Winona

"Winona" (2019) is one of those films that you have a strong suspicion they will be really bad right from the first few minutes....and they don't let you down. Loaded with cacophonous music and nonsensical dialogue, the film plays like a bad imitation of Lanthimos, or maybe a failed experimental work of the 1960s. And at the end it tries to wring genuine emotion, which is very hard to do out of something so - deliberately - stilted and posè. At least the four women range from attractive (the redhead) to gorgeous (the one in the red bikini top), which, along with the secluded-beach setting, are the only things keeping you watching, really. 0.5 out of 4.

The story is known. From sunrise to sunset of a late summer day, four young women kill their time in a deserted beach. They are saying corny (let God make them) jokes, sing discordant songs, recite reams of non-sense together, talk a lot about Woody Allen, managing to say absolutely nothing (which is a feat by itself). They tear up and laugh by themselves, they put up sunscreen, dive into the sea from time to time and create pointless fictions about the only house overlooking the beach. I believe i am getting understood.

But wait a minute! There is suspense also. A car is there and they are probably being watched, but may be not. Probably there is something else going on also, and if this can't be deciphered from the movie, then there are those courteous cinema "critics" who point it out in their "critiques", so that the viewers will expect it and not leave in the middle of the movie. Of course, at the end of the film, even this "something else" is unclear whether it is happening or not. The emotions that the director probably aimed to are lost and sunk in the general boredom that he has successfully generated thus far. The viewer can't take seriously this new discovery, when the director is not taking it seriously himself. There are some Latin American movies that use the technique of the last minute revelation very skillfully and the director should probably want to go and look them over.

However, this movie has a real achievement at its disposal: 14 hours of cinema time are condensed into 2 hours of real time, but the viewer is sure that it is rather 24 hours that have passed by. Since it seems that the director/script writer likes cinema jokes, he should have called his movie "The Big Sleep" instead of "Winona".

This is a typical example of bad Greek cinema that is promoted by certain critics. It reminded me of "Blackout" (1998), that had also been promoted at its time by certain critics. However, "Blackout" had been, even unintentionally, amusing in its pompousness. "Winona" is unable to even offer this shallow compensation for the the two hours waste.

I rarely rate films this highly, but Winona got under my skin in a way few others ever have. Four outstanding actors play young women who have come together on an isolated beach for an unspecified reason. They swim, talk, play, read. Mostly they spin tales of a house overlooking the bay, of a car that seems to be observing them, and they imagine themselves the subjects of a film.

Over the course of the meandering first hour we become aware there is more that links these women than short-sightedness and a love of Woody Allen films. They are unnaturally close, intimate but not in a sexual way. Twice, maybe three times over the course of the day, heartbreak spills out into their lives. We feel there is something unsaid. Some might guess the ending - the clues are all there - but I didn't try, and it devastated me. I am not emotional as a rule, but I was so involved with this group, so comfortable with them, that the final scenes had me in tears. Even then, though, this quartet made me laugh with an insider joke about copyright (funny even if you have never encountered Greek bootleg CDs / DVDs).

Good cinema takes us out of ourselves and places us in a different world. Winona made me one of this group, and I am glad of the day I spent with them.

The movie as a whole is not bad, the director though tried his best to do something a little bit unusual, a little bit confusing, i dont know exactly how to describe it without spoiling the movie but i got the feeling that it was tiring. The idea behind the movie is very good, especially in a emotional and psychological dimension. The problem for me is that the director overdid it with some lines and some scenes which were totally unnecessary, didnt help the plot they were used just to be used. A typical example of Art only for Art. Also this confusion between weird lines and weird scenes makes it hard for normal person to understand the movie, which is a pity because the movie as is said is good, but in a way it selfdestructs!

Nonsensical dialogues, unbelievably slow and almost like watching a (bad) Lanthimos film. The acting was decent - maybe even it was quite limited due to weak plot.

Then you have the fact that the movie feels EXTREMELY pretentious. What I mean by that is at first that it's filmed in 2019, on 16mm film. Well ok, it's possible but to prove what?

Also it's completely unclear when does the film take place. Is it the 80's, the 90's or in 2019? We see an analog camera, a very old radio/cassette player, but at the same time a modern house on the hill. If it's set in 2019, what's with all this hipster aesthetic with the retro glasses and the retro tech?

To sum up the steps: Step 1: Get some young pretty actresses Step 3: Make them memorise all Woody Allen movies (insert Allen tribute here) Step 2: Let them (mainly) improvise Step 4: Add a few almost sexual and other provocative scenes Step 5: ???

Step 6: Profit

Clearly a film made on a budget - nothing wrong with that - but it just feels that it doesn't have what it takes to make you get absorbed.

Having a recognised director father does not mean that anyone can also become a director as well - it doesn't work like any other family business.