Kinetta

at last, something new is going on Greek cinema. i was disappointed by reading the summary in Thessaloníki film festival. it is not a film that tells a history, thus it is not worth searching for academic forms just to try to fit in a category. i was excited that a Greek film can touch me without listening thousands words by the actors with the dictionary of hard meanings on my legs. the film is using, simply, the language of body, helping it with an excellent camera work and if you are not afraid of leaving yourself free, watching the minimum cinema "effects", you 'll get the sentiment. i saw three kind of people in the film, i saw different kind of people's loneliness and people's imposition of power. risky but very efficient the direction-editing throws to the recycle bin whatever isn't really essential. brilliant music replaces lost people's senses without been overused. imaging there was a lot of improvisation on shooting i am curious of how a choice was taken because the film is running consecutively and nothing seems kicked out. after all, it's a hope that some guys load some 16mm magazines don't wait the big production budgets and do some new cinema.

Ending the year on this is a silent high note. I was pleasantly entertained by Lanthimos' first outing as a solo director.

Lanthimos' has changed so greatly through his career, yet here in this 94 minute feature, his DNA, his mark, his stamp is prevent all throughout. I must profess that I watched this film with only Italian subtitles (On Youtube), while I can somewhat read that language, I luckily didn't find any problems as this film is surprisingly sparse in the dialogue department. There is perhaps less than ten minutes of dialogue, all in Greek of course, and I got the gist of it from my dodgy Italian reading. Yet, this film is intensely visual, Lanthimos' trademark (By this point), is a language of its own.

The film is set in a small Hellenic resort, with three nameless characters. The chambermaid, he BMW lover and the photography man. A great deal of these performances is non-verbal, and based solely on bodily expression with a few from the face. Much of the framing os focused on bodies, the lens is in a funny aspect ratio and it (I believe) is in 35mm film. This sounds awfully like perhaps the foundations of the "Greek Weird/New Wave" of film style.

The performances were all of a good quality, particularly so as there was so little dialogue, this was well performed in that regard. In particular I found for Evangelia Randou to stand out as perhaps the best.

The Cinematography is primarily handheld, and the beginning's of Lanthimos' distinctive style just begin to creep out in some spots during this film, particularly during the first act and towards the very end of the film. But i must criticise that a lot of hand held work was extremely shaky, in some places it was almost too shaky, and how this then contrasts to the very level and more classical Lanthimos' style is rather jarring in places, and a fault in the editing, quite a deep one at that measure.

At times this film went twenty minutes without uttering a word, while this made for a quiet and strangely engaging experience. At times it felt a little sparse, as some of the contemporary reviews of the time called it 'nihilistic' - that it stands and believes in nothing. And I must disagree, seeing this film from the arse end of 2018 perspective, I believe that it actually a message about the monotony of life. How the world just turns and turns, eventually leading the main character to do what she finally tries at the end. After everything that happens, that is the snap. This films message, I think to be, is about life, it is about how we spend our time. And I think the critics from when this film was released got it wrong, this film is not nihilistic.

The direction of this film, like in the Cinematography is small inklings of Lanthimos' later work. This feels like Proto-Lanthimos, it was highly intriguing to see, the things which stuck, the things that changed, and the aspects of his style that are still the same to this day. The change from this to his mastery in 'Dogtooth' just four years later, shows his incredible growth and maturity and a director, a change so dramatic that it is rarely seen from many directors.

Overall this was a little fun experience, but this films jarringness, and lack of dialogue made it for a tonally quite inconsistent film. While some aspects are forgettable, others are so distinctly Lanthimos that it is quite fun to behold. But this still feels like a style in growth, thus the final product is stunted, and somewhat weak. This film is worth seeing of you are a fan of Yorgos Lanthimos, or are interested in the forming of the new Greek wave. I give it a 3/5.

These days, this director is very famous. I was wondering about the director's first films. I found this movie and watched it. This is not a movie. It didn't make any sense, I waited until the end, maybe something different would happen. It has no value as a movie, nothing happens in the movie. I do not recommend. But strangely, I have never regretted watching this movie. I wonder why ?

99% percent of 21st century Greek filmmakers would not be able to direct a good film even if their life depended on it. It's no coincidence that the crowning achievement of modern Greek cinema-Dogtooth-borrows its plot and visual style from other films. Left alone to his own devices, the best someone like Lanthimos can come up with is rubbish like Kineta and Alps.

Despite an impressive visual style, Kineta is one of the worst films ever made. No story, awful acting, terrible pace. What's even worse is that every Greek filmmaker is trying to imitate the Lanthimos style, hoping to get some exposure at a European film festival.

It's been a long established fact that none of these films get their money back. The only reason they keep on getting made is because of state funding. This is one more of the failures of European socialism. Funneling taxpayers money to support art of dubious quality. It wouldn't surprise me if the directors made the film with a fraction of the allocated budget, pocketing the best. There was once a time when commercial films made in Greece were able to fill the cinemas. Quite naturally those films were considered low level because they were made strictly for entertainment purposes. Unfortunately this system has been destroyed and replaced by organizations with a political agenda. This is a general problem that occurs all over the European Union. Just take a look at the type of films that are promoted in European festivals. Filmmakers hoping to become the next Lanthimos don't dare to experiment. It would be equal to suicide.

Bear in mind that there is no such thing as an European art film. None of the films getting the main prizes in European festivals are "art". They are just a product created by people who follow established guidelines. It doesn't matter if nobody goes to the theater to see it as long as funding for the next project has been secured. This is how the system works.

The main fascination of "Kinetta" is imagining you have a time machine and you go back to 2005 and you show this film to someone and you tell him that, beginning right from his next film, director Yorgos Lanthimos will win Oscars and nominations and Cannes awards and become the most internationally recognizable Greek director since Theo Angelopoulos; they'd never believe you. The one similar case of meteoric rise to fame may be James Cameron with "Terminator"right after...."Piranha II: The Spawning". "Kinetta" is an extraordinarily dreadful movie: there is literally not a single scene in it that a) makes sense, b) has a point, or c) leads somewhere. The most mundane shots are held for an eternity (and a day). The only saving grace is that the female lead, Evangelia Randou, has a beautiful face, and hair, and total package really. Most meaningful dialogue exchange: "Do you want mayonnaise in your sandwich?" - "Just a little". 0.5 out of 4.