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: Warm Bodies

Directed By: Jonathan Levine
Stars: Nicholas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, Analeigh Tipton, John Malkovich

What I Liked
Levine managed to mash a dozen of genres into an entertaining genre-bending feature film, Analeigh Tipton outdoing Teresa Palmer

What I Disliked
Teresa Palmer feels and looks like Kristen Stewart, incosistent zombie behavior

Gist
Warm Bodies successfully mashes several genres into a darkly comic oddball full of quirks. And while its resolution or its casting of Palmer is not as strong as the other leads, direction, or its screenplay, Warm Bodies still makes for an enjoyable take on the zombie genre.

Nicholas Hoult plays a zombie named "R." He narrates his daily goings on as he walks around their airport home. One day, while searching for food with his horde, they stumbled upon a group of humans looking for medicines in an abandoned lab. This encounter result in him falling in love with Julie (Teresa Palmer), prompting him to rescue her from his fellow zombies and take her home. But something in him is changing, and slowly as he protects Julie, he is starting to feel less dead and more alive.

I once read that of all the popular horror creatures, zombies are least likely to get the Twilight treatment.They stink, they have no humanity in them, and they eat you the first chance they get. This assumption was put to shame by Levine's Warm Bodies, adapted from the Isaac Marion book of the same name. Nicholas Hoult from UK E4's TV series Skins, and films like About a Boy, and 2010's X-Men: First Class plays quirky narrator  and dead walking who can only remember a fraction of his name, "R," opposite I Am Number Four's Number 6, Teresa Palmer as Julie, daughter of the leader of remaining human survivors (Malkovich). Levine, who directed 2011's cancer comedy 50/50, directs and writes a film quite difficult to adapt.

Immediately, one has to ask, will this be a movie one would like? Anyone would answer you with a canned "that depends." Initially, I was put off. "Ugh, they finally are ruining zombies and making a Twilight material out of the beloved brain-eating dead." But the final product from Levine is delightfully far from a disaster, at least in my books. But here's the thing, it would only work if you accept the central premise that in the universe where Marion's story is set, zombies are capable of thoughts. Yes, unfortunately, for zombie purists who grew up with titles like The Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and played games like Resident Evil, this is unthinkable. Zombies think?! And not only that, this zombie (R) narrates, too, cracks jokes, and is given to school boy anxieties--heck he even grew a vocabulary and maintains a house. If you remain unaccepting of the central premise, then this movie will frustrate you since that premise is its main source of humor, too.

At an early point in the movie, I felt it did a full stop when it tried to explore the humanity in R after he rescues Julie. This part, I felt, Levine failed to take advantage of. It felt slow and given to teenage tendencies.  There were scenes that felt out of place or inconsistent with the whole premise. For instance the scene when Julie and R went driving a car on the airport for fun because Julie was bored--and yet no zombie could smell Julie, but we were shown early just how keen zombies are to the presence of the living, come on, why would Julie even do that after the traumatic experience early on?! Then there's also a scene when R narrates that zombies can't run. Yet later on, zombies run.

But that's not my main concern at all. The inconsistencies are forgivable because I didn't really take the movie as seriously as one would, say, Inception or No Country for Old Men. Of all, it was Palmer's casting that bothered me most. Palmer, in most of her shots, looks and feels like Kristen Stewart--something I cannot find pleasure at. The initial impression to me was that this casting was made to ensure investment returns and that it feels comfortable for Twilight audiences--probably the same target audience of this film--to watch this film. After the movie, I was able to research about how she was cast and it bothered me less. I mean, it's not her fault that she looks like K-Stew. She fought for the role and got it after working hard. Still not a fan of her acting, though, and for those who are bothered by the existence of Kristen Stewart will be bothered by Palmer's casting, too.

K-Stew on the left, Palmer on the right

After the slow parts at the airport, the movie begins to enjoy itself. Levine manages to throw in several genres into the mix: at one point it was funny, in another it was rife with suspense, in another it was full on horror, then action, then romance, then soon enough you can't tell just what genre it is because it stirs so many emotions (sports fan beware, it doesn't transform into a sports flick, though. Sorry).

Analeigh Tipton, who plays survivor Nora, occasionally trumps Palmer in their scenes together. In the film, Nora is the sort of girl who doesn't feel shaken by the Apocalypse or by the fact that she saw her comrades get eaten by zombies--which makes little sense but whatever. She is lively through out and another source of humor for the the remainder of the film as well as a dependable companion.

In the end, the resolution might still be divisive for those who remained and enjoyed the film thus far. For me, it wasn't as weak or corny as one would expect--although you'd know it's going that way and feels predictable. It  manages to be humorous--a bit awkward at spots, but altogether works, albeit limping. As I said earlier, zombie purists wouldn't last the film halfway if they reject the premise. But those who are open and stuck it with Warm Bodies will be rewarded with a film that successfully mashes several genres into a darkly comic oddball full of quirks. And while its resolution or its casting of Palmer is not as strong as the other leads, direction, or screenplay, the zombie purist in me who opened himself up and didn't take the movie as seriously finds that Levine's (or Marion's, for that matter) take on the zombie genre makes for an enjoyable 97 minutes.

Judgment: Zombie purists exercise caution on watching this film. Do not expect this to have a Walking Dead treatment, think Zombieland with a wtf twist. The romance is also light and does not go cheesy so this one is also for the guys. 3.67 stars out of 5.

In Review: Sinister

The Gist

Grisly and disturbing, Sinister brings a flavor of SAW to Paranormal Activity. While not being as good as its predecessors, Hawke's strong performance and the eerie cinematography manages to make this film from sliding into cheap-scare film territory

The Good

• Hawke remains a legitimate actor throughout the whole film
• The cinematography inspires thrill rather than cheap scare
• The film follows a healthy progression that wouldn't get you lost

The Bad

• Has its dragging moments
• Unfortunately not as scary as its predecessors
• The uneven pacing desensitizes the conclusion

Synopsis

Ellison Oswalt (Hawke) used to be an accomplished fiction writer but he has since been relegated to less critical acclaim with his less successful crime novels that earn him the disregard from cops wherever town he moves to write a new novel. In his new novel, Ellison investigates a family hung by their necks on their backyard, while one of their daughters still missing. As they moved in to their new home, Ellison finds a box of home movies that opens a can of worms for him and his family.

Before Sunrise

I can't help but notice two things about this film. First, Ethan Hawke's performance (whichs kept this film from unhinging) and second, the time when it was filmed. I'd like to focus on the second matter, which, for me, spoiled the film. I have to wonder why most of the times, the Oswalt household is dreadfully dim, amid Ellison already scared out of his wits. Even at noon when the sun is at its brightest, the Oswalt household remains dark and dreary. While it did help the movie achieve a feel of creepiness and dread ready to rear its head, I don't think it does much for logic or realism. The fact that the Oswalt household was already feeling disturbed by Ellison's and Trevor's behaviors after moving into this new home should have made them keep the lights on more often and their curtains raised.

Taking Lives

Before anything else, I'd like to go back to my previous paragraph's first point: Hawke. Throughout the gradually degrading storytelling, Hawke remains a legitimate actor, dishing out extreme portrayal of depression, desperation for success, familial concern, and disgust. While his character remains to be extremely courageous throughout the film, you find that he's not your typical horror movie hero who loses all sort of humanity in favor of heroism (or sometimes stupidity). In fact, he remains very human through it all: greedy, stubborn, fatherly, frustrated, determined, frightened. Hawke has managed to flesh out Ellison, the central character, into something with more meat and more humanity--determined to stay alive, finish his work, and keep his family safe. This portrayal itself helped keep the film from losing its hinges and going all cheap thrills.

After the success of Paranormal Activity, fake found footage have been embraced by supernatural / horror films recently. Chronicle, The Devil Inside, and V/H/S, are among these films that embrace the combination of two genres with success. Sinister joins the fray, except instead of found footages of supernatural creepiness, it features sick documentation of people getting killed--some in very grisly ways that involve a gardening equipment. This part of the film always makes me flinch. The way the killings are done are very crude and are reminiscent of the SAW franchise, meant to evoke shock, and this is, I guess, one of Sinister's goals. It gives the crime a mask of visceral realness fitting perfectly into the horror and supernatural setup of the film.

I've noted above the Cinematography which made the simple suburban home fill up with dread and creepiness. But did I mention that the dreary atmosphere becomes annoying at times, too? Usually, horror films succeed by presenting and abject setup that is very commonplace in real life: for instance, watching a video that would trigger your death, or mirrors being passage ways for spirits, or even something as trivial as getting in contact with someone who's been cursed. Sinister goes for something less often encountered: a Super8 film projector that crisps while it plays. Horror movies are noted by how much effect they'd have on you after watching them. Some people would leave the lights on for days just because of seeing The Ring, but I cannot say the same is true for Sinister. It has a very specific setup that is hard to come by in real life and should only scare people who just moved in to their new home. Maybe it attempts to beat or better that formula, but does it make it any scarier, I can't say so. That projector trick eventually got old and Icouldn't be happier that Ellison has started burning it. And so much was my frustration when it came back. Not because of the horror that would ensue, but because it means another repeating trick that has tire itself very early on.

The pacing for Sinister is quite slow, it does not get scary at once and it takes its time, which can get pretty annoying. It does build up dread, but does not scare you much. The visuals were creepy, but nothing in the movie would suggest that anything creepy is about to rear its full head at the screen. Just more and more creepy visuals until you get desensitized for what is about to pop out later. Good news is that the progression is slow enough for you to appreciate the logic and mechanics of the movie's, er, curse that it will be a revelation in the end for you. Thing is, the payoff isn't as much as what the director could've hoped for and in the end, you sort of feel like Ellison's a nosy rat and that he had it coming anyway.

I couldn't say the movie skipped borrowing from other horror films and that it did not commit horror genre cliches, and it did, but it did with finesse and that you wouldn't mind. What I find fault in however, is the pacing that gave the movie its dragging moments--which eventually desensitized me for the final act--which albeit is still grisly and disturbing, wasn't as scary as needed.

My verdict:

Unfortunately does not outdo its predecessors or invents anything new for the genre. It does sidestep vulgar display of horror cliches and a great performance from Hawke supplies for a conflicted central character cast in a dreary and disturbing suburban atmosphere. I just feel that the pacing spoiled the surprise and desensitized far too great for the conclusion to have a greater payoff than it delivers.

3 out of 5 stars. Passed but against recommending.