Thursday, January 31, 2013

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!!!

Sunday, January 27, 2013

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.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

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.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

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.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

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.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

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.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

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.