Cannes Palme d’Or winner of 2019, “Parasite” offers unexpected twists and turns into what humans are capable to do to survive. I was truly amazed by the acting, I think everyone was superb in this film, especially Cho Yeo-jeong (Mrs.Park) and Jang Hye-jin (Mrs.Kim). Directing is also top-notch. Bong Joon-ho builds up on the experience from previous films and offers an engaging film that sucks you in from first second and doesn’t let go all the way till the end. Impressive cinematography, coupled with equally notable editing, creates almost majestic effect. And while pacing could have been a little more dynamic, overall it doesn’t hinder the experience.

What does tho is actual writing. All his life being called “Hollywood director,” Bong Joon-ho makes a complete U-turn and tries to rid himself of all Hollywood cliches. And while one might argue it is for a greater good, I would say that it actually strips the script from certain magic. There are multiple metaphors, but very minimal foreshadowing and almost no “Checkhov’s gun”. Which normally I would say is a plus, but taking into account multiple twists and turns the story takes, this leaves viewers not only shocked but also somewhat confused by progression of certain totally unexpected events. And as such it loses some poetic aspects that could have potentially made “Parasite” a definite masterpiece.

The post Parasite appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Joaquin Phoenix though just kills it all with mind-blowing performance. It is a tremendous challenge to try to build on performances of Nicholson and Ledger, but unlike Leto, Phoenix decides not to create a new Joker persona but tread a thin line right in between Nicholson’s slick mobster and Ledger’s psychotic anarchist versions. Thus his Joker is a very successful amalgamation of both characters and it is what makes this movie work on a grand scale. 

I decided to split the difference and call it 3.0/5.0

PS: People applauded, laughed and cheered in the most bloody, gruesome, weird and inappropriate moments in the film. Are they as messed up as Gotham citizens depicted in the film? Or is it just me who finds murders not funny? How f%$&ed up is that?

The post Joker appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Creed family has relocated to quiet, small town of Ludlow, Maine. They have grown tired of busy life in Boston and also new job at local college clinic promises that Louis can spend more time with his family. And while he is at work, his wife Rachel will look after their children – eight-year-old Ellie and two-year-old Gage. Family immediately falls in love with lush forests of Maine. But, they soon find out that their huge house lot also includes a pet cemetery (actually, spelled as Pet Sematary). Neighbor of Creed’s, old timer Jud explains that it has been a local tradition of Ludlow children to bury their beloved animals in that area. And soon Ellie’s cat, Church is killed by a car. Jud takes Louis to Pet Sematary to bury his cat. But noting that Louis doesn’t want to make her daughter sad, Jud instead asks Louis to follow him deeper into the woods. Because there the ground is sour…

Writing

Burial ground

I would really like to commend the screenwriter Jeff Buhler for doing an awesome job adapting the source material, which Stephen King has admitted is his most scariest book. Story tries to stay as close to the book as possible, while offering new elements and different ending. I expected this, as I knew that there were a lot of things in the book that were either not-filmable or would make little sense to concentrate on. Buhler masterfully evades these scenes, giving the film something new. And this new is what makes this film stand out, all while maintaining same nail-biting creepiness and overall darkness.

My only critique is that I wished they have included or elaborated on the character motivations. While it was all brilliantly described in the book, I predict some viewers would find some things annoyingly unexplained. Things like why exactly Jud did tell Louis about the burial grounds. Or why exactly Louis then did what he had to do. A little elaboration on the actions and motivations I think would have made “Pet Sematary” much more grounded.

Children burying beloved pets in Pet Sematary

Directing

“Pet Sematary” is genuinely pure horror. And we have to thank directors Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer for that. They masterfully build tension by using long shots, slow tracking cameras and extremely scary imagery. There are, of course, mandatory jump scares, but they are well spaced and used only in first section of the film. I really enjoyed the way directors handled the tension aspect of the film. While it is nowhere close to “Hereditary“, it still manages to deliver thrills by not only building it, but also delivering explosive action.

Another thing that I also noticed how directors managed to keep the dark tone. There are no cheesy dialogues, no campy weirdness or funny violence. It is not “Us” in any sense. “Pet Sematary” starts dark and it gets darker and darker with each minute.

Acting

Louis (Clarke) doesn’t believe his eyes

Interestingly, the best acting of last year came from horror films. Who knew that by making characters believable horror films can be taken to other level? But exactly this was proven by Toni Collette in “Hereditary“, Tilda Swinton in “Suspiria“, Emily Blunt in “A Quiet Place” and even last week’s Lupita Nyong’o in “Us“. And now “Pet Sematary” joins this list of horror films with exceptional cast. On one hand we have Jason Clarke play Louis. He surprised me a lot with his last year performance in “Chappaquiddick” and “First Man” and he continues to do so again. I am expecting big things from him. On the other hand we have veteran actor John Lithgow as neighbor Jud. While the genre is a little new for him, he brings all his craft to the table.

Supporting cast is awesome addition of young and brave Jeté Laurence and grieving Amy Seimetz. Both play their parts perfectly, especially young Laurence, without whom this film would have been a disaster.

Summary

“Pet Sematary” is a masterfully made “pure horror” film. It stays loyal to the source material, all while offering new and fresh ideas. Well written, directed and acted, this film will satisfy any horror fan and more.

The post Pet Sematary appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

You are Adelaide, you have a loving man-child husband, rebellious teenage daughter, and curious young son. You are going to vacation in your grandmother’s old cottage next to the beach. Except you are not excited about it. Especially about the beach. Because some thirty years ago, you briefly wondered off from you parents in the beach and ended up going into carnival mirror house where you “met” a girl in there. Experience shakes you up to the core, which you hide inside you for all this years. But when suddenly four people clad in red show up in front of your doors, all memories come back. Oh, yes, and this people are messed up version of you and your family.

Young Adelaide sees something she will want to forget

Directing

For a weird step out from my review formula, I have decided to write about directing first. “Us” proves that success that Jordan Peele had as a director of “Get Out” is not a mere surprise. He employs an arsenal of an established horror director, all while keeping the film entertained and somewhat away from regular horror clichés. He uses minimal jump scares, blood and violence. Instead he ramps up psychological intensity to create and nourish terror in us.

I really enjoyed the camera work and lighting. Peele masterfully uses the fact that dark skin reacts differently to lighting than light skin. This opens up a whole new avenue to create masterfully staged and lit scenes that elevate the experience further. So instead of usual yellow/orange palette that most horror films utilize, “Us” heavily uses blue/purple lights to create stunning response.

Red family is ready

Peele also uses backlighting to further affect the images. Red family is constantly in shadow. Their appearance doesn’t contrast the background, but gradually melts into it. Thus the only thing that stands out is whites of eyes and teeth. This had a tremendous effect on me in a way I didn’t actually expect.

At 116 minutes, film is unusually long for a horror film (though still shorter than “Suspiria”). But time is not of a concern, as Peele manages pacing beautifully with masterful editing. Editing is subtle and spot on. There are very minimal jump scares, and even they don’t feel like Peele is pushing them on us.

Writing

Wilsons are not ready at all

The problem I had with “Us” is the writing. And not really the plot progression, but the explanation and ending. Film starts with a promising setup. There is whole “is she or is she not mad” moment which then diverges into something completely different (not spoiling it). It is all nice and cool and somewhat believable until we get to the middle when film has to explain us what is happening.

And then film turns into another episode of “Black Mirror”. Except not a good episode, but weird, illogical and borderline boring “Black Mirror” episode. To the extent that I pretty much lost all suspense of disbelief in the end. I had so many questions starting with why, how and what for, that it almost killed the whole experience and satisfaction I was having from the film. And I am not even talking that storyline went from being fresh, to complete derivative of sci-fi clichés.

Another thing that was a killer for me was comic undertone. While it worked perfectly in “Get Out”, Jordan Peele has a lot of problems with it in “Us”. He tries to keep it all serious and “pure” horror, but he just can’t not diverge from making film funny. As such, some horror scenes become slapstick. I really wish Peele didn’t go there as it just downgrades the whole experience and destroys all built up tension of horror.

What is secret of Red?

Acting

Pretty much every actor played two roles as themselves and their “red” version. Lupita Nyong’o just kills it with her performance. She is extremely believable as troubled Adelaide and her psychotic counterpart. Winston Duke was a revelation in “Black Panther”, but in “Us” I didn’t like him much. He plays stereotypical American dad, who is still a child inside. I am not sure if he was written like that, but I think Duke failed to deliver a believable performance.

I enjoyed Shahadi Wright Joseph as a teenage daughter of Adelaide. She was very intense and spot on in her scenes. Evan Alex plays Adelaide’s younger son. He delivers the job, but unfortunately couldn’t convince me to be invested into his character as it was intended.

Elisabeth Moss and Tim Heidecker play supporting parts and I just hated them. They were extremely poorly written to begin with, but their performance was weird and ridiculous. Especially to see Moss, who is a very talented actress, to perform this way felt as a huge waste of talent.

Summary

In all, “Us” is a very well made film with mediocre screenplay. Peele masterfully creates and sustains tension for the whole film, supported by amazing cinematography, editing and acting, but effect is loss due to storyline diverging into weird clichés and comedy elements that ruin intensity with a slapstick.

The post Us appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Seemingly delusional Patricia makes her way to office of psychologist Dr. Kemperer in West Berlin, 1977. She is dancer in Markos Dance Academy, but she claims that world famous company is actually a witch coven. In the meantime, amateur dancer Susie arrives to academy. She convinces academy teachers to allow her an audition and completely blows their minds away with her raw technique. She specifically attracts attention of lead choreographer, Madam Blanc, who senses mysterious force while Susie dances. Susie is immediately admitted to academy, to actually replace Patricia, who has just disappeared. But while Susie celebrates her immediate success with her new friends, all teachers of the academy discuss in private whether they have finally found that ONE girl they have been looking for all these years.

Writing

For the most part “Suspiria” is a very well written film. It has multiple characters that story centers on and screenwriters give each of them a proper time to develop and evolve. There are several narratives mostly concentrating on the events happening in the academy and a side story of Dr. Kemperer, who tries to find Patricia and reminiscences his past. However, there are minor things that have been added to the plot that didn’t honestly make much sense. I am talking about some random events that are happening in parallel to the main plot, like the whole story about terrorists or not so subtle feminist attributes, for example.

Despite having very long time (152 minutes), film never bores you. This is because the setup and story are really interesting and intriguing. Weird events that happen on screen very successfully induce suspense and dread through the first couple of hours. This I can not say at all about the resolution and ending of the film. Film wastes all suspense on a random solution that is neither satisfying nor interesting. As such, ending seems very out of place. Even cartoonish at some point. It overall managed to degrade my whole experience of watching “Suspiria” tremendously.

Directing

I was very adamant actually watching this film. Firstly, because of the 152 minutes of runtime. This is incredible amount of time for any film, let alone a horror film. I can’t honestly remember any horror film being this long. Secondly, director is Luca Guadagnino, best known for romantic drama films. I was really unsure how would he be able to handle psychological horror film. But what I found that my second concern actually solved my first one. Luca Guadagnino takes the film on another level, not letting you anyhow zone out of the film during its very long runtime. He masterfully builds, sustains and evolves tension throughout the whole film. Not a single time I was concerned about time while watching “Suspiria”.

Guadagnino uses several visual techniques through “Susperia” to further increase uneasiness. Some, like extremely quick cuts akin action movies, I did enjoy, though found kind of weird. He builds up West Berlin atmosphere masterfully, using washed out tones and colors. I didn’t see any bright or main colors throughout the whole duration of film. It’s a very known technique and horror directors usually use it with conjunction of very bright red color for blood to attenuate the visual horror. However, this is not the case with “Suspiria”. Color is toned down (very toned down) through the whole film without any cheap tricks with regard to visual clues.

Acting

“Suspiria” has an impressive cast of young actresses like Dakota Johnson, Mia Goth and Chloë Grace Moretz, but the one and only star in this film is undeniably Tilda Swinton. She is amazing actress in general, but “Suspiria” is just beyond any other work she has done. Her level of acting pushes envelope in all sense. Just like her character, who owes the dancefloor and dancers, she owes every scene she is in. She emanates force through the screen and this adds a very chilling effect to her already mystical character of Madam Blanc. This is by far the best performance by an actress I have seen in whole year.

Summary

Despite a long runtime, “Suspiria” never bores with masterfully built tension and truly fantastic work by Tilda Swinton, but has an ending that makes little sense and is cartoonish.

The post Suspiria appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Ellen Graham has died. In her bed, from old age and dementia. Her last several years she spent with her daughter Annie and her family, though they never were really close to each other prior to that. In eulogy to her mother Annie mentions that Ellen was a very private person with her private friends. Death of Ellen affects all family members differently. While Annie is lethargic on surface, her son Peter couldn’t care less about death of her Grandma. In contrast, Annie’s young daughter Charlie, who has always been weirdly close to Ellen, is visibly distressed. Annie’s caring husband Steve just tries to keep everyone sane and peaceful. That same night though Ellen’s grave is vandalized and body is stolen. And immediately strange occurrences start happening in the house. But is it for real or is Annie getting mad?

Annie (Collette) tries to comfort Charlie (Shapiro) after funeral

Writing

“Hereditary” is written and directed by newcomer Ari Aster. His screenplay is full with long silences and expository dialogues. In fact, there is so much exposition packed into one specific scene, that despite incredible acting by Toni Collette, the words she was saying felt so uncharacteristic, so fake, so out of place. They were there just to let viewers know the backstory and not the emotional state of the character, as director originally intended.

Story itself is revolving around supernatural and occult. It is nothing new, in fact it seems as another rehash or remix of films you have seen before. And like in most cases, instead of taking only the good parts, “Hereditary” also borrows a lot of mediocrity from other films. In that sense, even “Veronica” had a much better story. Resolution of film felt inconsistent and to be honest quite unsatisfying by all means. The explanation and revelations are mundane at best and never give anything worthy.

Steve (Byrne) doesn’t want to believe Annie (Collette)

Directing

Unlike other genres of horror, supernatural horror films don’t necessarily invoke horror. The main drive is slow tension that builds up the dread. It is the uneasy feeling that audience gets waiting to find out what slow pan of the camera will show behind the corner or where is the weird clicking noise coming from or who is hiding in the shadow. These sequences are usually supported by unnerving soundtrack of somebody playing violin with a chainsaw. In cheap films they usually end with a random jump scare. Good films tend to not resolve to that. “Sixth Sense” had dread involving dead people trying to hurt the boy. In “Rosemary’s Baby” we had a pregnant mother wanting to protect her unborn child. “Veronica” shows that danger to main hero meant danger to all her family.

“Hereditary” tries it’s best to stay away from jump scares. But I can’t say if there was a truly scary moment in the film. Film instead concentrates in building a very serious feeling of dread. And partially succeeds in that – first half of the film builds up a truly unnerving and sometimes goosebumps inducing tension. Unfortunately, this tension doesn’t resolve into anything proper or substantial and the second part of film felt like a complete let down. I thought for a moment that it was just me, but audience in the cinema unanimously agreed by laughing at scariest moments instead of screaming in terror. This especially showed itself in the ending, which seemed ridiculous and unsatisfying.

Toni Collette as Annie is phenominal!

Acting

Where “Hereditary” truly excels is acting. Pretty much all main cast shows exceptional acting skills. Something you tend not to see in a horror film. Toni Collette delivers one of the most genuine and amazing performances of not only her career, but possibly by actress in a horror film since Kathy Bates in “Misery”. I will be very disappointed if she will not earn an Oscar nomination for her role. Her delivery is not something of “Oh my God believe me!” kind, but is an emotional, touching and shaken performance. Gabriel Byrne returns to horror films, genre that suits him the best. He, of course, matured since last time he was in a horror film and his performance has matured with him. Also, would like to mention Alex Wolff as Peter, whom you might remember as a nerd from “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle“. Unlike that film, where he plays a goof, here he gets a chance to show his dramatic abilities of acting spectrum and uses this opportunity surprisingly well.

Summary

Despite being well-made and out-of-worldly performance by Toni Collette, “Hereditary” struggles with mundane plot and unsatisfying ending. Inability to provide enough scare, albeit craftily building tension and dread, seriously maims the enjoyment of the film. That paired with 127 minutes long runtime just ruins everything.

The post Hereditary appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Marlo’s due date is on Monday. She is mother of 8-year-old girl and 4-year-old boy. Third one is apparently an accident but she and her husband, Drew, are ready to welcome new baby to their family. But, maybe Marlo is not so much excited after all. She had postpartum depression after giving birth to second child. And now she is visibly irritated, tired, annoyed, absent, and ready to quit. As a birth present, her loaded brother Craig offers to pay for a “night nanny,” a person who looks after the kid during nights, while parents get all the rest they need. Marlo is hesitant, she doesn’t want a stranger near the baby. But after she gives birth, everything starts falling apart. To the point that one day she realizes that she maybe should accept that help after all. And the help arrives in the face of young, slim, energetic and adorable Tully, who is there to take care of Mommy.

Writing

Diablo Cody, writer of Juno, wrote this film. Remember who that is, I will speak a lot about her screenplay, because it’s messed up to the core. So messed up, that I actually don’t have words to describe it. I will do my best:

Marlo (Theron) crashes despite children running around

First of all, film is advertised and presented as a comedy. But the comedy is extremely situational and fake. Character of Marlo is basically same quirky, sarcastic and ironic Juno character, but aged 30 years and not getting any smarter. At least Juno was cute and adorable. Marlo is anything but. Comedy in the film arises either from supporting cast telling something borderline irrational to Marlo and her rolling her eyes and/or Marlo replying something sarcastic. It’s like watching a stand-up special. And not the one that everyone wants to see.

Second, just like Juno, Diablo Cody’s script is full with witty remarks and poster taglines. They are delivered so spontaneously and in such a robotic matter, that you can see how the screenwriter and director (it’s his fault here too) basically tries to force feed you the wisdom. Essentially, you can take the whole script and strip it down to 15-20 Confucius-like sayings.

Marlo (Theron) is not sure how she will handle the birth

Third, even if you decide to forego all these limitations and accept the comedy as a face fact (I actually did that just to give film a chance), “Tully” has another surprise for you in the pocket. Last third of the film gets weirder and weirder and culminates in a such freaking ending that made me think what the fuck did I just saw. And retrospectively we realize that “Tully” was never a comedy! Everything that were even remotely funny to that point suddenly become scary and nauseatingly horrible!

Fourth, I hated how the father was portrayed. He is so cliché – it is just mind-blowing! He is accused of coming home late (despite the need to make more money, family is barely making ends meet), he complains about the frozen pizza (roll-eyes), he plays video games at night (oh my God!), he sleeps soundly when she wakes up to feed the baby, etc. Surprisingly, Marlo NEVER during the course of film asked ANYTHING from her husband. I specifically looked for it. Did she ever tell him to go pick up the kid in the middle of the night? Did she tell him to take care of rest of the children? Nope. But that’s his fault, of course.

Directing

Jason Reitman teams again with Diablo Cody to do “Tully”. But unlike Juno, this film doesn’t have a feel-good attitude. Maybe because the character of Marlo is not that adorable and cute, or maybe (I really hope this is the case) it’s because of the ending that Reitman didn’t want to risk to make the rest of film so riskily frantic. Regardless, he does more or less good job with framing and interesting montage in the middle, when baby is born. It shows everything there is to know and gets to the point. Marlo is struggling and we follow these struggles extremely close. There are some prophetical dream sequences (which dreams in the movie are not prophetical, you tell me?), but their presence was really dubious. Why include them at all?

Tully (Davis) watches Marlo (Theron) feed the baby

Acting

It is good to finally see Charlize Theron in a role that makes her show her full spectrum of acting ability. She is on top of her game and I am happy to see her perform so well after such duds like ridiculous “Atomic Blonde” and plain stupid “Gringo.” This is not Oscar-worthy performance, mind you, but she is extremely believable as a struggling mother. The only thing, she seems very radiant when Tully starts helping her. Very visibly radiant. I will blame that on make-up department. Rest of the cast are uneventful. Mackenzie Davis plays free-spirited Tully, she is cute and energetic and fun – basically everything that Marlo isn’t. She plays well, but she drowns next to Theron. Ron Livingston plays “absent-minded” father of the family. He does his job – he is not there.

Summary

Despite advertised as comedy, “Tully” offers very little fun, instead showing actual tragedy and struggles of being a mother. That topped with ridiculously horrible ending make viewer question even the very little laughs that we got through the film. Screenplay is full of fake, witty remarks that the cast delivers them in robotic manner. The characters are barely sympathetic and with the ending even that sympathy goes away. Charlize Theron finally gets a role that lets her shine, but still can’t save this film from totally pissing me off.

The post Tully 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

Sawyer Valentini feels like she is getting mad. She has relocated to a new city, found a new house, job. All because she had issues with a man stalking her. Despite moving on, she lives in constant fear for her life. To cope with that she decides to visit a psychiatrist. She talks about insecurities and difficulties she is having and how she feels depressed. When psychiatrist asks her about possible suicidal tendencies, Sawyer confirms that she sometimes has them. When their session completes Sawyer wants to leave, but nursing staff stops her. They tell her to surrender all her possessions and follow her. Sawyer is dumbfounded, but they explain to her that among other things she was signing during “discharge” was an agreement to voluntarily stay in the mental institution. Psychiatrist made a conclusion that she might be danger to herself and others. And now she just can’t leave anymore.

Writing

Films of this genre like to play with the viewer. Usually for the entirety of such film we are left clueless. Is our hero really mad? Or is everyone playing the game to make person believe she is mad? Or maybe it’s all some kind of dream? “Unsane” starts just like that and film does toy with the viewers. The uneasiness of the situation being placed into mental institution voluntarily/involuntarily and immediate consequences of that do drag you emotionally down. But instead of keeping this intrigue, film gives it all somewhere right in the middle of second act.

Sawyer (Foy) doesn’t want to take pills

That first section of the film is truly well written. By limiting what is shown and what is said, film manages to create uneasiness and discomfort to viewer. We root for our hero, Sawyer. And this is despite the fact that she truly never shows anything worthy of a hero. Yes, she is apparently good at her job. But she is very rude to her clients and to her co-workers. And she has weird sexual fantasies in regards to her social life. She is manipulative, explosive, controlling and narcissistic. Whole first section of the film I was asking myself that maybe she indeed was just all mad. Or maybe every one was against her. This invoked a lot of sympathy, despite all negative aspects to Sawyer’s personality.

And then film shifts into another territory. No longer we have to worry if Sawyer is sane or “unsane”, film has a clear answer to that. And because there is still half of the film to go, we are no longer guessing what is going on. There is no reason to sit on the edge, at least from “sanity” perspective. Second half of the film instead ventures more into a “survival” territory. And suddenly we get to see more of Sawyer. There is a big shift in her personality. Since there is no pity aspect anymore, film needs to make hero sympathetic and it doesn’t do a good job at it. It just doesn’t feel natural.

Directing

Steven Soderbergh is a true master of his craft. You can see exactly why he chose the iPhone. Not because they are awesome, or good way to keep budget down. But to be able to give a true indie look to the film. From first shot this doesn’t feel like Hollywood movie at all. Or any other Soderbergh’s films (“Haywire“, “Logan Lucky“). Weird framing, unnecessary cuts, ultra-wide angles, or ridiculous close-ups. It feels like the film was actually done by a student filmmaker who tries to prove to the World that he is new Tarkovsky. Soderbergh gives us a look that you can see more on the screen of some D-rated independent film festival.

And this is where his genius comes in. The first half of the film, where we are not sure what is going on is full with these shots. Just because indie films like so much to toy with emotions of viewers. And in the second half of the movie, these weird shots are all gone and it feels like Hollywood production again. There is no need for them anymore. Regardless, Soderbergh manages to create and hold tension for the majority of the film. The ending seemed a little rushed and I think could have used a bigger resolution. Not sure what was the reasoning to end the film like that.

Violet (Temple) taunts sedated Sawyer (Foy)

Acting

Overall acting was enjoyable. Claire Foy plays our hero, Sawyer Valentini. She is extremely believable in all aspects. She is spot on with emotional roller-coaster her character experiences and we doubt Sawyer’s emotions very little during the film, both in first and second part. Juno Temple and Jay Pharoah play fellow patients. Both of them deliver solid performances. Pharoah plays Nate, the only person who (maybe) believes Sawyer and Temple unstable Violet.

Summary

Steven Soderbergh manages to make “Unsane” a very captivating thriller. Film juggles with viewers emotions, but never pushes them to the limit. From one point it is good, instead of having cliche endings and multiple twists, film sorts everything in the middle and leaves us guessing what will happen. On the other hand it reduced the whole engagement and investment into the movie and forced a transformation into main character to make her more sympathetic.

The post Unsane 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.