Story

Brothers Eli and Charlie Sisters are assassins on a payroll of local businessman, The Commodore. Upon his request they hunt down and kill people that stole something from him. Their next mission is to meet another employee of Commodore – John Morris, who is tasked with tracking down some “thief” called Hermann Warm. Morris will report Sisters brothers of whereabouts of Warm and they will kill him. Unbeknownst to them, Morris finds Warm pretty fast, but is charmed with his good nature, friendliness and intelligence. He finds out that Warm is a chemist and has developed a “divine” formula that is huge game-changer in gold-digging industry. Morris decides to abandon his mission and instead join Warm in his adventure. But Sisters brothers are not to be fooled with and soon they discover Morris’ true intentions and are back on track.

Charlie (Phoenix) tells Eli (Reilly) the details of the plan

Writing

Unfortunately, the thing that drags this whole movie down is the screenplay. Film starts pretty engaging. First scenes are satisfyingly intriguing and interesting. However, this charm disappears almost immediately. Film splits into two narratives, of Sisters brothers and Morris-Warm duo. And this turns into a sluggish fest of fast/boring routine endeavors each couple gets to experience. We learn who each of the players are through their interactions. But these interactions don’t lead anywhere and are surprisingly boring to watch in general. There are random dramas and events occurring throughout that absolutely nothing to do with the not only main plot but even secondary.

Character development, as a result, struggles greatly. Each of players should have their own traits and personalities. Charlie is a drunkard, who doesn’t care what happens to him, and Eli is caring and melancholic person, who values horses more than humans. Morris is highly intellectual person who tries to get away from his lavish old life and Warm is idealistic scientist who believes that society needs a savior. This looks all good on the paper and probably sounded amazing in general, but in the screenplay it all plays out extremely fake and ineffective. In result, our characters turn into one-dimensional beings.

Warm (Ahmed) and Morris (Gyllenhaal) sharing their methods

If that is not enough the plot also goes some place that make very little sense. Firstly, this is not a comedy. Not a single bit of it has humor in it. Yes, there are some random flashes of comedic flare by John C. Reilly, but there’s absolutely no need for them and at most they will just make you barely smile. Film suddenly receives a narration by one the heroes (who is keeping a diary). It goes so for a while and then just stops. To me it proves lazy screenwriting. It was there just because screenwriter couldn’t come up with anything else useful. Then the plot progression has no satisfaction whatsoever. You would expect sluggish development to build up tremendous tension and dread for resolution, but you will be surprised how film fails to get there.  And when it gets then suddenly we find out that there is no resolution. Not the one we needed, characters needed, story needed or film needed. Thus, the whole ending turns into a dull wrap-up.

Directing

“The Sisters Brothers” sets its tone pretty fast.

I think director Jacques Audiard did a fairly good job in terms of directing. I would even have given him a praise for taking sluggish screenplay and making the end product. However, since he actually co-written the screenplay I just can’t do that. Westerns are tricky, no doubt. Especially in a modern age if you are settling to make a western you should know better to make it outstanding. Modern westerns are romantic endeavors, with ultra-wide shots of endless sunsets and vistas, heroes looking at a flame after long ride, contemplating their lives, philosophical musings on “who are we and what we do on Earth”. All this is intermingled with explosive action sequences, wild chase scenes, incredible tension and satisfying resolution.

Audiard gives us nothing of this. All action sequences happen either in complete darkness with just flashes of gun flares (I admit it, looked really cool first time, but ONLY first time). All shootouts either happen off screen or are from perspectives of supporting players. As such audience always arrives to the end of shootout. Fine, you might say, it is just a style, film surely must be concentrating on romantic aspect of it. And you will be wrong. There are no lavish landscapes. Just some dudes riding their horses somewhere. Philosophical musings exist only in weird conversations and there is really no romanticism in anything that happens.

Eli (Reilly) is a true star of this story

Acting

John C. Reilly rocks. That’s just to sum it all up. In his probably biggest non-comedic role he manages to show all power he actually possesses as an actor and beyond. He is the main reason “The Sisters Brothers” gets out of the hole screenplay and directing set it to. His performance is eclectic and mesmerizing. Unfortunately, all this is dragged down by the sheer amount of comedic work he has done in his life. I just couldn’t get an image of Cal Naughton, Jr. from “Talladega Nights” and Dale Doback from “Step Brothers” out of my mind every time I would see him in a dramatic scene. And subconsciously I was expecting him to say something weird and crack me up like he did in “Kong: Skull Island”. It’s a shame really, because he was amazing.

Rest of the cast are unfortunately wasted. Always phenomenal Joaquin Phoenix and Jake Gyllenhaal have literally nothing to do. They have no challenge, no evolution, no reason to shine. They are just there to fill the roles. Don’t get me wrong, they do a great job. But it is nowhere near performances of Phoenix in “You Were Never Really Here” or Gyllenhaal in “Prisoners”.

Summary

Despite outstanding performance of John C. Reilly, “The Sisters Brothers” manages to waste a great cast on sluggish plot development, ineffective storytelling, weird directorial choices and tremendously unsatisfying ending.

The post The Sisters Brothers appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Collin has been on probation for 11 months and 27 days. Now with only three days left, Collin is counting minutes to become a free man. Free convicted felon, that is, because once a felon, society will always think of you as felon. Even if you try to leave all your past behind. And to be fair, Collin tries his best to stay away from trouble. He knows that any illegal activity, any run-in with police will send him back to jail. For all it takes, he wants to change. But that is nearly damn impossible because Collin’s best friend is ghetto gangster wannabe Miles, who likes instigating fights, smoking weed, buying stolen guns and literally doing EVERYTHING that might land Collin in jail. Collin can manage Miles though, what he can’t manage is something that happens on the end of third day – he witnesses police officer gunning down unarmed African-American young man. And suddenly two days that are left of his probation turn into infinity.

Collin (Diggs) and Miles (Casal) on their day jobs

Writing

Daveed Diggs and Rafael Casal wrote the screenplay and star as Collin and Miles, accordingly. Childhood friends in real-life, both spent several years writing and fine-tuning the script. In the end, we have “Blindspotting” – a perfect combination of comedy, drama and tragedy. And script not only literally takes you on roller coaster of emotions but offers something different. While most of independent films concentrate on personal drama of heroes, “Blindspotting” channels global drama into a personal drama for the hero. We have Collin trying his best to behave, but whatever he personally does might not be actually enough. It’s like society itself wants him to fail badly.

Then there is a problem of race. Collin is big muscular African-American with braids. His image automatically instigates people to stay away from him. Convicted felon he is or no, it doesn’t matter. From standpoint of police and society he will always be the bad guy. On the opposite end there is Miles. He is white American who acts more like a person that Collin tries to not be compared to. But Miles is Collin’s best friend from childhood. Despite his explosive character he has always watched Collin’s back and he even visited Collin twice a week while he was in jail. So despite the fact that Collin knows that Miles will most likely have him either thrown to jail or killed, there is nothing he can do about it.

Miles (Casal) tries his best to ignore Collin’s (Diggs) requests to keep it down

All this drama is intertwined with funny dialogues and freestyle rapping. There are a lot of jokes about Collin trying to stay clean and healthy, in the expense of hipsters, veganism and Whole Foods. Rap specifically plays a very strong role in the film. Collin and Miles entertain themselves freestyling at first opportunity. I did enjoy that at first their rhymes were broken and kinda pointless, but as the film progresses it gets more mature until it culminates in one single amazing sequence.

Directing

Good script is only a part of the film. To translate the intricate details and complexity of the plot to the screen you need to have a talented director. Carlos Lopez Estrada directs “Blindspotting” in his big screen debut. He manages to turn the script to equally awesome spectacle. I did enjoy how he made the film about Oakland. The city is the middle of the action. There is a constant musing about what is going on with Oakland, in what direction is it heading. Hipsters and gentrification is one of the side plots of “Blindspotting”. On every corner there are evidences of old city being torn down and new values being established. There is another level of conflict that Miles specifically has with hipsters taking over the “hood”.

But what makes “Blindspotting” work is that despite all these diversions and subplots, film still remains on track. Estrada masterfully builds tension by setting Collin on a collision course with his past, present and future. And you know that whenever the ending crawls in that it will not be pretty.

Collin (Diggs) witnessing a murder

Acting

Daveed Diggs kills it as Collins. He is extremely believable in his portrayal. He is a likeable hero. And despite him being a felon we truly believe in that he wants to change. Diggs manages to bring so much dimensionality into the character that viewer has no other choice but to root for him. Yes, everything that happens to him are direct consequences of his actions, but why not give him a second chance, especially if he wants to change and be a better self? Rafael Casal plays complete opposite, extremely one-dimensional Miles. He just wants to be gangster, hustler. But what I did enjoy about his performance is that even though he wanted to be one-dimensional character, “Blindspotting” does its best to change him. And, boy does he fight back!

And same applies to supporting cast. Janina Gavankar plays Collin’s ex-girlfriend who wants to see Collin change. Jasmine Cephas Jones is Miles’ baby mama who wants him to grow up and Ethan Embry plays police officer who shot an innocent man. Their roles are not just a blank space filler. There are there to elevate and truly support the main heroes and they deliver a very good performances.

Summary

With amazing script that offsets global drama into a personal one, incredibly believable performances by Diggs and Casal and masterful directing by Estrada, “Blindspotting” is one of the gems of modern independent cinema and surely is one of the best films of 2018.

The post Blindspotting appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

In reality where borderline slavery company WorryFree offers employment for freedom. But Cash Green is more than that. He might be broke, living in the garage of his uncle, for which he owns four months’ worth of rent, drives a car that looks more like a wheelbarrow, but he is proud. He wants to find his voice and laments to his girlfriend – eccentric street artist Detroit – about what kind of legacy he will leave on Earth. But in the meantime, he has to make ends meet, so he is super excited to start a new job of telemarketer at RegalView company. And maybe, if he does a lot of sales, he can be promoted to be enigmatic telemarketer VIP, called “power callers”. But in the beginning, he struggles with the job. Until an old man in the company tells him to use his inner “white voice”. And suddenly Cash becomes the best employee of the company, quickly rising through the ranks. But success, doesn’t come easy.

Cash (Stanfield) in his horrible car

Writing

The whole premise of the film is a social message. From the opening scene all the way to the end, everything that happens occurs for this particular reason. And writer Boots Riley does strike a gold mine here. Main premise of the film is that no one listens to an African-American man, his voice is not something that incites trust. So he resorts to use his inner “white voice” – voice of a person who has no debt and was never been stopped by police. And once he starts using it, Cash sees how doors automatically opens in front of him.

And social messages are not exclusively situational. There are numerous instances of social message slipping through just visuals of the film. From Detroit’s weird earrings and t-shirts, to subtle jokes like best whiskey, etc. film is full of these little nuances, that I am sure would make rewatch a wonderful experience. But unfortunately, these subtleties are sometimes ruined by the big picture, which is too much on the nose. In some instances, it feels like Riley is force feeding us his ideas. It just doesn’t feel that natural and even acts as a deterrent.

Langston (Glover) explains Cash (Stanfield) wonders of “white voice”

Film also struggles from identity crisis. “Sorry to Bother You” walks on the edge of being surreal and real, but it just doesn’t stay there. Events become farcical, but then jump back to being all serious. And when you expect for film to become comical and ridiculous, it makes a turn and becomes weird and awkward. Film bounces from being “too satirical” to “not enough satirical” in a matter of seconds. This constant shift in the tone I found a little confusing and at times just pointless.

I also didn’t enjoy the plot evolution. “Sorry to Bother You” fills like a collection of short films, hastily stitched together. Multiple plotlines, though complementing each other, don’t have much in common. In the middle, story shifts from personal perspective to global and then suddenly back to personal. Taking into account the tone of the film, it was quite unexpected to me.

Directing

Though I did enjoy directing of Boots Riley, I think he missed a great opportunity to deliver truly revolutionary film. “Sorry to Bother You” uses several editing and style techniques of weird cuts for surrealistic effect. For a while, film reminded me works of Terry Gilliam, Charlie Kaufman or Michel Gondry. Going back to the tonal shifts I mentioned earlier, Riley never capitalizes on that. Instead of making cuts and storytelling crazier and weirder, he resorts in making it actually calmer and more classical as film progresses. I wish instead he doubled down.

Detroit (Thompson) and her shirts

Acting

Lakeith Stanfield plays Cash. He feels so natural in that role that I am not sure if he is an amazing actor or just acting department did a great job. Nevertheless, he is totally believable, likeable, relatable character that you just want to root for. Tessa Thompson plays a free-spirited and independent Detroit and is equally a wonder to watch. She is no stranger to strong female roles, but she manages to bring something quite different from her roles in “Thor: Ragnarok”, “Annihilation” or “Westworld”. Supporting cast includes Jermaine Fowler, Omari Hardwick and Steven Yeun in quite one-dimensional characters, who they play satisfactorily. I was quite perplexed with Armie Hammer‘s character, whom he either overacts or underacts.

Summary

Full with social commentary and satire, “Sorry to Bother You” is a film that will make you laugh and think at the same time. With strong performances by Stanfield and Thompson, compelling characters and surrealistic plot, film still struggles with identity crisis and weird plot evolution.

The post Sorry to Bother You 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

It is a story of a young man, who grew up in Can village in Canakkale, Western Anatolia. He returns to his hometown after graduating from a university in Canakkale city as a teacher. But he is not particularly happy about returning, as he doesn’t like his hometown or its people. Also, he will most probably be appointed to a teaching position at remote Eastern Anatolia, as well as he has to attend compulsory military service. His family is not doing very well. They have a land parcel in the outskirts of Can, where his father spends most of his free time.

But there is another side to this young man. He is an aspiring writer and has written his first book. He is desperately looking for a sponsor to publish this book, asking for not a very large sum, but gets rejection on every occasion. The plotline revolves around his relationships with his father (in the context of his father’s reputation as a gambler), rebellion to authority and bending one’s own principles when the worldly desires demand it.

Writing

Very much in the NBC-style, the plotline of “The Wild Pear Tree” aims at setting up the psychological scene for the resolution of the hero’s internal conflict. He does it in a superb manner, although it takes more than 2.5 hours of screen time to achieve it. That sends some people to sleep, but keeps most viewers on their toes for the entire time. I prefer books to movies, because books can explore and reflect characters deeper. NBC’s plotlines are the closest point that ‘a movie’ gets to ‘a book’. That’s what makes him stand out.

Directing

Another signature that NBC put in his movies used to be amazing cinematography. He likes longs shots, too – to much so that, his earlier movies (like “Once Upon a Time in Anatolia“) at times did resemble a collage of stunning photos with audio captions. “Winter Sleep” (2014) was the ultimate meeting point of his cinematography and scriptwriting – beautiful scenes within an indulgent storyline. “Wild Pear Tree” did not live up to the NBC-level cinematography, which was mostly due to the editing. The editors also did not appreciate the still shots that accompanied lengthy conversations that we are used to see in the NBC movies. The jump cuts between the conversing characters or with the environment would have, maybe, not stood out in any other movie. However, for an NBC movie it felt quite quirky.

Acting

And one more negative point for the movie comes from the choice of actors. Particularly, the main character (Sinan) and his father (Idris) did not fit their roles well. Their acting was on the highest level and I cannot say anything about that. However, the personalities did not seem to fit the characters. Comedian Dogu Demirkol plays Sinan, who was trying to be as casual as he could, to hide his professional traits. However, occasional sarcastic grins did slip through. As for Idris (Murat Cemcir), his strong voice, sharp gaze and more theatrical manner of acting curtained the true nature of the Idris character.

Summary

I thoroughly enjoyed yet another piece by Nuri Bilge Ceylan. A Cannes-regular (and winner) and never been nominated for the Oscars, he certainly knows how to leave lasting impressions. His dialogues in “The Wild Pear Tree” are deep and views are protrusive. However, this time his masterpiece was partially spoiled by sub-NBC-standard casting, editing and cinematography.

The post The Wild Pear Tree appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Joe is some kind of hired killer. It doesn’t say what or why or how. All we know he gets tips from some guy who works in a skyscraper and paranoid Joe makes him run his messages through a grocery shop owner. Joe is messed up to the core. He is suicidal. He has some kind of childhood trauma involving his father beating his mother and Joe trying to strangle himself. Maybe. Not sure. Also he might have PTSD from possible stint in an army. Don’t take my word, it might be my imagination. Between dealing with his depression/trauma/suicide attempts/care of his ailing mother/randomly staring at (not from) windows, grocer tells him that his “handler” wants immediate meeting. His handler in the skyscraper tells him of one New York Senator who is looking for his daughter. Her name is Nina, she is 14. Apparently she has been on the run and her father received (supposedly) a tip about (supposedly) underage sex bordello where her daughter is (supposedly) held (supposedly) against her will. He wants Joe to rescue Nina. And inflict brutal damage to the owners.

Writing and Directing

I am not going to split this, since “You Were Never Really Here” is written and directed by Lynne Ramsay in the most arthouse way possible. First of all, film is not about the rescue of Nina. As a matter of fact, the only thing it is about is character of Joe. Story itself is not only on the background, but is pushed so far behind that at some point it is impossible to even understand what is happening and why. Not only director gives a very little clue about it, she deliberately hides it. Like what exactly happened to Joe in his childhood? Yes, apparently her mother was in an abusive relationship, he shows obvious signs of PTSD. Does he, though? He is constantly popping pills of what and why? Does he have depression? Why is he suicidal?

Joe (Phoenix) listens to Nina’s story

I am not saying for a film to force feed us some bullshit narration or ridiculous exposition. But deliberately holding off on information? I mean I had to go to Wiki to confirm that he actually supposed to have PTSD. Film wants you to take it all for granted. It’s like all we need to know – Joe is suicidal. Deal with it. But then why give that constant flashbacks? Joe is very devoted to his mother, but even she is not holding him from killing himself. Not to that extent at least. He is supposedly very brutal. Which is never shown. All he does is walk around with a hammer. Oh, yeah, dead bodies around. With a head injury. Joe must have killed them! So brutal, indeed. “You Were Never Really Here” is about Joe. It is not about ANYTHING ELSE.

Then there is style. You expect poetry in motion, beauty of cinematography, exclusivity of editing – all what arthouse films are famous for. But you get virtually none. It’s like the film is made to mirror the absurd, messed up, degenerated brain of our main hero, Joe. There is an amazing soundtrack, probably one of the best execution of music in film. There are weird shots of randomness. Dialogues are barely hearable or understandable. Deliberately made so. Again, had to Wiki for some plot details. Joe looks like a homeless person. “You Were Never Really Here” looks like a brain of homeless person.

However, after a while you see the patterns. There is a method to the madness to the film. Seems it’s not totally random. That brings some level of coherence to “You Were Never Really Here”. Otherwise, watching this film would have been like watching paint dry. Then again, if we are seeing a mirror of Joe’s brain, why there is a pattern? Joe’s brain is shattered and barely holding together, it is not structured, there is shouldn’t to be a pattern. Just a paradox, I guess.

Joe (Phoenix) tries to save Nina

Acting

Making a film about mental image of a character implies existence of superpowers for the actor who plays Joe. And Joaquin Phoenix is out of this world in his portrayal. Without doubt, this film exists only because of Phoenix. He is so believable, he basically lives as a character. He proves once and for all how endless his abilities as an actor are. It is almost impossible to describe how he channels his emotions and his skills into the character of Joe. Rest of the cast you should forget about it. There are barely there, thanks to director. One might even say “they were never really there” at all. Get it?

Summary

“You Were Never Really Here” is an arthouse flick that wants you to ignore everything that you are used to seeing in a film – backstory, action, reaction, situation, supporting cast, resolution, ending. It wants you to concentrate on our main hero. Live in his shoes and feel what he feels. And hope that you won’t commit suicide in the meantime.

The post You Were Never Really Here appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Three days prior to that 15-year-old Veronica wakes up in the morning. Her mother is asleep; she has been putting long hours at the bar to provide for the family, especially since the father of the family has died several years ago. So it is up to Veronica to take care of children – twins Irene and Lucia, and little Antonito. She drops them at the school. It is supposed to be a special day – after all, Solar Eclpise will happen in the afternoon. And while everyone is getting ready to watch Moon’s shadow cover Earth, Veronica and her two friends instead will sneak into the basement of the school to conduct a spiritual seance. Veronica hopes to talk to her father. And while they are not even sure if the Ouija Board will ever work, girls set up candles and sit in the circle in hopes of someone to answer their call. To their surprise someone does answer Veronica. And suddenly she is in danger.

Writing

Veronica (Escacena) tries to protect her siblings

It is very hard to judge writing for a horror film for several reasons. When most of the horror is happening on the visual (jump scares) and auditory levels (eerie music) the writing might look blank. In that essence, the writing will play more in terms of backstory, plot progression and resolution. With that “Veronica” achieves several things. Firstly, the setting is very unnerving, since Veronica is in charge of her smaller siblings. Suddenly, it is not only her who is in grave danger by the supernatural forces. Her mother doesn’t believe (why should she?) mumbling teenager. And despite the protests she has to leave children with Veronica. Film forces us to worry not only for the well being of one girl (who, let’s face it, brought everything on her head), but also the being of three innocent children. Secondly, the plot progression is also well done. Film opens with the police arriving into the action scene. We know how the film ends. And we watch and try to anticipate what will happen.

There all the praise for writing will end. There is literally nothing innovative in using Ouija Board (or some instrument) to gather spirits and then fail miserably. “Veronica” is far from best example of this genre. Also the emotional resolution of the movie feels very weak and pointless. While it leaves some things to interpretation, there is nothing that will make you scratch your head or even feel bad about it. Which is shame, because I was expecting something in the line of similar Spanish horror movies “The Others” by Alejandro Amenabar and “The Orphanage” by J.A. Bayone.

Veronica (Escacena) not sure where the marks came from

Directing

There are mandatory jump scares and cheap thrills. Nothing too crazy, thankfully. There are couple slow scary buildups and overall “Veronica” does achieve some leve

l of creepiness and uneasiness. There are some long shots of camera moving in seemingly weird direction, with clear anticipation of that something scary will happen. Overall, directing was not bad for a horror movie, but it doesn’t necessarily stand out. I feel there could have been more done to make the film even scarier. Surprisingly the biggest achievement of director Paco Plaza was a perfect casting of Sandra Escacena as titular Veronica and also young child actors as her siblings. They deliver everything they are asked for.

Summary

This film turned out to be a mediocre horror film. While trying to stay in between of jump scares and slow progression, it walks the line very carefully. The overall setting is unnerving, but resolution of the film makes you ask for more.

The post Veronica appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Amanda’s mother drops her at a mansion. Lily lives there and she will be tutoring Amanda. See, Amanda is in trouble for doing “something” to her horse (at that point we just assume she cut it’s throat off). Amanda sees through Lily’s tries to “help”, she correctly deduces her mom paid Lily. Lily doesn’t want to admit that, afraid of hurting Amanda’s feelings, but Amanda tells her she has no ability to feel. She is a psychopath. Or whatever else her doctor’s call her. Apparently, she has that all her life and she always pretended to express emotions to make others feel good. Or bad/sad/whatever else Amanda can’t feel. Lily is fascinated by Amanda. Maybe if they can be friends Amanda might help her get rid off Lily’s stepdad. After all what are psychopath friends good for anyways?

Writing

Cute little girls going bat-shit crazy and planning assassinations and all kind of scheming is not new. Neither is the plot of the movie. Lily thinks her dad needs to go. According to her, he is emotionally abusive and is hurting her and her mother. Mother, of course, doesn’t feel it that way. But, hey, a teenager should know better right? Probably the biggest achievement this film has is to present the facts from perspective of Lily. She is supposed to be a spoiled little princess. She surrounded by lush and luxurious life. Gardeners, servants, housekeepers always around. By definition she is a spoiled princess. But film doesn’t present her like that. She seems normal. But is she?

Otherwise, writing is unimaginative and lazy. Having a psychopath in the movie might sound very interesting, after all we even have a very fun “Seven Psychopaths” full of colorful characters. But is it really a good idea? Amanda just walks around speaking monotonously and expressing no feelings. Lily on the other hand is so weirdly fascinated with her, showing full spectrum of emotions, I kept asking myself – why is that? Why is she so interested in Amanda? There is literally no redeeming quality of having Amanda around. Other than to have somebody to talk to. But even then, it is Amanda who puts ideas into Lily’s head. “Did you think of killing him?” “Huh,” suddenly thinks Lily, “Maybe I should kill him”. And then jump to “I definitely need to kill him” and all the way to “We must kill him no matter what!” Seriously, movie? What is going on?

Directing

“Thoroughbreds” is boring. So boring that I kept looking at my watch. Like every five minutes. I also noticed that you can skip one full scene without interrupting the whole flow of the film. So go ahead, you can do a bathroom break, if you need to. It is not worth holding it in. You will not miss anything. Long shots. Empty frames. Weird music (oh yeah, can’t live without weird music nowadays). Then the film is broken into chapters. Not sure what director was trying to achieve by this. Copying Tarantino? Chapters should be dividing storylines into distinctive parts, but here you have one linear story and “Chapter XX” appearing just because director thought it is cute. I can not find a single thing to commend for directing of newcomer Cory Finley.

Acting

Lily (Taylor-Joy) and Amanda (Cooke) plotting a murder

Anya Tayloy-Joy is a wonder. She is the only reason I kept watching this film. She is full of emotions, her eyes are burning with fascination of Amanda’s condition. Unlike Amanda she literally shows the full spectrum of emotions. I see a very bright future in her, especially after her incredible performance in “Split“. Complete opposite of her is Olivia Cooke as Amanda, who just has one single facial expression through the whole film. Supporting cast is not even worth mentioning. There are there to fill the gaps. Not gaps of storyline, but gaps of screen time. You have to get your 90 minutes from somewhere, don’t you now?

Summary

This movie is as indie as it can be. It premiered in Sundance, which is surprising, because (1) Sundance has become more and more pop, (2) even the worst Sundance films are actually worth watching (and “Thoroughbreds” is not), (3) Sundance is usually about an idea, spirit, and here those are not even remotely present. How this movie is even released in theaters, I wonder. When you have “Annihilation” being destroyed by the studio that made it for being “uncool and not having positive ending” to see a movie like “Thoroughbreds” receive a full release is a big insult for a common sense. I wish I watched Oprah in “A Wrinkle of Time” instead.

The post Thoroughbreds appeared first on Kino-AZ.

3 pairs of car lights cut through darkness of inner Turkey – Anatolia. They stop at seemingly random location, several men jump out of the cars and lean into darkness. One of them is handcuffed. He insists he buried the body near “the tree that looks like a ball”. That and there was a field to the left of the stream. He was drunk. He can’t remember any more. Police officials insist on looking for the next location claiming “they already came so far”. The company gathers and move to the next one. Unfortunately, it seems there’s infinite amount of locales identical to the suspects description. And the whole company – (we learn) consisting of inspector, prosecutor, his assistant, doctor, gendarmes, drivers, and couple of gravediggers – all are forced to move to a new location with the hope to find the body and end this long night. In the process, which is routine to the said officials, they discuss a number of topics unrelated to the case. In fact, probably the last thing they are interested in are the details of the murder. For them its another restless, windy night. Another dog howling at the Moon. Another call from frustrated wife. Another reason not to go home to the nightmares of guilt. Another way to complain about management. And for some its just a way to observe others. And all they look for is the end of The night.

Directed by Nuri Bilge Ceylan, the film becomes a surrealistic never ending dream for its heroes. Extremely long shots, wide lenses, very slow zooms and pans. I don’t if Ceylan had this in mind, but he managed to recreate Andrei Tarkovskiy, without actually copying the master. And in contrast to Tarkovskiy, he managed to spice seemingly boring and depressing film with some funny (witty funny, NOT stupid funny) moments, that gives an extra life to the film.

The exhaustion of all the members of the group leads to shocking revelations of true faces and forces genuine emotions to the surface. No character will leave that night without being completely analyzed under the microscope. And every single one has a proper story, proper development, and proper face. Even the ones who don’t even open their mouths or appear just for a 10 seconds on the screen leave a distinct footprint in our minds – we know who they are, we know what they do, and why they do.

Ensemble cast of the movie is just incredible. I specifically enjoyed straight-faced inspector (played by Yilmaz Erdogan) who has seen a thousand of jobs like this and still manages to keep his sanity. I don’t want to go into details, doing so will only spoil the movie.

I enjoyed the experience a lot. As I mentioned above, the movie left me with ton of questions about my own life. Probably the only thing I didn’t like about the film was the ending. I think at some point Ceylan decided to tie some loose ends, which I prefer he didn’t. I loved the atmosphere he created throughout the film and was actually disappointed that he decided to go forward from it.

I know, probably half of you won’t watch this movie. And out of that half, half won’t even like it. But, this is what I feel art cinema should be like. Its not for everyone. And although I am not a big fan of art cinema – I suppose most of the films told to be one are just pseudo-art cinema – “Once upon a time in Anatolia” is as genuine as art cinema can be.

9/10

The post Once Upon A Time In Anatolia appeared first on Kino-AZ.

It’s a story of how one decision leads to other decisions, which lead to big consequences, which lead to even bigger consequences. Happily married couple Nader (Peyman Maadi) and Simin (Leila Hatami) are in the court trying to get divorce. She wants for the family to move out of Iran, they have only 40 days to do so. He doesn’t want to leave because of his father with Alzheimer’s disease. Pivot point is their 11 year old daughter, who currently stays with Nader, in hopes that family reconciles. As a result of separation agreement, Simin leaves their home to stay with her mother. Nader is forced to hire a housekeeper Razieh to look after his father while he is out of the house. She needs money, so even though she hasn’t asked for permission from her strict religious husband about working in another man’s house (approval of which is required according to tradition), she agrees to do the job. Next day Nader walks in the house to find his father is left alone in the house tied to the bed, with Razieh apparently out running her personal errands. He throws her out, when she comes back. Next morning he learns Razieh is in hospital and he is being called to the court. You can’t stop this snowball anymore.

I was very surprised by the ability of the cast to remain as natural and realistic as possible. As a matter of fact, I never saw any fake reaction or motion by any of the actors, including young 5 year old girl. There’s not a single overacting or underacting that I did notice. The film is done on the fraction of the budget of regular Hollywood movie (estimated budget of $500,000), but acting can kick ass of any random high profile Hollywood production.

I guess it all comes to directing abilities this time. Asghar Farhadi lets the actors proceed on the topic without interrupting the dialogues with meaningless shots of random stuff or trying to make the framing cinematic. He gives you pretty much basic idea of a cut where camera just follows what the actors say or do, without trying to be present. In return, you have some scenes with the ingenuity of a good theatrical presentation. And I bet, this movie would have make a great theater drama. The natural appeal of the dialogues and reactions adds a big value for the film. There’s only other film I can compare the acting to – “Glengarry Glen Ross” by James Foley. But that movie had the likenesses of Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Kevin Spacey, Ed Harris and so on. This one can match it, if not overshadow, by using local Iranian actors.

The main topic of the film is pride, lies, and honor. At some point of the film you know that the conflict could have been solved and that route of snowball going downhill could have been stopped if any of the characters would have really tried to swallow pride and act correctly. But no, you have an interesting moment where there’s not a single likable character in the film. And everyone has some part in the ensuing madness. Some are doing it on purpose, someone are forced to do it. You don’t see this much on film. Here I’d like to give another example – “Crash” by Paul Haggis, which follows similar pattern of random people connected and acting through a snowball effect. But there the main topic was racism and prejudice.

There’s a good reason this film would have never worked if it was filmed in Hollywood. I’m sure they would have included a big deal of racial discrimination issue into the story. And sure there would be tons of establishing shots, trying to show how the people lived before, how they struggled. But no! You have totally different mentality. Totally different approach for the viewer. Viewer is respected. He is not considered a dumb being that needs to be thrown a bone of explanation and clarification. All you need is on the screen, everything else you can deduce on your own.

Film manages to create certain uneasiness by plot progression. And although at times I felt like it was pushing me apart, it manages to keep me connected, up until the end you can’t just walk out of it. The end, which made me actually smile, was a really good touch by director. Film got nominated for 2 Oscars (Screenplay and Best Foreign Feature), but I’m sure it should have been nominated for another 3 at least (Best Picture, Editing, and Directing). Unfortunately, the Academy did decide to stick with other films. I’m sure this film will get its truly deserved recognition by the cinema lovers as soon as they see it.

This is a must-watch film.

9/10

The post A Separation appeared first on Kino-AZ.