Room 237 Review by Dio Rochino

      Anyone who appreciates film knows that it’s impossible not to equate Stanley Kubrick as one of the masters of the art form.  Even to the point where the previous sentence probably already sparked a mental conversation in your mind over the validity of that statement.  He was one of the foremost directors who created think films that cinephiles like to dissect simply because of the puzzling poly-semantic material he chose to display.  Fans know how Kubrick can be very meticulous about his vision and the imagery he creates is the result of extensive research and planning.  Therefore, The Shining continues to be a great mystery.  A long time in the making, adapted from a Stephen King book whose premise he chose not to follow and filled with a morass of continuity errors, awkward set pieces and unusual prop placement.  Was it intentional?  Depends on which school of thought you’d like to follow in which there are many.  What Room 237 does is gives us a chance to see some of the more popular theories surrounding the mysteries of the film and while none of them are based on anything substantial, they are fun to know nonetheless.

      The five interviewees that this film focuses on offer their own theories into what the hidden meanings and symbolism represents.  All of which are entertaining.  They range from Kubrick attempting to teach a lesson on the history of genocide to the movie actually being a confession to one of the government’s greatest conspiracies.  By showcasing these theories, each interviewee perpetuates their own ideas as the film displays the hidden symbolism in specific scenes to support it.

      The symbolism can appear in many forms.  It could be set pieces disappearing or moving from one scene to the next.  Also, It could be certain unusual props that Kubrick decided to use such as posters and portraits that seem out of place.  Or my personal favorite, certain selections of canned goods he decided to position on a shelf inside the pantry during the kitchen scenes.  One chilling theory surrounds the type of typewriter that Jack Nicholson uses and equates it with the the fact that the number 42 keeps appearing in the film.  In fact, this uses the main title by showing that if you take the number 237 and multiply it out individually, 2x3x7 equals to 42.  One interviewee even went as far as to create a map of the Overlook Hotel and realized that the way the architecture was set up didn’t make sense.  That if someone were to build the actual hotel as it was portrayed in the film, there would be doors that open to nowhere and windows opening to walls.

      So the question one has to ask when watching Room 237 is this.  Was the bizarre prop placement, confusing set design and continuity errors a way for Kubrick to send us an unspoken narrative?  Did he simply do it for the sake of doing it?  Or was it evidence of another popular notion.  That he simply had beef with Stephen King and wanted to show that he could destroy his work. The problem proposed by these theories is that many of them individually claim they are about one thing.  They can’t all be right because the conclusions overlap each other.  Of course, If it showed without a shadow of a doubt that any of them are correct, the film would placate Kubrick’s genius but without any concrete proof to back up these theories, the movie simply points out two things.  You can find symbolism in anything if you look hard enough and anyone can add their own agenda to anything to create an assumption based on random imagery.

Oz the Great and Powerful Review by Dio Rochino

      There’s a disturbing trend lately where filmmakers purposely make a movie as a provocation to an impending series.  They create incomplete chapters to sucker the audience into another sequel and the film ends abruptly without giving any answers to the story it presents.  It offers no finality but forces us to stay tuned in and shell out money for another movie which may or may not give the conclusions it promised.  To me, it’s a sense of laziness.  By barely moving the story along, they make the film a feature length tease that answers no questions therefore providing the audience with very little information.  I’m shaking my fist at Prometheus which is a recent example of this.  When the film is finished, there are no actual story arcs.  Just a portion of a tale that leaves audiences feeling unfulfilled.  This is why I was a little weary to see Oz the Great and Powerful.  Before it even got released they were talking about sequels which quite frankly, made me uneasy.  It felt like they were going to take a concept and try to draw it out through multiple pictures.  However, upon viewing the film I am glad to say that I was wrong.

      Disney has definitely been doing their homework.  Oz the Great and Powerful can definitely be viewed as a worthy precursor to The Wizard of Oz.  While the story itself is original and is not an adaptation of any Oz material that has come before it, they definitely payed great respect to it’s source material.  Both to the books written by Frank L. Baum and the classic 1939 film.  Sam Raimi has crafted a worthy companion piece that is actually great for children to watch and sends a solid moral message in the form of it’s main character Oscar Diggs.  A man who strives to be great but has to face aspects of the people he wronged in life, personified by the characters he encounters in the magical land of Oz.

      The film has definitely been crafted with a lot of heart whose rich design not only gives a painterly beauty but invokes a wonder that’s seldom seen in today’s fantasy pictures. It was a nostalgic touch to have the film begin in black and white while maintaining a square 4:3 aspect ratio only to switch to colorful widescreen upon arriving to Oz.  The movie was picturesque and beautiful, picking a palette that looked like technicolor on crack and while some critics slandered the acting as not being up to par, I totally disagree.  The performances felt like an extension of the Judy Garland classic which I’m sure is what they were going for.

      Everything was cleverly well structured.  With aspects from multiple portions all coming together in the end.  It felt like we were watching something complete. What Oz the Great and Powerful reminded me of is what today's filmmakers seem to forget.  That even the best series contain individual films that can be seen as absolute narratives.  It has a beginning, middle and an end.  Even though they may hint that a sequel is yet to come, it does a good job of tying up character arcs within the movie to make the audience feel like they saw something finished.  That’s why people can argue whether Raiders or The Last Crusade had a better story.  Or which Lord of the Rings film had a better conclusion.  Even though these movies are portions of something bigger, we felt that those individual chapters began and ended.  Not only does Oz the Great and Powerful pay tribute to the classic 1939 film but it can also be seen as a stand alone.  Although, should they want to continue the series, the setup can definitely go on well into other stories before the arrival of Dorothy Gale.

Olympus Has Fallen Review by Dio Rochino

       I've said it before.  If a movie does a good job of explaining a poorly contrived story, I'll accept it.  I just need a reason to invest in the concept.  As unashamed of being a brainless action flick this movie is, it actually has plot.  Albeit ridiculous and predictable, it does drive the film which is more than ample.

      The concept of Olympus might be hard to take seriously.  The story involves a Korean terrorist organization that seizes control of the White House taking the President and his staff hostage.  Their purpose is to eliminate all U.S military presence on the border between North and South Korea, allowing the North to invade thus attempting to fulfill their plan to unify Korea.  But a well placed script and balls to the wall action make this an extremely fun flick to watch.  Even with laughable plot devices such as a three part code that can detonate every nuclear missile in America possibly turning the country into a wasteland.  Believe me, disclosing this information isn't ruining anything.  However, it seems we're willing to accept silly explanations like this to give everyone what they really want.  Chances to see Gerard Butler systematically bash terrorists' brains in and annihilate them in the most brutal ways.

      Butler's portrayal of Mike Banning makes the film.  Being the sole survivor of an all out attack on the White House, people can't help but cheer when he assassinates bad guys with contentment.  With the convictions of his character relayed with a strong and hearty screw you, Banning's the type who would tell villains that he's going to mess them up and holds true to that promise.  He even has the smug look to support it and does it all to the tune of a patriotic score blazing in the background.

      Make no mistake, this movie is a poor Die Hard clone with a one track notion whose only point is to see Banning kick ass in the name of the U.S.A.  It's evident upon viewing the film that the plot is a bit clumsy but let's be realistic.  People who are watching this aren't expecting anything complicated.  It's an absurd action film which pulls out every patriotic cliche to put America on the foreground and supplies the audience with an insatiable need for cinematic blood lust.  Sure the filmmakers would've been just as successful if they had Gerard Butler standing on a mountain of dead evildoers in front of the American flag, holding an assault rifle and waving the middle finger around for two hours, but it honestly wouldn't be as much fun.

Jack the Giant Slayer Review by Dio Rochino

     

       It’s an old Hollywood motto.  If something is successful, you repeat the formula over and over again.  Therefore, after the success of Snow White and the Huntsmen and Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters, tinseltown has decided to release the latest cracked out retelling of a fairy tale.  Much to my dismay, my initial exposure to this fad never worked for me.  I spent the whole duration of Snow White bored and picking apart scenes which were blatant rip offs from other fantasy films while snickering at it’s forceful melodramatic dialog.  This horrendous experience turned me off to the point where I never gave Hansel and Gretel a try.  So when Jack the Giant Slayer arrived, I was reluctant to go see it.  But after having my arm twisted I can honestly tell you that I was pleasantly surprised.

      Jack the Giant Slayer is a great piece of escapist film making.  The movie clocks in at two hours which go by extremely fast since the film doesn’t waste time getting to the point.  Within the first few minutes, it doesn’t take long to be enraptured with the world the story presents.  The beginning which chronicles the humans first encounter with the giants, cleverly gives enough information for the audience to go on while the movie progresses and as the rest takes place several years after this tale has fallen into myth, the twists that drive the plot amusingly reference back to the film’s primary history fable.

      Unlike Snow White and the Huntsmen, it doesn’t attempt to create complicated personalities through sluggish, drawn out narratives.  In fact, the story is adequately simple with just enough dialog given to care about the motives of each character.  Sure, some of the lines were a little hokey but that was to be expected.  But it didn’t detract from the film’s solitary premise which is to give the audience a great time.  There is no complexity here, just the visual equivalent of relaxing and having a tall tale read to you.  It’s a fun, awesome piece of popcorn entertainment that looks gorgeous and it doesn't pretend to be anything else other than that.

A Good Day to Die Hard Review by Dio Rochino

     

       Have you ever wanted to like a film so desperately that you attempted to make excuses to rectify it’s problems?  Only to come to the actualization that it truly was that bad?  For some movies, realizing this can take a while.  When The Phantom Menace was released, reasons were provided for an entire year as I half heartedly quoted The Power of Myth to defend George Lucas’ vision before finally recognizing that there was barely any direction in that film at all.  Also, I spent time trying to figure out how Indiana Jones survived an atomic blast by hiding in a refrigerator and tried to logically assess the half assed explanation of aliens being the keepers of knowledge in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  This was one of those films I wanted to admire so greatly that I attempted to clarify all the problems it displayed.  But it just got too much and three quarters of the way through, I couldn’t take it anymore.  A Good Day to Die Hard was one of the most lifeless spectacles I’ve ever seen.

      This time, McClane travels to Russia after learning that his estranged son Jack has been imprisoned for performing an assassination.  Jack then bargains with the authorities by explaining that he has knowledge that can convict a prisoner named Komarov.  A political whistleblower who possesses information that can bring down a powerful corrupt politician named Chagarin.  Upon arriving at the courthouse where Jack is testifying against Komarov, McClane is surprised to see the place get leveled in an explosion with Chagarin’s henchmen storming the place trying to kill Komarov.  He then catches up with Jack and Komarov attempting to escape and is surprised to learn that his son is actually a well trained CIA agent assigned to transport Komarov to the United States.  This silly, lazy set up occurs within the first fifteen minutes.  After this, It turns into an extremely loud, explosive bore fest.

      I can’t comment on the plot because there hardly isn’t any.  The dialogue however small, was delivered with no effort in a script packed with pointless one liners.  In fact, they have McClane say the same damn line over and over and over again.  It was marginally funny at first but then it became awkward.  Don't get me wrong. In between the barrage of gunfights the director tried to put in tender moments between McClane and his son to show family dynamic, but it seemed really forced.  Also, with no prior mention of their relationship it seems they were trying to build up a narrative that never existed in the first place.  Couple this with a villian who has no personality and you have the most senseless performances ever created.

      Clocking in at 97 minutes it is the shortest movie in the franchise which doesn't lend much to any type of development.  Especially for McClane's son who the audience is supposed to care about. Instead were treated to a fantastic fireworks show whose sole purpose evidently is to sell Mercedes Benzes.  A lot of films are product endorsed but directors find ways to cleverly blend them into the scene.  But I guess everyone in Russia drives a Mercedes. Here, It was the most blatant approach to commercialism I've ever seen. McClane gets dropped off at the airport by his daughter who happens to be driving a Mercedes.  All the bad guys have a Mercedes. When they rig cars on the street for an explosion, the only ones that blow up are Mercedes and when the McClanes need a getaway car they happen to steal a Mercedes.  The Mercedes symbol share most of the shots in the film. Even the military vehicles proudly sport the Mercedes logo on the front grill and the camera has no problem providing close-ups of it.

      Its official. The Die Hard franchise has gone the way of the Crystal Skull.  The R rating is back in, but all the profanity and violence couldn’t make this movie better.  With minimal feeble dialogue and one liners that don’t make a lick of sense, this made the previous movie look like a masterpiece.  The fourth entry strayed a lot but at least the story was comprehensively well put together which is the only thing I ask for when viewing a film.  I don’t expect a lot.  I just want it to make sense.  Even if a movie does a good job of explaining the most poorly contrived story, I’ll accept it. I just need a reason to invest in the concept and with a franchise like Die Hard that had so much developed previously, it’s heartbreaking to see that they couldn’t create something worthwhile.  It would be a shame if this is the last film in the series, because it deserves to go out on a better note.  But I might have to accept that it’s another fond memory that has been ruined along with Indiana Jones and Star Wars.

Five Unconventional Romance Films by Dio Rochino

      It’s after Valentine’s Day and while sauntering to the couch and reveling in post chocolate hangovers, I quickly glance at the collection for a series of perfect romantic movie chasers.  Amidst all the titles, I’ve noticed that a majority of them are formulaic, puppy dog, overdone love films and while these are entertaining, there’s only so many times I can watch Love Actually or a clone of it featuring a holiday for a title.  So I scrounged around bypassing pictures like Titanic and My Best Friends Wedding to pull out five unconventional romantic movies for a post Valentine’s Day marathon.  

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

      One of the few romance movies in my opinion that gets it right, it’s a far cry from the mushy, sentimental, honey moon phase pictures that dominate the genre.  Instead, we get to see a love story in reverse as artist Joel Barrish, fresh out of a tumultuous relationship with free spirited Clementine, decides to get the memories of her erased with a procedure.  With most of the movie taking place in his mind as he relives each recollection, we get to see how the relationship ended badly connecting with his choice for the extraction process.  This adds a bit of bittersweet irony as he begins to remember the great memories.  The movie then takes a drastic turn as he psychologically battles against the procedure to try to hold on to at least one of those moments, witnessing the agony he goes through as each of them is deleted one at a time.

High Fidelity

      A rare romantic movie that’s narrated from the male perspective, it’s an adaptation of the equally informative novel from Nick Hornby.  Rob, the owner of a barely in business record store reflects on both his present and past courtships using pop music as an allegory.  His perspective on romance which is both truthful and unflinching have caused upon multiple viewings, my male friends to agree and my female friends to be curious.  It’s commentary on amorous affections is altogether sweet, crude and often times insensitive but it’s honest and is a good example of the logic that can drive the male’s mentality during various stages of relationship maturity.

When Harry Met Sally

      A film that hilariously attempts to answer the age old question. Can men and women truly ever be friends or do feelings get in the way?  One of the best screenplays from the late Nora Ephron, the story revolves around Sally Albright and Harry Burns.  Two people who can’t stand each other when they first meet but over the years, end up creating a wonderful friendship.  Although they have completely different personalities, they’ve learned to appreciate each other and as their loyalty to one another strengthens, so do their individual perspectives on everything.  Among these include assessments on Casablanca and whether men really know if women are faking orgasms.  Over time, their adoration for one another grows as they support each other through bad relationships, divorces, blind dates and work.  But when affectionate feelings slowly come into play, the film definitely brings a roundabout answer to whether or not it’s right to be romantically involved with your best friend.

L.A. Story

      Silly, crazy, heartfelt and undeniably written by Steve Martin comes a love story set in the magical land of L.A.  Martin stars as wacky weatherman Harry Telemacher who unbeknownst to him, is on the road to happiness thanks to the advice of a wise old electronic freeway condition sign.  Confusing?  Believe me, it all comes together.  An endearing romantic film that explores love among the subcultures and unique happenings of Los Angeles, there are definitely a lot of inside jokes that will make the people who live here relate and the ones that don’t laugh in disbelief.  Among them include earthquakes, ordering coffee, springtime shootings on the freeway, the San Fernando Valley and the importance of celebrity status when dining at a restaurant.

Before Sunrise / Before Sunset

      A film series that redefines the term epic romance, it’s very much philosophical as it is affectionate.  Both films center on one love story as we follow a couple through two different times in their lives.  The first film begins as they both meet unexpectedly on a train in Europe.  Deciding to step off together on a whim, Jesse, an American tourist and Celine, a Parisian student traveling home, share a wonderful romantic night together in Vienna before they have to go their own separate ways in the morning.  The second movie occurs as they fortuitously meet again in Paris nine years later.  They spend a day reminiscing about their quick time together as they determine whether it would’ve been the right thing to continue or let the one night remain as a perfect memory.

      The great thing about these films is that they were shot in actual time and genuinely reflect how love is viewed through the comprehension of the character’s ages.  The first examining how romance is seen through the eyes of two young people in their early twenties as they have their future to look forward to.  A little bit innocent and a little bit naive, it is perfectly complimented by the following picture which was actually filmed nine years later focusing on the characters in their thirties.  By this time, they’ve lived a little, they’ve been hurt and they’re a little more cautious.  It’s a great series to dive into, especially before the third installment gets released later this year.  This time reflecting on Jesse and Celine as they’re in their forties, Before Midnight again opens exactly nine years since the release of the last film.

      There are a lot of films in my collection that I wanted to add to the marathon.  Serendipity and Somewhere in Time are amongst them.  But I definitely didn’t have time to watch more so I will have to save them for a later date.  However, If anybody has any recommendations they want to share or would like to remark on the list above, please leave some in the comments below.  I would love to hear your opinions. Also, I’m always looking for new films to watch and reminders for one’s that I haven’t seen in a while.

Dissecting Die Hard by Dio Rochino

      As Ben Stiller once said in a Die Hard parody featured on his 90’s sketch comedy show, “How can the same thing happen to the same guy so many times?”.  If he only knew then how true those words would be.  It’s been 25 years since the debut of John McClane with his anti-terrorism ass kicking skills and as the fifth film debuts on Valentine’s Day, the wrong guy at the wrong place at the wrong time has to either be destined to do this or is just pretty damn unlucky.  Either way, what culminated is two and a half decades of awesome action that continues to entertain greatly.  Yes, I’m even counting the fourth one.  If this continues, I’m sure that Die Hard 12:  Die Hungry will surely be an inevitability but until that time, here is a personal ranking of the movies from worst to best.

Live Free or Die Hard

      Easily not the best in the series but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t entertaining.  It was the first Die Hard to try to reach a new audience by cutting out the profanity, making the kills cleaner and trimming down the rating to PG-13.  Also, they got fresh Hollywood talent to give the movie an edge to younger audiences by casting Justin Long and Mary Elizabeth Winstead in the supporting roles.  

      The film takes place on 4th of July as a former Department of Defense worker, along with his associates attempt to break into the main defense grid of the United States taking the country hostage.  They do this for financial gain as well as to prove a point that the U.S. has a virtual Death Star like imperfection that leaves it open for attack.  It’s up to McClane and his hacker sidekick to stop them.  But things get personal when the villain kidnaps his daughter.

      The fourth installment seems like the makers never seen the previous Die Hard films.  Still worthwhile, but it falls short for two reasons.  The first is it’s lack of a sure fire villain.  Timothy Olyphant in an underwhelming performance shows a certain control when things are going his way, but immediately goes into these subtle temper tantrums as his plans slowly get derailed.  Former villains in the series have kept their cool and counteracted.  Therefore, McClane gets involved in a personal battle of wits as they both try to outplay each other.  But it never felt that way in Live Free or Die Hard since it always seemed like McClane was in control of the situation the whole time.  Which leads to the next problem.  Before this, the films have been about an ordinary guy trying to survive in extraordinary circumstances and never knowing how to deal with them directly, he improvises.  He questions himself before taking action.  In this installment, McClane has a new swagger of confidence as he handles every threat with expertise.  Never showing doubt, he knows what he has to do.  This new found assurance can be attributed to the fact that McClane has been in these type of positions too many times so he’s gotten skillful in dealing with them.  But in my opinion, this takes away from the very point of seeing a Die Hard movie.  To see McClane handle these events by the seat of his pants.  Also in the first two Die Hard films, there’s a certain aspect of realism with the action which lends to believability that McClane is human.  This made you root for him because you know that something bad might happen.  Here, you get to see him do a lot of questionable stuff which even though it looked spectacular, made me scratch my head a bit.  Among those include hopping out of a taxi that’s going fast enough to jump a ramp with enough leverage to hit a hovering chopper and vaulting off an exploding jet only to survive unscathed by hitting the highway pavement underneath with a tuck and roll.

Die Hard 2:  Die Harder

      There was a time when Renny Harlin was the go to guy for action films.  When hits like Cliffhanger and A Long Kiss Goodnight paved the way for a prominent career before Cutthroat Island.  Die Harder was definitely one of his better pictures.

      Knowing this was going to be more grandiose because they added an -er to the title, this movie definitely steps it up a notch.  It has more gunfights, explosions and one liners.  However, the plot was basically a direct copy of the original.  McClane is thrown unexpectedly into another occurrence when he arrives at Dulles International Airport.  This time, former Army Special Forces Colonel Stuart along with other defecting soldiers, take the place hostage by hijacking their flight controls.  With every plane in the surrounding airspace at the whim of a madman, he maintains that if his requests aren’t met he will begin crashing planes.  Which happens to be access to a runway and a getaway plane to safely ferry a notorious cocaine smuggling General out of the country.  But things get personal because one of the passengers circling overhead is McClane’s wife.

      The same premise but in a different location, McClane, once again fights terrorists while local law enforcement gives him grief for not being in his jurisdiction.  It also brings back some major characters from the previous film including his wife, the dick reporter who screws anyone over to get a story and a cameo of Sgt. Powell with his twinkies.  The people that didn’t return are replaced by similar characters including another egotistical, know it all cop that gets in the way of McClane’s progress.  Also the villain, played this time by William Sadler, is just as ruthless even though he lacks the humor of Alan Rickman.  However, it was pretty hilarious when they introduce his machismo persona by having him perform martial arts forms nude inside a hotel room.  

      Despite the fact that this sequel is redoing a tried and true formula with predictable twists, the director does a great job of still making it look believable by having McClane take a beating and his injuries slowing him down.  It shows to a degree that in this installment, he is still human. Even when the action pieces are insanely over the top which have become a staple for Renny Harlin films.  Among those sequences include McClane ejecting out of an exploding aircraft parachuting safely to the ground and a great chase scene on snowmobiles.  At least the director didn’t have someone inexplicably eaten by a genetically enhanced super shark.  He saved that gem for a later movie.

Die Hard with a Vengeance

      How do you revive a franchise whose formula has been so overused that it’s become a parody within itself?  By taking another known method and incorporating it into your own.  At this point in time there have been countless Die Hard knock offs.  Under Siege and Sudden Death come to mind, which is why original director John McTiernan jumps on board again to bring some much needed vitality to the franchise.  Disregarding the formula set up by the last two films, the director decided to make this episode a dysfunctional buddy film by casting Samuel L. Jackson as the other lead.  This was a great idea that granted the picture with hilarious comic relief and allowed the main stars to take comedic pot shots at each other.

      In the third installment, McClane is up to his old antics again but this time he has a hangover.  On the brink of a downward spiral, his opening scene begins as the police is trying to wake him up from a drunken stupor.  Dealing with a separation from his wife and a fresh suspension from the NYPD, McClane has decided to cling to the bottle.  But when a German terrorist named Simon plants bombs across New York, he threatens to detonate them unless McClane plays a game of riddles.  With every correct answer, Simon gives one of the locations of the explosives and a chance to disarm them.  It then becomes a race against time as McClane teams up with Zeus, a bystander who unexpectedly gets caught in the game.

      There’s nothing original about Die Hard with a Vengeance as Hollywood has made countless buddy action films.  But it felt right because the series needed to head off in another direction.  Despite these changes, McClane’s character is still true to the original as he does what he does best which is improvising.  Also, he still plays a mental game of wits with the villian who is just as diabolical as ever.  Jeremy Irons does a great job as Simon.  More devious with the way he messes with McClane’s head, he’s the complete opposite from the all work no play Colonel Stuart from the last film.

      The primary Die Hard not to focus on one location, this movie definitely introduced a bunch of firsts for the series.  It was the first one to show McClane actually working in his own city and the first not to have a family member in distress.  Therefore, McClane concentrates solely on getting the bad guys with the police actually supporting him.  Unfortunately, it’s also the first Die Hard where the situations become questionable as we see McClane surfing on top of a big rig in a tunnel overflowing with water.  But the twists keep it interesting as the true identity of the villain and his intentions are closely guarded until the later parts of the film.

Die Hard

      There’s a great scene in this film where McClane drags his body into a bathroom.  Bleeding profusely, he had to dodge gunfire by sprinting across a room full of broken glass in his bare feet.  Talking on a police scanner with Sgt. Powell, an officer he never met in person, he tells him to deliver a heartfelt message to his wife as he’s pulling out shards of glass from the bottom of his soles.

      Die Hard is one of those rare gems that’s often mimicked but never duplicated.  An intellectual and thoughtful action movie starring that guy from Moonlighting, it was well paced, well scripted and incredibly well acted.

      It’s plot centers around New York cop John McClane traveling to his wife’s corporate Christmas party in Los Angeles at a luxury office tower called Nakatomi Plaza.  While freshening up in one of the suites, he hears gunfire as terrorists seize control of the building.  The leader Hans Gruber, meticulously played by Alan Rickman, has started an intricate plan to retrieve millions of dollars in bearer bonds from the company’s vault.  With the hostages in the building including his wife cut off from any outside help, McClane takes matters into his own hands and attempts to take down the terrorists.

      In a time where most action movies featured a muscle bound super warrior that takes down bad guys with impunity, Die Hard was a great distraction from the norm.  Here the protagonist is featured as an everyday man with spousal issues attempting to keep his family together.  He just happened to be thrown into chaotic circumstances.  A contradiction to the action heroes that dominated cinema at that time.  McClane gets scared, frustrated and desperate when trying to survive each situation.  He feels every injury received as he goes through the movie being battered and broken. This adds an interesting feeling of suspense for the audience since we never quite know if he’s going to make it.  It was an unexpected and welcome change to the genre at the time and it became the formula that all action films have tried to duplicate since.

      With 25 years of kicking ass, McClane is surprisingly spry for his age and as A Good Day to Die Hard nears it’s release, it’s been a lot of fun taking a look at the films that preceded it. Next, well get to see him take out terrorists with his son Jack.  As this will be the first Die Hard to be shot in a different country, it will give them a chance to introduce Russia to their unique barrage of one liners and over the top stunts.  Also, the latest installment brings back the R rating hopefully allowing McClane to finish his “Yippie Ki Yay” line before the final bullet is shot.

Mama Review by Dio Rochino

      There’s a series of children’s horror books I read religiously when I was a kid called Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.  It featured narratives that were taken from folklore and simplified for younger readers.  These tales, coupled with disturbing illustrations by Stephen Gammell gave me nightmares for months and had me peeking over my bed covers at my closet hoping nothing would come out.  If you’re wondering what this has to do with Mama, it’s because this film felt like the essence of these books came alive.  I don’t know for sure what inspirations were called upon, but it appears the concept of Mama incorporated similes of two of the best known folkloric tales in the world.  La Llorona, the crying spirit who wanders looking for her missing children and The Wolf Girl, a tale about a young orphan raised in the wild. Even the production design looked like it came straight from Gammell’s drawings.  

      The film did a great job setting up the story of two children abandoned in a cabin in the woods.  After a frantic five year search attempt, they’re found.  Their discovery was shocking as the children were walking on all fours and growling defensively.  They are then treated psychiatrically and released into the care of their uncle Lucas and his girlfriend Annabel who dedicate themselves to rehabilitating them back to civilization.  But something seems wrong as they slowly learn that the children weren’t alone in that cabin.  They were being raised by a supernatural entity they refer to as Mama. 

      As a person who loves horror movies, I can honestly tell you that I don’t scare easily.  Which is why I was thrilled to discover that the imagery in the film made me jump out of my seat more than a few times.  The script keeps pace as each meticulous detail about the kids and the entity are unravelled.   From the discovery of the children and their malicious wolf like movements to the creepy scene where they introduce Mama, this looked like it was destined to be one of the coolest supernatural movies ever created.  That’s why it was damn disappointing to see everything fall apart so drastically in the last twenty minutes of the film.

      The last act seemed like a director’s worst nightmare.  Complete with laughably bad continuity errors, it’s as if the writers forgot to create a conclusion so they hurriedly pulled one out of thin air.  Even the score changes into something out of a Tim Burton film and the computer imagery which worked earlier when Mama’s only slightly seen in shadow, falls apart as her full form is revealed. Now arguments can be made that the audience might be reading too much into the ending and by all means, if it makes the movie more enjoyable, people can disregard the mistakes.  But when the film sets up all these minute details that urge the viewers to piece together this engaging supernatural mystery, it’s incredibly frustrating when all of it doesn’t add up.  Instead, were treated to something that’s crudely whipped together which makes it a point not to use any of the plot that was set up throughout the film. This leaves the final portion segregated from the rest of the movie with an arrangement of non connective moments tied together with gaping plot holes and as the consequences of these events never get dealt with when the credits roll, I’m left with a confused look on my face muttering WTF!!!

Flight Review by Dio Rochino

      As much as we love the Back to the Future movies, it wasn’t until later in Robert Zemeckis’s career that he started defining his style.  It’s a personal opinion of mine that he creates stories that seem to simplify chaos.  One example is his award winning Forest Gump, where personal and global events encompassing four decades of history is neatly defined in the experiences of it’s main protagonist and his simple philosophy that, “Life is like a box of chocolates”.  Flight just happens to step it up a notch by reversing the formula. Taking one specific event and showing how it affects a person so complicated that only a great actor like Denzel Washington can pull it off.  Here, he brings many layers to the character of Captain Whitaker.  A pilot with a substance abuse problem who pulls off a miraculous airline landing when it starts to nose dive after it begins to fall apart in the air.  His skillful approach allowed a majority of the passengers to survive with only six fatalities.  Experts and the media maintain that he’s a hero because his quick thinking saved a lot of lives from a situation they said was hopelessly doomed.  But a criminal investigation begins to take place when evidence is presented suggesting he was intoxicated when flying the plane.

      Washington definitely gives one of the best performances of his career by showcasing someone whose excessive use of drugs and alcohol, propagated many long time mistakes that drag on his soul.  His turmoil is brilliantly depicted when his life gets see-sawed by this catastrophic event as he deals with the consequences of being  labeled a hero, his remorse over the ones who died and his guilt over the possibility that his weakness may be to blame for their deaths.  The results of which causes Whitaker to be thrown into a moral dilemma.

      There are definitely many ways to describe this film.  It can be construed simply as a morality tale or as an assessment on how popular opinion can create the notion of heroism.  It can also be viewed as a character study on the perplexities of the human condition after dealing with the responsibility of a catastrophic event.  However, while the notions behind the picture itself are gracefully chaotic, it ultimately culminates into one unexpected point and watching everything unfold is cleverly entertaining all the way to the end when the final words of the movie are spoken.

Gangster Squad Review by Dio Rochino

WTF!!!  I understand just by watching the flick that it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, but did it have to copy every detective movie cliche on earth?  I guess imitation is the best form of flattery and this film has it spewed all over the place.  From the voice over narration explaining about the sacrifices of being a detective to the actual squad itself formed by token stereotypes.  Then there’s Sean Penn doing his best de Niro impersonation from The Untouchables.  He even has the same “I want his family dead.” monologue delivered with similar intensity.  It looks like he had a lot of fun in the role of Mickey Cohen, who’s character had an interesting gimmick in the film.  When any of his lackeys screw up, he sympathizes with them.  Lets them know that everything is alright allowing them to breathe a sigh of relief.  Then he gives the order to execute them.  It worked the first time with comedic results, but he continues to do it multiple times throughout the movie.  What amuses me is that his men seem genuinely surprised every time he does this.  You’d think after the fourth time, they would expect he’s full of crap and know that he’s going to kill them anyway.  Cohen does all this with a bad ass persona permanently sealed in his expression.  Mainly because he can’t move his face.  The prosthetics that Sean Penn wears make him a walking wax figure because his facial muscles can’t work congruently with his mouth movements.  This may be important considering the script gives him more one liners than a procedural cop show.

Now, there are aspects to like about this film.  There’s action, but more importantly there’s action, action and more action.  In fact, it’s the only thing that drives the film because if you were to strip this away, the plot of the movie can be summarized in 10 minutes of dialogue.  Mickey Cohen is a bad man who’s turning Los Angeles into a corrupt town.  Therefore, the LAPD forms a secret squad to work outside the confines of the law to catch him.  Sound familiar?  Because it was all said in the trailer.  The film doesn’t go any deeper than that.  Don’t get me wrong.  The action is quite good.  All the way to the last battle sequence which culminates in an all out gun battle between the Gangster Squad and Mickey Cohen with his henchmen.

***Spoiler Alert!***

Everyone gets a Tommy Gun in the final act.  Cohen and his men have Tommy Guns and the Gangster Squad show up...with Tommy Guns.  Where the hell did they come from?  I don’t know because it’s not like they used them anywhere else in the movie.  It’s as if Oprah showed up on set and screamed, “WHO WANTS TO HAVE A TOMMY GUN?”, then starts throwing them out to all the cast members crying out, “YOU GET A TOMMY GUN!” to each one.  It’s only Robert Patrick’s cowboy character who silently refuses and sticks to his pistol because he’s too cool for that.  

Gangster Squad is a far cry from the type of movie expected from two Oscar worthy lead actors in the starring roles and quite honestly there are better films out there that dealt with this time period.  If you want a serious take, L.A. Confidential is recommended.  If you want an over the top interpretation, view The Untouchables.  Only watch this movie if you want something awkwardly in between because while it’s not entirely unwatchable, it’s was entertaining for all the wrong reasons.

The Impossible Review by Dio Rochino

In a movie market that is saturated with convoluted story ideas. it’s great to see a film that is beautiful, simple and poignant.  Based on a family’s first hand account of their experiences with the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the movie begins a couple of days before the disaster as they travel to a Thailand resort for Christmas.  They worry about things that families are usually troubled about.  Finances, stability and work, until the tsunami hits while they’re playing at the resort’s pool.  What happens next is a battle of survival and desperation as the story focuses on two occurrences.  The mother with the oldest son attempting to survive the rampaging waves of rushing water and debris while trying to navigate safely away from harm to find medical attention and the father, along with the two younger children searching frantically to find them.  

  But the story conveyed is much more than just a tale of their disastrous ordeal. It’s very structure seems to serve the singular purpose of having the viewers resonate with the family’s emotional turmoil.  The agony of the father’s shaking voice is heartfelt when he’s talking on the phone, trying to find out if a relative heard from his wife and son.  Also, soft thumps and muffled sounds emit feelings of helplessness and claustrophobia when the mother is rapidly pushed through the submerged, water filled interiors of the resort by swift currents.  These are but a few of the many instances in the movie that imposes empathy upon the audience.  It’s a rare piece of work where nothing felt drawn out or misplaced. The imagery, which begins looking colorful and painterly quickly turns gritty and washed out after the catastrophe, driving the indication that this once scenic paradise has been demolished into something horrible.  Even the score itself resembled a less is more approach as the music doesn’t overpower by playing only during a few key scenes.

  It’s as if the collective senses of the film’s composition come together to transcend it’s graphic artistry. Where the audio and visuals work collectively to provide the viewer with a compassionate experience.  It’s a sight for sore eyes in the most respectable sense and the message it shares is delightfully delivered with the utmost sincerity.  The Impossible, simply put is aptly named because it happens to do exactly that by capturing gut wrenching emotion and containing it in motion picture poetry.

Zero Dark Thirty Review by Dio Rochino

        The thing about films based on real events is that the content is only as good as the evidence that is presented with it.  When enough time has passed, sufficient knowledge is available from various parties to convincingly make the film as true to the facts as possible.  That is why movies based on historical accounts can feel authentic because a lot of the facts have become public knowledge.  This is not the case with Zero Dark Thirty.  Even though the film opens with a disclaimer stating that the events depicted are based on actual testimony from the people who experienced them, knowledge of these events are very classified because they still hold political sway.

Anyone who has been following the news regularly since 9/11 definitely know certain parts of the story.  The first few minutes of the film opens with audio clips of the emergency calls made during the attacks then continues to recall the happenings that occurred subsequent to 9/11. From the terrorist bombings of a London bus in 2005 and the explosion of the Islamabad Marriott Hotel, ultimately leading up to the raid on Bin Laden’s compound by Seal Team Six.  What the film concentrates on is the moments in between.  The interweaving narratives of the people involved.  Especially that of the CIA agent responsible for locating Bin Laden played remarkably by Jessica Chastain.  Unflinching in it’s depiction, the grisly details are shown, including the advanced interrogation techniques used on detainees in order to find the whereabouts of those involved in planning the attacks.

There are a lot of personal feelings that are attached to these events and the film invokes many of them.  This was definitely prevalent when I glanced at the audience’s reaction during certain scenes.  Some sympathized, several cringed, others looked in disbelief while a few cheered silently among themselves in retribution.  But because the particulars of these events are not open to the public it is hard to ascertain which events in the film are based on truth and which are taken from artistic license.  I’m sure that the powers that be don’t want to divulge too much information since they may want to keep politically sensitive material secretive.  However, the film makers claim they were granted access to this information.  But no matter how people felt about the film afterwards, it definitely opened a flood gate of discussion.  Upon leaving the theater, Some people got as far as three steps out of the exit before making comments, and small masses huddled in groups in the parking lot to have discussions and arguments regarding the film.  This is where I felt the true ambition of the picture is revealed.  What Kathyrn Bigelow and her crew did was make a movie who’s confidential content coupled with the provocation of people’s personal feelings, allows it to be dissected on many levels. No matter how many points of view this film may bring out, one thing is certain.  It is undoubtedly the most important story of our time and the way it was presented is damn convincing.

Lincoln Review by Darth Raptor

       Steven Spielberg's Lincoln, WTF?  I say YES, but be prepare for 150 mins of good old fashion politics where you already know the outcome.  The film Lincoln chronicles the last few months of the 16th President of the United States' life just before his assassination.  Daniel Day-Lewis and the rest of the cast put on their Oscar worthy performances to the test.  Day-Lewis completely melts into his role as Lincoln, however most notable, in my opinion, was James Spader's performance as W.N. Bilbo.  I've only seen Spader in the 1987 Romance Comedy "Mannequin" with Andrew McCarthy and Kim Cattrall.  Spader's Bilbo was an astronomical leap in my opinion.  But Daniel Day-Lewis still manages to steal the show, as he should.

       Although there's been Oscar buzz for this film, I would not say this is Spielberg's best. The film accurately, and realistically captured the era and Lincoln's cabinet in their fight to emancipate the slaves. However, the film did very little for me in capturing the tragic figure I grew up with.  I know Spielberg wanted to portray Lincoln as the man rather than the myth and I respect that.  However, whenever I think of Abraham Lincoln, I think of a great being shrouded in the company of death.  A hero who lost his mother at the age of 9, and his first love to typhoid fever.  A father who endured the personal lost of his 2 young boys.  A beautiful mind who suffered from "melancholy," better known as clinical depression throughout his life.  Also, the film would've drawn me in more had it started with both the Civil War battles, mixed with the death of his favorite son "Willie" while in the White House.  Depressing?  Yes! But that would totally show how the rest of the country was losing their sons to war. I think more artistic licenses should've been taken here.

*** SPOILER ALERT! ***

       Lincoln dies at the end!  And honestly, I was aching for a Braveheart-like ending.  I'm not saying, he should've screamed out "FREEDOM" as his last word.  Nor am I saying we should see the ghost of his 2 dead sons at the foot of his bed just before he dies.  I'm not saying that at all.  I'm just saying it would've been a nice touch.  Maybe not a direct rip of Mel Gibson's highlander tale, but something similar sprinkled with John William's magic would've been nice.  True it would've been out of place with the whole tone of the film, but DAMMIT that's what I want!  And because they didn't play up this moment, why even have a death scene at all?  The movie would've been better had it ended where we see Lincoln's black servant smile as he watches the President steadily walk down the hallway on his way to the theater.  I think that was poignant in its own right.

Les Miserables Review by Dio Rochino

  The stage production of Les Miserables is one continuous musical number with at most a couple of words of dialogue spoken throughout it’s duration.  Each musical segment blending perfectly into the next, it is the equivalent of listening to a great mixed playlist without interruptions.  Every song has a different tone and evokes different feelings ultimately taking viewers on an emotional journey allowing them to resonate empathically with the characters performing.  According to the creators of the film adaptation, they wanted to duplicate this by participating in a great experiment of having the actors sing directly on set so they can display their true emotional expressions and not have to mime to a pre-recorded track.  Personally, I thought this was a great idea.  This technique coupled with the fact that it was an adaptation of an awesome stage musical which I liked for the aforementioned reasons got me extremely excited to see this when it opened on Christmas.  Did the movie live up to my expectations?  It did not.  As an adaptation of the stage musical, it falls short.  Songs are chopped, lyrics are changed and extra dialogue was added where it was not needed.  Also, more often than I liked,  there were times when the characters would interchangeably speak the verses in the middle of singing a song.  I felt that there was no purpose for this as it was an underuse of talent.  Especially for Colm Wilkinson’s cameo as the bishop who played Val Jean in the original run of the show.  He has a terrific voice and he ended up speaking half of his lines.  By doing all this, the flow of the music is interrupted and by deleting certain sections featured in the stage production, the experience as a whole felt truncated.  It was as if someone was talking in between the tracks of this great playlist to explain what’s coming up and the story doesn’t flow organically.  As for the great experiment,  there were times I felt that the actors were singing ahead of their notes and the tempo couldn’t keep up.  Whether this was intentional or not, I don’t know.  For all these reasons, I felt bothered, but I can honestly say that this did not kill the experience for me.  The film looked great.  The cinematography was an extreme example of showcasing beauty in simplicity.  Especially with musical numbers like “I Dreamed a Dream”, where the camera remained focused on Anne Hathaway’s face to show the subtle emotions displayed in her expressions with each wavering note.  The director does this for a lot of the key musical segments in the film and it works well.  Although I was not impressed with some of the performances like Russell Crowe’s portrayal of Javert, who in my opinion remains passable at best because he lacks the baritone voice needed for the part.  But even his awkward rendition of the song Stars was made all the better by the simple backdrop of stars shining in the middle of a Parisian night time sky as he performs the number on top of a roof.  I came out of the movie with mixed feelings about what I’ve seen. However, I was still thinking about it the day after with a smile on my face so I can frankly say the experience was worthwhile and after time pondering about it on the whole, I came to the conclusion that as a movie, it works.  I’ve had biases because I’ve been a huge follower of the stage production, but I can honestly recommend this is as a great introduction for people who never been acquainted with Les Mis.  As for others like myself who are fans of the stage show, I can only say this.  Accept it for what it is.