In Review: Mama

Directed By: Andres Muschietti
Stars: Jessica Chastain, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, a CGI poltergeist

What I Liked
Cinematography by Antonio Riestra provides a creepy atmosphere full of scares and surprises

What I Disliked
Pedestrian resolution, throws a bunch of potentials that it never fully develops

Gist
It's a frightfest executed with creepy visual style, but Mama is flush of potentials that it never fully develops--giving itself to a rather pedestrian idea of an ending.

After being left to fend for themselves for five years, the Desange sisters were found alone in a cabin in the woods. They were remote from human: feral, savage, and running on all fours. Their uncle, a spitting image of their father, and his girlfriend, claims them and fends for them. But a shadowy, jealous guardian that they call Mama has followed them to their new home, unable to let go and ever wanting to whisk them away from their new family.

There is little doubt after one look at Chastain's wig that this film would be scary. If you guessed like I did, you're more than right. Mama is indeed scary. Not in The Hills Have Eyes or Texas Chainsaw Massacre scary, but in an Insidious, The Grudge, or The Eye (original Asians versions of the latter two) scary. But who is this Andres Muschietti? To most of us, he is a first time director, and the probable reason you are watching this film is because 1.) you heard Guillermo del Toro is producing (or in my case, I thought he was directing), 2.) you like either Chastain or Coster-Waldau or 3.) You have no idea who those people are and you just heard from your friends that this movie is nuts (actually, del Toro directed Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy, Chastain is Zero Dark Thirty's Maya, and Coster-Waldau is Game of Thrones' Jamie Lannister, but you probably know that anyway). Anyways, Muschietti.

Andres Muschietti created in 2011 a short film called Mama, stress on the last a, that caught del Toro's imagination. Below is that video where del Toro justifies why he produced Mama as well as the full short film itself (actually 3 minutes long only but is way scarier than the full-length film itself). The scene has an identical in the movie. So, if you haven't seen the movie, I would advise against watching it just yet.

If your reason is number 3, then your friends are right. Mama is crazy nuts scary, one that would work better on the cinemas as a sort of a communal screaming event. The cinematography invites a certain atmosphere of creepiness in a suburban setting that unsettles. Hands down also to the acting of the two little girls, Charpentier and Nelisse were very good at portraying nature-raised jungle children, hostile to any modern form of social interaction. The score also contributed to the largely creep-out feel of the film. Of course, there was a lot of CGI use. Mama is full-on CGI and everytime she appears, CG artists get paid.

At the start of the film, you would think that this is going to be a largely psychological horror movie, with most scares coming from the psychological terror of an unknown house intruder inflicted upon its cast, and it attempted this to good effect. Eventually, though, this idea is dispelled as Muschietti's monster become ever more visible. The more the Desange orphans feel human, the more monstrous Mama is, and the more abandoned the psychological terror is, making it clear that this is a creature feature rather than a psychological purveying of any sorts.

Some day, Chastain would look at this wig and think it was
all worth it.

Chastain's character, a rocker chick who you'd think would guest star on an episode of Jackass just for the hell of it, slowly develops maternal instincts just because. There's no explanation how she'd acquire the parental skills required to rear two jungle rats other than the fact that she was with them for days on her own (and probably for the love of her boyfriend). It's just hard to imagine how a woman on her late 20s (or early 30s) who'd praise the Lord for getting negative on a pregnancy test wouldn't immediately run and return these children to foster care. I mean it's not really that bad, but come on, we can do with some depth in the character development.

Anyway, all that lack of depth in character development makes the movie feel faster than it should be, trading away dialogue and heart for more scares. And it does feel scary, especially with the score and the cinematography (and all that grunge and moth and Nelisse acting all jungle book and shit). But as the movie reaches its third act, everything feels so unimaginative and derivative already--a common pitfall in almost all horror movies is that they don't know how to end themselves after delivering several scares. As with most horror movies, everything is revealed in the end, explained, and ends as unimaginative as you can get (but, in all fairness, not as shaky a resolution as Insidious). By the time it's about to end you know, like the whole movie, the resolution will compromise.

It frustrates me, that we couldn't really have a horror movie nowadays with an ending that 1.) doesn't feel cheesy or 2.) feels like a femme fatale movie or 3.) just doesn't have a heart or 4.) makes you think it's planning a sequel. Mama attempts and ending that is satisfying and has a heart, but its methods are too unimaginative to pull it off. Yes, I loved Mama, and I wish it was a bit better than it is. As it is, it's a frightfest executed with creepy visual style, and Mama is flush of potentials that it never fully develops. In the end, it gives itself to a rather pedestrian idea of an ending and that just feels a bit too much of a wasted opportunity.

Judgment: 3.3 out of 5 stars

For this movie, I'm willing to pay, 170 to 190 pesos.

In Review: Zero Dark Thirty

Directed By: Kathryn Bigelow

Stars: Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Jennifer Ehle, Joel Edgerton

What I Liked

Bigelow's no-nonsense direction, Chastain's powerful performance, narrative is fast-paced, controlled, and quietly intense

What I Disliked

Carrie and Saul's missing cameo in Langley. Why, Bigelow, why?

Gist

Bigelow respects her source material by not over-dramatizing the harrowing experience of her subjects. She instead delivers an intelligently executed gripping thriller possessing the same quiet explosive tenacity as her previous war movie, Hurt Locker, but with twice the control and surprise, thanks to Jessica Chastain's incredibly reserved cool and intensity popping out unexpectedly from her seemingly frail frame.

Maya (Chastain) was recruited to work for the CIA in highschool. 2 years after 9/11, she got her first overseas assignment in Pakistan where she accompanies a colleague, Dan (Clarke), to a CIA black site where a detainee is held. Initially, Maya distastes at the sight of torture, but eventually grew unflinching and sly--outsmarting the detainee even after failing to prevent an attack. The revelations from the outwitted detainee soon lead her to a trail rife with peril, putting her at odds with insurgents and superiors as she try to prove what she believe is the right trail to avenging her nation.

When I was 22 or 23, can't remember, and I haven't seen a lot of movies, I went to see Hurt Locker on DVD (as is the usual case of non-moneymaking machine movies, it didn't get shown in my country until it was up for like Oscars for Everyfuckignthing). Initially, I couldn't finish it, not because it was too intense--that would come a bit later--but because it dragged a great deal for the first thirty minutes. Besides, who was Jeremy Renner then, though? He played bad guys mostly (primarily remembered for his role in SWAT as an antagonist, and last billed among the list) and wasn't particularly likable at the start if the movie. Months after my first attempt, and I had no social functions to go to (i.e. get drunk till I needed to be driven home for my own good), I picked up my copy and managed to finish the whole thing. It was a rather emotionally harrowing experience of the war on Iraq and I understood why Bigelow got the nod in 82nd Oscars. It was an intense thriller that had multiple build-ups of tension and release.

Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty (ZDT) does not stray far from Hurt Locker's atmosphere. But it had tighter control. It was noticeably quieter than its predecessor, with its build-ups going in unnoticed until it's time for the release. And what a release! The only sort of suspense that could've equaled it is this year's Argo, which, for the sake of comparison, only had one monumental build up and release, and quite a joyous one. ZDT had multiple build ups, multiple acts that build up tension and release them, all of which are as masterful as Affleck's, and, I daresay, a step ahead of him. The sort that needed good editing to quicken the pace. One climax: boom! There you go. Let's move on to the next one, shall we? Bigelow shows us how it's done.

And since we're on the topic of comparing ZDT and Argo, I might as well finish. I have to say that it's a toss between the two for my favorite movie of the year. The similarities: both are about CIA intelligence operations, both are rife with suspense and have masterful direction and storytelling, both have endings that are part of history and already known to the audience--and yet they still manage to be an engaging watch, amid having its audience spoiled. The major difference between them, and I would need an analogy here, is this: if they were orange juice, Argo would be the sweetened sort, having spiced itself with delightful characters (Goodman and Arkin) and good old drama. ZDT appears to be the unsweetened sort, no drama, no delightful characters, just pure orange-y goodness. Some people would prefer one over the other, but both are orange juice and orange juice is good for you unless your hyperacidic, or in the sense of these suspense thrillers, tachychardic.

Not to say that Affleck has been curt with Argo, but Bigelow respects her source material by not over-dramatizing her subjects and their harrowing experience. She delivers an intelligently executed gripping thriller possessing the same quiet explosive tenacity as her previous war movie, Hurt Locker, but with twice the control and surprise, owing perhaps to Jessica Chastain's incredibly reserved cool and intensity popping out unexpectedly from her seemingly frail frame.

Both Chastain and Danes play strong CIA female analysts,
and the physical similarities align nicely, too: wide eyes,
deep eye sockets, big thin lips, thin nose, strong cheekbones,
delicate frame. 

Chastain's "Maya," a role she has performed with reserved cool and quiet tenacity that goes toe to toe with Gosling's Driver in 2011's Drive in my book, has drawn several comparisons with Danes' Carrie Mathison, prompting people to look up their inspiration. After all, both Carrie and Maya possess the same love for poring over details and obsession to what they think they're right about, clashing even with their superiors to arrive to the truth. Some digging in the internet suggests that they are based off from the short story "No Easy Day" whose central character, a "Jen," is a female CIA analyst. Whether their similarities are coincidental or not, Chastain's Maya is more controlled than Danes' Carrie who tends to employ dangerous assumptions and equipped with a penchant for reckless abandon. And I think that's what makes Maya work for ZDT's brand of suspense. She has no drama that she throws on about (even at the death of a close friend, she remains calm), she sticks to the plan, and keeps everything toned down. The sort of storytelling that ZDT came up with demanded control and Chastain delivers that to Boal and Bigelow. Her Maya is our guide, connecting to our minds rather than to our hearts (that is handled by the events depicted in the movie), the voice of calm in a shitstorm of clusterfuck, pardon the language, and if she has gone over-the-top, it would not have helped the audience understand the goings-on in the movie. And does Chastain deserve all the accolade she is getting? Yes, and she'll probably even get the Oscar.

Perhaps, that was the problem with Argo. It didn't have a Maya. We are presented with a Tony Mendez, performed by a less than likable (as an actor) Affleck, who isn't as sure as Maya in his convictions. He couldn't calm the storm the way Maya. Mendez knew his plan can fail, and when that happens, God help him--he is sure they're fucked. With Maya, there was no failure. She has data and she even wants to drop a bomb because she is that sure. In a movie full of suspense, a Maya would be more preferable than a Mendez as a guide.

Judgment: 2012's Best Picture? For me, it's no question. Bigelow delivers a mastefully executed thriller,  doubling the control and tension from her previous war movie. The result is a film that has a heavier weight than any of the competition--one that entertains as much as it educates. 5 out of 5 stars.

For this movie, I'm willing to pay: 250 to 320 PHP.