Saturday, September 17, 2016

Sully

DIRECTOR:  Clint Eastwood LEAD CAST:  Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, Laura Linney  PRODUCER:  Clint Eastwood, Frank Marshall, Tim Moore, Allyn Stewart  SCREENWRITER:  Todd Komarnicki  BASED ON:  Highest Duty by Chesley Sullenberger and Jeffrey Zaslow  MUSIC:  Christian Jacob, The Tierney Sutton Band  CINEMATOGRAPHY:  Tom Stern  EDITOR:  Blu Murray  GENRE:  Drama, Biography  PRODUCTION COMPANY:  Village Roadshow Pictures, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, Flashlight Films, The Kennedy/Marshall Company, Malpaso Productions  DISTRIBUTOR: Warner Bros. Pictures  COUNTRY:  United States  LANGUAGE: English  RUNNING TIME: 96 minutes
Technical assessment:  4
Moral assessment:  4
CINEMA rating:  V14
Director Clint Eastwood translates into film the true story of a US Airways jet landing on the Hudson River that took the world by storm on January 15, 2009.   Playing the plane’s captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger is Tom Hanks, assisted by co-pilot Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart).  Six minutes after the Airbus takes off from La Guardia airport (New York), a bird strike causes double engine failure—a May Day situation that calls for an emergency landing.  The control tower gives its clearance for the flight to return to land in La Guardia but soon loses contact with the plane.  With every precious second, the hope of landing on an airport becomes dim, compelling Sullenberger to rely on his knowledge and experience to arrive at the least damaging solution.  Guided by his instincts he decides to use the Hudson River as a runway—miraculously saving all 155 persons on board.  As the historic landing grabs the headlines and catapults Sully to hero status, the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) behind-the-scene investigation reveals that the plane’s left engine was not totally wrecked as Sullenberger had asserted, and that he could have made a safe landing in any of the three nearby airports.  If proven wrong, Sullenberger would be stripped of his wings, dishonorably discharged, deprived of retirement benefits. 
Sully is based on Sullenberger’s memoir, “Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters” (co-authored by Jeffrey Zaslow).  Consummate actor Hanks is in his element in the cockpit and outside, projecting grace under pressure—the economy of his word and gesture serving as a clue to the aviator’s character.  Eastwood maintains a sober tone all throughout, and wisely avoids background music to overdramatize an already fierce story.  There’s a vivid realism in the cinematic river landing, so that as the plane hits the water and is instantly swallowed by it, passengers are anything but calm, sensing the nearness of death.  And then the plane bobs up to the surface.  Sully couldn’t have been better helmed by anyone but Eastwood—it’s the perfect true-to-life plot for a director who values training, knowledge and instinct more than technology.  What adds to the film’s heart is the presence of the real-life people involved in the rescue: the ferry captain, the frogmen dropped from the chopper, the Red Cross workers, and others reenacting their roles.

Sully offers many learning moments for the viewer.  The hearing conducted by the NTSB team gives us an idea of how airline accidents are meticulously investigated.  Computer simulations of the Hudson River incident demonstrate that indeed Sullenberger could have safely turned back to La Guardia and spared the passengers the horror of a winter river dive.  After calmly watching, Sullenberger drops the bomb: “You are looking for human error, but you are taking humanity out of the picture.”  No pilot has ever been trained to land on a river.  With two engines dead, the aircraft steadily descending over New York City, contact with the control tower lost, and 155 lives in his hands, what could a pilot have done?  His best.  That’s all Sullenberger did.  There was never any practice for such an emergency, whereas the computer simulations—as the federal investigators themselves admitted—went through 17 practices before they could perfect the alternative La Guardia landing.  As the actual footage of the incident was shown for the first time during the hearing, the NTSB sees the light”—computer simulations may be scientific, but an airline crash is no video game.  Lives are at stake; computers have neither conscience nor the capacity for heroic acts.  What makes Sullenberger a true hero is his humility.  Amidst the public’s adulation, Sullenberger does not hog the limelight.  His composure reveals an interior serenity deeply rooted in gratitude for having survived.  Not the one to claim credit for the “miracle”, Sullenberger at the end of the hearing says “It wasn’t just me, it’s all of us.  We all did it.  We survived.”

Friday, September 16, 2016

USS Indianapolis: Disaster at Philippine Sea

DIRECTOR: Mario Van Peebles  LEAD CAST:  Nicolas Cage, Tom Sizemore, Thomas Jane, Matt Lanter,Brian Presley, Cody Walker  SCREENWRITER: Cam Cannon, Richard Rionda Del Castro  PRODUCER: Michael Mendelsohn, Richard Rionda Del Castro  EDITOR:  Robert A. Ferretti MUSICAL DIRECTOR:  Laurent Eyquem  GENRE:  Drama, Action,History  CINEMATOGRAPHER: Andrzej SekuÅ‚a  DISTRIBUTOR:  Saban Films  LOCATION:  United States
Technical assessment: 3
Moral assessment: 2
Cinema rating: V14
MTRCB rating: PG
The film depicts the historical fate of USS Indianapolis ship—in 1945, the Portland class cruiser led by Captain Charles McVay (Nicolas Cage) sailed to deliver parts of the atomic to be dropped on Hiroshima towards the end of World War II. While cruising the Philippine Sea, on July 30th, 1945, the ship is torpedoed and sunk by a Japanese submarine that detects them, taking 300 crewmen with it to the bottom of the Philippine Sea, while the rest climb out of the ship and are left stranded in shark-infested waters for five days without food and water.  How will they survive? Who is really responsible for the disaster?                                              
USS Indianapolis: Disaster at Philippine Sea could have been a gripping survival tale on the fate of the soldiers on board the titular ship.  However, the film suffers from obligatory Hollywood stereotyping of telling or re-telling historical disaster stories such as this—like a love triangle that does not really add tension to the story. The film lacks clarity as to who the protagonist really is or as to whose point-of-view the story is being told. In historical films such as this, it is imperative that the point-of-view be clear so there would be a central narrative arc to be followed. Too many subplots also tend to bore the audience as it veer awaymerely serve to distract from the main focus of the film which is the disaster. But then, the film is successful is visually depicting the disaster at sea. Audiences are really taken to the actual event with all its magnitude and danger. Cage is a strong lead and is able to deliver the depth of emotion required for the role of the disturbed ship captain.
It is always interesting to retell stories of war for they bring to the forefront moral questions—whether or not moral choices are still present in time of war. Nevertheless, most war stories really tell that love is present even in time of war so that it might answer some of the most important moral questions.  USS Indianapolis: Disaster at Philippine Sea is no exception. It disturbs moral judgment from the very beginning as the Captain and the rest of the crew are in for a mission they are not exactly aware of. The Captain taking his entire crew on suicidal mission is such a morally disturbing choice. Taking the disaster upon himself in the process perhaps could be a depiction of the consequence of one lapse in judgment. In war, obedience may be the only choice one will have—choosing allegiance may be of no question to most, so one chooses to obey orders no matter how obscure or vague the orders may be. In the end, history will be the ultimate judge, they say, but God is the real ultimate judge.  More than survival, honor coupled with faith and love should be the goal of every human being even in time of war.


Thursday, September 15, 2016

Train to Busan

DIRECTOR: Sang-ho Yeon  LEAD CAST: Gong Yoo, Kim Su-an, Jung Yu-mi, Ma Dong-seok, Choi Woo-shik, Ahn So-hee  SCREENWRITERS: Sang-ho Yeon  PRODUCER: Lee Dong-ha MUSIC BY: Jang Young-gyu  FILM EDITOR: Yang Jin-mo  GENRE: Mystery & Thriller, Sci-Fi & Fantasy  CINEMATOGRAPHER: Lee Hyung-deok  PRODUCTON COMPANY: Redpeter Film  DISTRIBUTED BY: New Entertainment World  COUNTRY: South Korea  LANGUAGE: Korean  FILMING LOCATIONS: Dongdaegu Station, Daegu, Yeongnam, South Korea   RUNNING TIME: 118 minutes 
Technical assessment: 3.5
Moral assessment: 2.5
CINEMA rating: V18
Workaholic fund manager Seok-wu (Gong Yoo) is torn between urgent matters at work and the wish of her only daughter Su-an (Kim Su-an) by his ex-wife to spend her birthday in Busan with her mother.  Su-an lives with her father Seok-wu but he rarely finds time for her. Realizing the growing disappointment of his daughter with his lapses as a father, he fulfills her birthday wish and together they take the high-speed train to Busan. Shortly before the train takes off, two strange passengers—a teenager apparently having a seizure and a terribly frightened dirty mansneak onto the train. On discovery of both, the dirty man refuses to get out of the train while the teenager turns out to be zombie.  She attacks the train attendant and soon they multiply as they bite one after another inside the train. Also on board the train are Sang-wa (Ma Dong-seok), his pregnant wife Sung-kyu (Jung Yu-mi), a baseball team led by Young-Gook (Choi Woo-sik), and cheer leader Jin-Hee (Ahn So-Hee).

Tran to Busan has a well-developed plot that is easy to follow. It offers a new treatment of a zombie movie where characters are well built-up from the main ones to the zombies. Emotions are effectively brought out via good acting and characterization. Each one has their own highlights and transformation in the movie. The cinematography captures these and sets the tragic tone. The outdoor view of Korea and long shots likewise serve as a break from tension-filled scenes inside the train. The scenes are meaningful compositions, from the opening scene of a run over doe to a closing scene of survivors framed in a tunnel. Lights and sounds are equally powerful especially when used to trick the zombies, but the most remarkable is a child’s singing voice resounding in the nick of time. Overall, Train to Busan has a way above average technical qualities and viewers who are into this genre may find it’s worth the price of admission.
No matter how engaged at work, parents must still find time for their children, lest children in their young minds conclude that their parents are selfish, indifferent, and uncaring.  This is what pushed young Su-an to insist on the train ride to Busan.  While the ride turned out to be a horrible one, it also became an opportunity for father and daughter to see the good in each other.  Train to Busan likewise showed the innate goodness of a child towards others especially the needy—the elderly, the pregnant, the helpless.  The movie also demonstrated the various reactions of people to crisis, bringing out the worst and the best in humans. Train to Busan is almost two stressful hours, filled with tension, conflict, and violent and scary scenes of zombie chase and attacks that may be too much for children.  There is also one disturbing element that must be critically viewed for young and old alike—the suicide of one character towards the end.  The World Health Organization tags South Korea as having the second-highest number of suicides in the world.  Suicide may be a health, economic, or cultural issue in South Korea, but for the Philippines, a predominantly Catholic country, suicide is believed to be a sin.  So, do guide your children when they see Train to Busan.