Story

Brea is an investigative journalist. On the day of her birthday her boss fires her after confrontation that she is always pursuing something deeper instead of reporting on the cause. But she has her loving boyfriend, John, to comfort her. During dinner with their obnoxious friends, Brea finds out that John has planned a big getaway weekend with the goal to ask Brea to marry her. She is hesitant. John is a loving and caring man, but Brea is still not sure if she wants to commit. On the way to the gateway villa, John and Brea stop at a gas station. And while in the restroom Brea meets visible distressed woman, who whispers something like a code word to her. And thus, inadvertently, Brea and John are sucked into underground ring of sex trafficking.

Brea (Patton) and John (Epps) should probably run

Writing and Directing

Deon Taylor wrote and directed “Traffik”, so I am combining these sections. Traffik” devotes first thirty minutes just to setup Brea character. To show how resilient and unbending she can be. She is fired for literally working too hard. Then it all turns into Brea questioning herself whether she is worthy of adorable and loving John. Why waste time on all this? Well because what happens next is series of very stupid decisions by characters. By giving an explanation to Brea’s personality film tries to show that the stupidity is not by chance, but actually because that’s how Brea is.

Then film starts building a weird tension. “Traffik” is a thriller after all, but tension is so fake, so superficial, that it never is actually pushing it all the way. There is a scene with couple fighting and it all is done so randomly and is so out of place with the rest of the film, that the only explanation to why it was done was to have one character leave the house. This random writing devices to get plot rolling and fall into places is so sporadic that you start yawning by the middle of it.

Brea (Patton) has an encounter with distressed woman

Another issue is action scenes and the ending. This is supposed to be a thriller. I don’t want a megalomaniac villain, but the bad guys in the film are extremely ineffective. They are supposed to be running an extremely successful trafficking ring, but the level of amateurism they show makes you wonder how exactly they did achieve the heights in this business. The bad guys in “Traffik” are the dumbest bad guys I have seen in a very long time. In comparison to them “Rampage” bad guys feel like Joker (Nicholson’s and Ledger’s Joker, not messed up crap of Leto’s). Ending in so abrupt it makes you wonder if producers ran out of money. There is no climax, no big reveal, no twist-upon-twist revelation, no “did she or did she not?” and almost definitely zero suspense in the ending.

Then there is a deep, dark topic of “Traffik”. Sex trafficking might be (as film actually very cleverly notes) a flavorful name of modern day slavery, but make no mistake, it is an undeniable problem that still remains one of the biggest issues globally. The first shots of “Traffik” actually tried to address it by showing young and attractive girl dancing in the club and then getting lured into a van, where she is abducted. I thought, this film IS going somewhere. Unfortunately, there is very little regarding actual brutality and horrors of sex trafficking and the victims through the rest of film. These depictions usually consisted of images of malnourished, drugged and beaten women, and that is all.

John (Epps) tries to call the police. Right…

Acting

Paula Patton stars as Brea and she tries hard to deliver a believable character. I have to commend her, she is the only thing in this film that actually works, more or less. And she keeps film from falling apart. She is equally charming, beautiful, strong and vulnerable. Omar Epps plays her boyfriend John. He is a very good actor with wide spectrum, but he is really underutilized in “Traffik”. Rest of cast are very bland.

Summary

You might think that film that is called “Traffik” will deal more with the horrors and reaches of sex trafficking, but no. Apart from showing several drugged and abused women in chain, it doesn’t give us anything else. Film has poorly written screenplay and for a thriller, has mediocre suspense, cliché drama and ridiculously mild ending. The only positive factor is Paula Patton’s performance, which in turn is ruined by total under-utilization of the supporting cast.

The post Traffik appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

Several years after events of “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” Caesar and his fellow intelligent apes are hiding in the forest. They still try to maintain peaceful relationship with humans, but it is getting more and more difficult. There are not many humans around, and most of the humans alive are military groups. One of these military groups finally stumbles upon Caesar’s hideout. They are led by mysterious Colonel, who commandeers his troupes to eradicate as much monkey as they can. His troupes are not all human – there are some apes (who they call donkeys) who are also under his command. They are followers of human-hating Koba, Caesar’s friend whom he killed. Colonel’s men ambush apes, but through heavy losses apes are able to fend off the attack. Caesar releases remaining soldiers alive, trying to send a piece offering. But later that night Colonel himself comes back and kills Caesar’s wife and son. Caesar understands that while Colonel is alive, apes are never going to be safe. So, he sets out to deal with Colonel once and for all.

Colonel (Harrelson)

Writing

In “War for the Planet of the Apes” Caesar has matured. All he is worried right now is taking his tribe outside the world they are living in. Koba who succumbed to his hatred and betrayed Caesar might be dead, but he is chasing Caesar in his dreams. He is always present, despite Caesar trying to put that behind. He feels personal guilt of letting Koba down. Of letting him become the monster. This internal struggle pushes Caesar to do something he has never done before. And with the progression of the film Caesar not only gets to understand Koba but realize that unfortunately he is not that much different from him.

Main catalyst of that is the plot. The humans around him are getting more and more crazy and apotheosis of that is Colonel. He is everything the Caesar tries not to become. Colonel is brutal, methodical, charismatic, unnerving, primal, and just insane. He is an incredible well-written villain. His

Colonel’s army is ready to greet him

persona is directly taken from Colonel Kurtz from “Apocalypse Now” (just noticed both are colonels, actually). But he is not the character immortalized by Marlon Brando. Our Colonel is somebody that Kurtz was before Captain Willard finds him. He is the version of Kurtz that Willard was reading about in his “dossier”.

In that we know of Colonel’s fate. We know how he will end. He also knows that. His soldiers are following him with NAZI devotion and totally ready to act on his single nod. His motivation to act according to his plan is beyond solid. And when finally, he gets to talk to Caesar, Caesar also totally understands him. To the point that it makes Caesar – the ape who started the revolution, who led his fellow apes through hell, who had to kill many, both enemies and his own friends – scared. Caesar understands he is dealing with someone beyond salvation. And he understands that he needs to escape before it is too late.

Caesar (Serkis) is trying to chase Colonel (Harrelson)

Directing

Matt Reeves returned from “Dawn” to do “War for the Planet of the Apes”. But this time he had complete independence on the project and he approached film with 100% dedication. He concentrates on Caesar and his struggle to become a leader that apes need so much now. Every shot, every scene is in direct correlation to what is happening to Caesar. Even when showing the other characters, their actions are in direct parallels of what would affect Caesar and his plotline. This dynamic works great, but unfortunately makes film very long and at times very slow.

Furthermore, Reeves achieves to show apes as the only sympathetic creatures and for the first time we want for humans to lose it. It is a tremendous accomplishment on its own, but at the same time alarming. By humanizing Caesar, we basically are pushed to accept humans as a dying race. How dangerous can that be to lose the faith and hope in your own kind and accept the apes as people to take over the World?

Caesar (Serkis) realizes what he needs to do

Acting

Andy Serkis reprises his role as Caesar in “War for the Planet of the Apes.” He has aged both physically and mentally. He is no longer that energetic, visionary monkey he was in two previous installments. Serkis takes this version of Caesar on another level. Woody Harrelson plays Colonel and is totally on par with Serkis to create a mesmerizing character. Just like in “Seven Psychopaths”, sometimes I just wonder how much Harrelson acts and how much he is just playing himself. His portrayal makes Colonel a worthy opponent to Caesar and once again reiterates that well-written villain is sometimes what is needed to make the hero great.

Summary

“War for the Planet of the Apes” is an amazing example of how project can be if director has maximum control over it. Well-written plot and amazing villain makes this film very intriguing watch. Despite being a sequel, plot involves evolution and development of the character of Caesar, and not just carries same qualities from previous films. Amazing performances by Serkis and Harrelson makes the duo one of the best on screen pairing of last year. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the film, it seems very long and at times way slower than I thought would be appropriate. And, it is the first film that made me completely root against humans.

The post War for the Planet of the Apes appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

We don’t know why or when creatures came. They are just here. All we need to know is that they are a) blind, b) hunt by sound, and c) have no apparent weakness. Under these conditions, all you can do to survive is to be ABSOLUTELY quiet. You communicate with sign language, apply chalk/ash to the walking grounds so that no noise is made when you walk, always be barefoot, step only on marked areas (no hardwood cracking!), use corn leaves as plates to absorb sound, eat with your hands and under NO circumstances put batteries in a toy. Lee Abbott’s family lives just like this in farm. With his wife, Evelyn, they raise their children, teenage deaf girl Regan and ten-year-old boy Marcus. They are expecting addition to their family – Evelyn is due soon. But how can you be quiet, when all you want to do is SCREAM?

Mother (Blunt) tells deaf daughter (Simmonds) to stay quiet

Writing

Film is written by John Krasinski, Bryan Woods and Scott Beck, based on Woods’ and Beck’s story. First of all, let me tell you the script of “A Quiet Place” should be thought in film school. This is one of very unique films that successfully avoids so many cliches. Let me tell how it would have looked if done by your regular screenwriter. First, you start with a text on the screen. Very small font. Then the voiceover of some veteran actor, Anthony Hopkins maybe, will read you what you can read yourself. “They appeared out of blue on day bla bla bla.”

Then there would be existential Day 0 montage, people waking up early in the morning, going to work, drinking coffee. Then, of course, there are news reports of “unspecified weird activity” and “military has taken over the city to contain damage”, which literally no one cares to notice. Creature breaks into the house. Girl is taking shower. She doesn’t know there is a creature lurking and it grabs her. She screams and we cut to the title screen. Which slowly rolls out under funky old rock-n-roll ballad, that has nothing to do with the weird stuff film is about. Matter of contrast. If that sounds familiar, welcome to the club. Scene I described is literally how Zach Snyder’s “Dawn of the Dead” begins. Which, don’t get me wrong, I think is one of the finest horror films of recent. All I am saying it is full of cliches.

“A Quiet Place” is not. Who cares where the creatures came from or what they want or why? All we need to know they are here and they hunt by sound. Film is not about them, it is about being a parent and about taking care of your family under this circumstances. About teenage girl who thinks her parents hate her. Of young boy who is afraid of growing up and accepting responsibility. Mother who knows all the pain she will have to endure to give birth to a child in a world, where baby can not make a single sound. And about father who secretly lives in terror knowing that one single mistake and everyone will be dead.

We don’t even know their names! Since 95% of time characters communicate through sign language, they don’t call each other out. I found out they actually had names from Wiki. There is no expositional BS, like “oh, it is your last day at job today bla bla” or “I wish I was getting married to your sexy marine scientist fiancee”. All information we get is from the screen. Makes you think and wonder. And to that I announce “A Quiet Place” deserving an Oscar nomination next year.

Just to be fair, there are also inconsistencies. It is not perfect. I had several questions like “well, if creatures did XXX, then why not they YYY?” or “why didn’t they think about using ZZZ or just ƏƏƏ them with ÜÜÜ?” But despite this the script pushes you to ignore these minor details and put your disbelief aside. It’s what we came to love M. Night Shyamalan’s works for. Very few films of present can claim that they achieved this.

Mother (Blunt) tries to hide from creatures when she is in labor

Directing

Speaking of Shyamalan, Krasinski’s directorial work reminded me of him a lot. He deliberately avoids jump scares (at least, as long as film can afford that) and masterfully builds suspense. There is literally one scene (no spoilers, I will try) that made me grab the armrest and my heart almost sunk. It is the scene where Evelyn wakes up. There are no jumps scares in it. She just looks around and we look around and then Evelyn and the audience, AT THE SAME TIME notice “something”. It is done so masterfully that half of the audience went “Holy F$%$!” In execution, I can compare it to same feeling I got from Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining” photo moment, Hitchcock’s “Birds” walk to the car scene, Steven Spielberg’s “Jurassic Park” T-Rex appearance, Shyamalan’s “The Sixth Sense” ring drop, Ridley Scott’s “Alien” ending with sleeping xenomorph, James Cameron’s “The Terminator” locating Sarah Connor in club. This is how big it is.

What I also enjoyed was despite the fact that Krasinski is coming from indie background, he keeps “indie” to the minimum. There are no weird angles, long shots, extreme close-ups or superwide establishing shots, no shaky footage, no film grain, shadow plays or anything else you expect from an indie horror film. He plays it safe, thus avoiding building artificial tension through cinematography, instead concentrating on the story and edits to do their job. His twists appear to be twists to the characters, not the audience. It’s Chekov’s Gun principle all over. “If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired.” Film foreshadows the whole plot. Film builds tension by letting us know EXACTLY what is going to happen and we just sit and watch and anticipate when that will happen. Nail scene, for example.

I also enjoyed how the design and execution of creatures. Just like in the “Alien”, we don’t get to see the full creature until almost the end. For the most part, creatures are just silent killers in the night. We don’t see them, we mostly just hear them or catch a glimpse of teeth and claws. Again it all comes to the point of why exactly do we need to see them if the film is not about them? At the same time, film avoids ridiculousness of “Cloverfield”, a film which is about a monster, but without a full shot of said creature. “A Quiet Place” balances it’s monsters. They are shown when they are needed to be shown, not a second early, not a second later.

Father (Krasinski) wants us to stay quiet, no matter what!

Acting

“A Quiet Place” literally is a silent film with subtitles. This by itself is an enormous undertaking for a director, since he needs to always show who is talking. On the other hand it is tremendous strain on the actors who need to play with their facial expressions, not mouth. They have to be believable and convey exact reactions. John Krasinski plays father and his real life wife, Emily Blunt, plays mother. Their screen chemistry is natural (no surprise here), at the same time they both are able to deliver heartfelt, pure emotions. Emily Blunt is obviously a much greater actor, and Krasinski understands that, both as an actor and director. For the biggest emotional scenes, he gets behind camera and let’s her wife deliver amazing performances all on her own.

Millicent Simmonds, a deaf actress, plays teenage girl who is going through abandonment issues, gives another edge to the character. Unlike others, she doesn’t need to pretend to be silent. She IS silent. Noah Jupe plays her younger brother who doesn’t want to grow up and face real world. He wants to forget all that happened and stay child for as long as possible. He is also very believable and relatable character.

Summary

Innovative, masterfully crafted, heartfelt, engaging, and at the same time, disturbing, bone-chilling, frightening, and suspenseful, “A Quiet Place” shows that horror film doesn’t need nauseating inducing violence, cheap jump scares and cliche elements to be successful. John Krasinski, despite admitting not be grown up on horror films, delivers an instant horror classic. Supported with strong performances of the cast this film deserves recognition. And that ending. That is the most satisfying (I am not saying good or bad) ending I have seen since “Inception”.

The post A Quiet Place appeared first on Kino-AZ.