represent. They are all supposed to be hard-boiled criminals, but as we will see they all makes such childish mistakes, uncharacteristic decisions and show very minimal “badassery” that you immediately ask yourself how these guys can be best criminals?

Directing

It all could have been forgiven have the film offered us something worth watching. Like crazy choreographed action scenes, or mind-blowing cinematography, or heck even a reliable directing. But “Hotel Artemis” doesn’t do any of these. Not at least to satisfying degree. There are fight sequences that start nice and progress swiftly, but as soon as something interesting starts to happen or viewer gets mildly entertained these sequences either end or are cut to other scenes. It is so annoying.

And then there is the ending. Without spoiling much I’d just say that film builds up for some kind of big showdown and it all goes according to plan until showdown just dissipates. It is so anti-climactic that you just keep wondering if there will be some extra scenes. Nope, that was all that there is.

What is Jodie Foster doing in this film?

Acting

Film has a very strong and very unique cast, but casting decisions were just horrible. Jodie Foster plays lead part as Nurse, and honestly, I can’t tell you why exactly she chose to play this part. Not that she has lack of movie offers or needs to be in this movie. She is an acclaimed actress and director herself, so couldn’t she see all the problems with the screenplay before signing up for this project? I have no clue what she is doing in this movie. Dave Bautista plays her quiet, but strong assistant Everest. His character is supposed to be big, strong and dull. Bautista is nothing but dull. I know it will sound weird, but Bautista shows an emotional range he shouldn’t have.

Also, there is Sterling K. Brown who plays Waikiki. He is a serious dramatic actor, not an action movie hero. And he can’t be both. I wish that he would, but he just can’t. Charlie Day is typecast again as a crazy, neurotic, screaming arms dealer, who doesn’t do anything but annoy everyone. Jeff Goldblum plays same weird meta version of himself we have seen hundreds of times. And Zachary Quinto is there only to fill the space. The only cast member who fits her role perfectly is Sofia Boutella as sexy assassin Nice.

Summary

“Hotel Artemis” feels like wasted potential to be a very entertaining movie. Totally misused ensemble cast, weird characters and ridiculous story arcs don’t help otherwise dragging script. And whenever this film does get interesting, the scenes are either over or cut to other scenes.

The post Hotel Artemis appeared first on Kino-AZ.