Across the Crescent Moon

DIRECTOR: BABY NEBRIDA  LEAD CAST: MATTEO GUIDICELLI, ALEX GODINEZ, CHRISTOPHER DE LEON, SANDY ANDOLONG, GABBY CONCEPCION, DINA BONNEVIE  SCREENWRITER: BABY NEBRIDA  PRODUCER:  BABY NEBRIDA  LINE PRODUCER:  CHRISTINA NEBRIDA  EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS: ANA CLEMENA, AMADO TAN  GENRE: ACTION, DRAMA  MUSIC: VON DE GUZMAN  CINEMATOGRAPHER:  TOPEL LEE  PRODUCTION DESIGNER:  ERWIN SANCHEZ  PRODUCTION COMPANY: GOLD BARN MEDIA INTERNATIONAL  DISTRIBUTOR: SILVER LINE MULTIMEDIA  LOCATIONS: Tawi Tawi, Simunul Island, Tanay, Clark, Subic, Zambales RUNNING TIME:   130 MINUTES

Technical assessment:  3.5

Moral assessment:  3.5

CINEMA rating:  V14

MTRCB rating: PG13

Ang unang madramang eksena sa Across the Crescent Moon ay ang pagtatalo ng mag-inang Emma (Alex Godinez) at Mita (Dina Bonnevie).  Labis ang pagtutol ng mag-asawang Garcia, sila Mita at Johnny (Gabby Concepcion), mga saradong Katoliko, sa pag-iibigan ng anak nilang si Emma at ng Muslim na si Abbas Misani (Matteo Guidicelli), ngunit hindi mapipigilan nito ang pag-iisang dibdib ng dalawa.  Sa Mindanao, manunuluyan si Emma at Abbas sa tahanan ng mga Misani kung saan si Emma ay pakikitunguhang mabuti ng mga magulang ni Abbas, sila Karim (Christopher de Leon) at Sitti (Sandy Andolong).  Darating ang puntong ipapakiusap ni Emma kay Abbas na lisanin nila ang magulong Mindanao at manirahan muna sila sa Maynila habang nagbubuntis siya.  Si Abbas ay isang matinik na sundalo ng Special Action Forces (SAF) na nakatalaga sa pagpuksa ng drug at human trafficking sa Mindanao, ngunit papalarin siyang bigyan ng bagong assignment sa Luzon.  Sa kasabikang makapiling muli ang pamilya, kalaunan ay sisikaping dumalaw ni Emma sa bahay nila ngunit sasalubungin lamang siya ng malupit na pagtatakwil sa kanya ng ina.  Sa kabila ng maselang kalagayang pagdadalantao ni Emma ay hindi matitinag ang puso ng ina na mahabag man lamang sa anak.  Hanggang kailan magdurusa si Emma?

Kakatwang magkabilang-dulo ang reaksiyon ng mga kritiko sa Across the Crescent Moon.  Mayroong pumupuri dito nang lubusan, at nagsasabing dapat itong panoorin ng bawat Pilipino; at mayroon din namang wala nang pinuna kundi ang sa tingin nila’y mga nagdudumilat na pagkukulang ng pelikula—mula anggulo ng kamera hanggang sa daloy ng istorya.  May nagsasabing sayang lamang ang iyong panahon at salapi kung papanoorin mo ang Across the Crescent Moon pagkat ito na yata ang “worst movie of all time”, ngunit may nagpapayo din na malaki ang mawawala sa iyo kapag hindi mo pinanood ito pagkat ito’y “special”—isang natatanging pelikula na buong-loob na tumatalakay at nagsasalarawan sa mga bagay na diumano’y hindi kailanman nagawa noon sa kasaysayan ng pelikulang Pilipino.  At mayroon din naman naggigiit na ang pelikula’y isang propaganda lamang ng administrasyong Duterte.  Iba’t ibang tao, iba’t ibang pananaw.

Madaling unawain ang pagkakalayo ng pananaw ng mga kritiko tungkol sa Across the Crescent Moon, at maaaring nagpapahiwatig na rin ito tungkol sa kinabukasan ng pelikula sa takilya.  Tulad ng karaniwang manonood, maraming kritiko ang naghahanap lamang na maaliw at mamangha sa husay ng pagkakagawa ng isang pelikula, hanggang sa puntong kaligtaan na nilang siyasatin ang “sustansiya” na inihahain nito, o ang hangaring nagluwal dito.  Hindi nakakaaliw ang tema ng Across the Crescent Moon, at ang kamangha-mangha dito ay ang katotohanang nabuo ito, narito na, isa nang pelikula dahil sa mga taong nagtaya ng talino, yaman, at pananalig sa pagnanais na makatulong sa pagsulong ng kaayusan at kapayapaan sa bansa.

Sa isang interview ay napag-alaman ng CINEMA na layunin ng direktor na si Baby Nebrida na pakitirin ang agwat sa pagitan ng mga Kristiyano at Muslim sa pamamagitan ng pagtatampok sa tamang kaalaman, kaya’t minabuti niyang isalarawan ang kabutihang napapaloob sa isang pamilyang Muslim sa pelikulang ito.  Sa inspirasyon niyang ito, naakit ni Nebrida ang mga batikang artista na gumanap kasama ng mga “bagito” sa pelikula, at ang husay na ipinakita ng lahat sa pagganap ay nag-ugat hindi sa “acting technique” lamang kungdi sa paniniwalang may mithiin silang tunay na makabuluhan sa kanilang sining.  Sa press conference na dinaluhan ng CINEMA, inamin din ng mga artista na sa kanilang pag-aaral sa kani-kaniyang mga papel, at sa pakikihalubilo nila sa mga Muslim sa shooting sa Mindanao, namulat din ang mga mata ng cast (na pawang mga Kristiyano) sa kagandahan ng kaugalian at buhay-panalangin ng mga Muslim.  Sa gayon, hindi “trabaho lang” ang pagiging bahagi nila sa Across the Crescent Moon; isa rin itong “learning moment” na nagpalawak sa kanilang pananaw tungkol sa “naiibang kultura,” at nagpaigting sa kanilang performance.  Resulta: anumang kahinaang mayroon sa aspetong teknikal ang Across the Crescent Moon ay madali nang “palampasin”, gawa ng taos-pusong pagganap ng mga artista sa kani-kaniyang mga papel.  

Ang papel ni Bonnevie—si Mita, makitid ang isip, kampante sa kalagayan niya sa lipunan, may mabuting hangarin ngunit salat sa tunay na pang-unawa sa anak o sa kapwa—ang matatawag na “puso ng pelikula” pagka’t dito nasasalamin ang pagbabagong kailangang pagdaanan ng mga Pilipino tungo sa ikabubuti ng ugnayan sa pagitan ng mga Muslim at ninumang Pilipino na wala o may baluktot na kaalaman tungkol sa relihiyong Islam.

Hindi ipagtataka ng CINEMA kung hindi man “papatok” sa masa ang Across the Crescent Moon, pagkat batay na rin sa mga pag-aaral na isinasagawa ng industriya, ang karaniwang Pilipinong manonood ay pumapasok sa sinehan para matawa, makiliti, o mangilabot, at hindi upang  magmuni-muni tungkol sa kinabukasan ng bansang Pilipinas.  Maaaring hindi humakot ng milyon-milyong piso sa takilya ang Across the Crescent Moon ngunit sa ganang CINEMA, milyon-milyong mga sugatang puso sa bansa ang mapaghihilom ng malalim na pag-unawa sa mabuting balitang hatid ng pelikula.

Ang unang araw ng pagpapalabas ng Across the Crescent Moon ay nataon sa Enero 25, ang ikalawang anibersaryo ng tinaguriang “Mamasapano Massacre” na ikinasawi ng 44 na kawal ng SAF.  Ang pagkakasama ng mga tunay na sundalo ng SAF sa pelikula ay nagpatingkad sa pagka-makatotohanan nito, bagay na ikalulugod marahil ng marami pang mga kawal na makakapanood ng Across the Crescent Moon sa nababalitang nalalapit na pagpapalabas nito sa mga kampo ng sundalo.

Ang ubod ng pelikula ay ang pag-iibigan ng dalawang taong may magkaibang pinanggagalingan, at ang pag-asa ng pagkakaisang dala ng pagkakaunawaan.  Kung dito itutuon ang pansin ng manonood, hindi tatanawing “propaganda” ang pelikula, pagkat lalabas na “bit player” lamang si Digong at si Bato rito—hindi mga bayaning aakay sa bayan tungo sa kaluwalhatian.  Makabubuti ring ipalabas at talakayin ang pelikula sa mga paaralan sa malalaking lungsod bilang pangmulat sa diwa ng mga kabataang nanganganib nang malulong sa kababawang naghahari sa ating mga palabas, sa sinehan man, sa telebisyon, o sa internet.

Split

DIRECTOR: M. Night Shyamalan  LEAD CAST:  James McAvoy, Anya Taylor-Joy, Betty Buckley  PRODUCER: M. Night Shyamalan, Jason Blum, Marc Bienstock  SCREENWRITER: M. Night Shyamalan  MUSIC: West Dylan Thordson  CINEMATOGRAPHER: Mike Giolakis  EDITOR: Luke Franco Ciarrocchi  GENRE:  Psychological Thriller  PRODUCTION COMPANY: Blinding Edge Pictures, Blumhouse Productions  DISTRIBUTOR: Universal Pictures  COUNTRY:  United States  LANGUAGE: English  RUNNING TIME: 117 minutes

Technical assessment: 3.5

Moral assessment: 2.5

Cinema rating: A14

MTRCB Rating: PG

A man abducts three young girls Casey, Claire and Marsha (Anya Taylor-Joy, Haley Lu Richardson, Jessica Sula).  But his motives are not clear as to what he wants from the three girls. It turns out, he is Kevin (James McAvoy), a man with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) or commonly known as split personality. Kevin has 23 distinct personalities that eventually come out as he deals with his abductees. He regularly visits his psychiatrist, Dr. Karen Flethcer (Betty Buckley), who is getting suspicious that something might be wrong with Kevin and she is sensing danger. One moment he is a 9-year-old boy, then he is a British woman, then a gay fashion designer, etc. But all those 23 personalities are not keen on letting the girls escape; and they are all talking and giving warning to the girls about a beast that will come after the girls and kill them which later turns out to be his 24^th personality.  As Claire and Marsha pro-actively seek ways to escape, Casey’s moves are more calculated as her childhood back story tells it why. It seems Casey and Kevin have something in common—but will this make the girls survive and defeat an enemy that they cannot seem to fully understand?

Split is a brave attempt to explore such a mysterious brain disorder and extends it further into an evolution bordering on superhuman potential. Beneath the conventions of a psychological thriller lies a profound explanation of the deeper source of human conflict that results in tragedy. In the tradition of  M. Night Shyamalan’s depiction of the human soul’s immortality, Split is more than a scare flick but is a commentary on the many facets of man’s complexities and  power beyond the material world.  McAvoy delivers a tour-de-force performance of a psycho hosting 24 personalities. Taylor-Joy is equally compelling as a disturbed young girl torn between survival and surrender. Buckley’s portrayal is also commendable. In totality, the film proves that CGIs are not really essential to bring about scare but a mere exploration on the mystery of life, on the existence of evil within and without, are enough to make the audience thrilled, scared, and at the same time, enlightened.

Split is also mainly about abuses and exploitation of the young and the evil and the trauma that a young person carries up to adulthood resulting in tragic endings most of the time. The abuses Kevin and Casey went through defined them as human beings only that it led to two different directions. Kevin goes deeper the dark side and becomes vindictive while Casey decides to remain pure despite the odds. One’s childhood past determines their future human strengths or weaknesses. Exploitation and abuse are all evil. But victims need not be evil themselves in order to seek justice or take revenge for it will only cultivate further a cycle of violence, of abuse, of exploitation. Casey shows that as a human being, one has the power to rise above his or her dark past. That it is not their fault that they were abused and it does not also mean that they should be abusers themselves to get even. Kevin on the other hand went to the dark side. The abuse and trauma he got from his abusive mother is depicted as justification for his persistent D.I.D. It is a questionable justification.  What does not kill you will make you stronger, they say. This moral may be true to both of the film’s villain and heroine, but to make the evil one seem stronger than the good is really disturbing. The victim becoming victimizer may be a good story handle but there should not be a vacuum as to the process on how becomes one. For to be swayed on the dark side because of one’s circumstances is more of a weakness than a strength.  Because of such portrayal of the evil’s strength to lure in one’s body and mind, the film becomes a disturbing feature morally although it clearly depicts evil as inciting more evil. In effect, it seems nothing is resolved—not the crime, nor the abuse, although we see Casey’s hint of determination in the end to stand up for what is right. For the graphic violence, depictions and insinuations of child physical and sexual abuse, and heavy psychological theme, CINEMA finds the film as suitable only to viewers 14 year-old and above. 

La La Land

DIRECTOR: DAMIEN CHAZELLE  LEAD CAST: RYAN GOSLING, EMMA STONE  SCREENWRITER:     DAMIEN CHAZELLE  PRODUCER:  FRED BERGER, GARY GILBERT, JORDAN HOROWITZ, MARC PLAT  EDITOR:  TOM CROSS  MUSICAL DIRECTOR:  JUSTIN HURWITZ  GENRE: ROMANTIC MUSICAL COMEDY  CINEMATOGRAPHER:  LINUS SANDGREN  DISTRIBUTOR: SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT  LOCATION:  LOS ANGELES, UNITED STATES  RUNNING TIME: 128 MINUTES

Technical assessment:  3.5

Moral assessment:  3

CINEMA rating:  V 13

Jazz enthusiast and down and out pianist Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone), a barista with dreams of becoming an actress, first meet in an awkward road rage situation while stuck in Los Angeles’ highway traffic jam.  Their paths cross again when Mia’s car is towed: walking home she drops by a bar and finds Sebastian playing Christmas carols on the piano.  Their third meeting is at a party Mia attends, where Sebastian is on the keyboard of the live band.  It seems like destiny after three encounters.  Sebastian then takes Mia to a jazz bar where he discloses his ambition to have his own jazz bar; Mia reciprocates by sharing her dreams of becoming an actress.

Because La La Land is supposedly a musical rom-com drama, the boy-meets-girl plot flows into a boy-dances-with-girl number on the moonlit night they meet.  First they fight, then they flirt, then they fall in love.  Then they live together.  But will the director pursue the affair to its logical and box-office friendly conclusion?  The chemistry between Gosling and Stone is obvious—this being their third pairing (after Crazy, Stupid Love and Gangster Squad)—and the story of love and ambition in Hollywood is deftly presented, and yet…there is something amiss, something artificial about the movie that stands in the way of total enjoyment.  Maybe what’s distracting is the fact that Stone and Gosling are neither singers nor dancers—they were just trained for their roles for a few months, and it shows.  (Stone nailed it, though, in the emotional audition scene towards the end).  

Families would benefit from discussions with the young on how love impacts one’s ambitions, and how ambition challenges one’s commitment to permanence in relationships.  The situation is universal although the setting is glittery Los Angeles (LA, thus La La Land), something relatable to Filipinos familiar with the socio-emotional costs of working overseas away from loved ones.  Young people with hopes of entering showbiz will also learn a thing or two here about the industry behind the scenes and the realities of sacrificing one’s passion and art on the altar of expediency.

Patriots' Day

Direction: Peter Berg; Cast: Mark Wahlberg, J.K. Simmons, Kevin Bacon, Michelle Monaghan; Story and  Screenplay: Matt Cook, Peter Berg, Joshua Zeturner; Cinematography: Tobias Schliessler;  Editing: Colby Parker Jr.; Gabriel Fleming; Music: Trent Reznor & Gabriel Fleming; Producers: Genre: Drama - Action:Location: Boston,Massachusetts; Distributor: Lionsgate; Running Time: 133 minutes

Technical assessment: 3.5 

Moral assessment: 3  

CINEMA rating: V14 

On April 15, 2013, the day when Boston gathers for the annual Marathon, two Russian Muslim brothers detonate two homemade bombs a few hours after winners cross the finish line. The explosion kills three and injures more than two hundred spectators—with more than a dozen requiring amputation. The true to life incident of the Boston Marathon Bombing is told from the perspective of Sergeant Tommy Saunders (Wahlberg) a foul-mouth homicide officer assigned at the VIP section of the race. His crass attitude metamorphoses into empathy after he witnesses the destruction caused by the explosion and the physical and emotional pain the victims underwent. His conviction to bring justice to the victims teams him up with FBI Special Agent Des Lauriers (Bacon) and Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis (Goodman). Along the first half of the narrative, we get glimpses of the would-be victims’ life and their struggle after the incident. The second half focuses on the manhunt of the police and the escape attempts of the perpetrators. 

Patriots’ Day as a true-to-life feature attempts not just to recreate the Boston Marathon Bombing but also to retell the heroism of the entire community. Wahlberg’s character is a little overwritten leaving very little room for Bacon and Goodman. Yet, professional as these two are, they deliver strongly. The narrative is expectedly lopsided to favor the victims but since the purpose was to humanize the characters, it would not have hurt if the Tsarnaev brothers were presented with a deeper motivation. The editing coupled with very tight intimate framing is outstanding as it paces the story with dramatic crescendo and sympathetic familiarity. The movie is cleverly told with actual CCTV footages and reenactments but woven seamlessly. We are not sure about the inclusion of the real characters at the end as it feels gratuitous. Perhaps it could have been left as a bonus track for the DVD version. 

There is nothing new in the narrative as the script remained as faithful to the actual events. But giving a glimpse of the lives of real people who got hurt, who responded and committed to solve the crime sheds an added value into the scene—community, resilience and courage. We Filipinos are no stranger to these given all the tragedies we've had to cope with, hence “Patriots Day” mirrors our sentiments as a tribute to a community struggling to rise above the pain and the disaster. Boston Strong becomes every person’s battlecry and every community’s hope in the face of tragedy. While Patriots' Day delivers a strong positive message, the graphic representation of the bombing and the victims might be too much for the younger audiences. 

Passengers

DIRECTOR: Morten Tyldum  LEAD CAST: Jennifer Lawrence, Chris Pratt, Michael Sheen, Laurence Fishburne, Andy García  WRITER: Jon Spaihts  PRODUCERS: Neal H. Moritz, Stephen Hamel, Michael Maher, Ori Marmur  FILM EDITOR: Maryann Brandon  GENRE: Science Fiction Romance  CINEMATOGRAPHY: Rodrigo Prieto  MUSIC: Thomas Newman   PRODUCTON COMPANIES: LStar Capital, Village Roadshow Pictures, Wanda Pictures, Original    Film, Company Films, Start Motion Pictures   DISTRIBUTORS: Columbia Pictures  COUNTRY: U. S. A.  LANGUAGE: English  RUNNING TIME: 1 hour & 56 minutes

Technical Assessment: 2.5

Moral Assessment: 2.5

Cinema Rating: A14

MTRCB Rating: PG

Engineer Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) is onboard spaceship Starship Avilon with 5,000 passengers in suspended animation as they are on a 120-year voyage to a distant colony planet called Homestead. As the ship passes through an asteroid field, it encounters malfunction and one of its hibernation pods opens prematurely, waking up Jim from hibernation 90 years early. Rattled, Jim tries everything he can to put himself back to sleep inside his hibernation pod, but to no avail. He is faced with the fact that he will forever be stranded in space alone and he will not make it to Homestead. Instead, he will die in the ship from either loneliness or old age. Then he catches sight of fellow passenger, Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence) who is still in her hibernation pod.  He investigates Aurora’s background and he becomes fascinated by her.  He finds out he can wake her up from hibernation but doing so would put her on the same fate as his. But then, he cannot stand the aloneness in the spaceship. He has to make a tough decision.

Passengers  tackles a premise that is very far from human possibility.  Although a sci-fi, it understandably tries to justify the science behind the fantasy. But then again, the challenge lies on its effectiveness to suspend disbelief of the audience – but the even more problematic humanness of the entire storyline and uninspired mounting of emotional thread fail to make the picture at the very least, believable. The film utterly fails to maximize the grand setting and elaborate CGIs with its thinly layered story arcs. Lawrence and Pratt make a great pair though and both look great on screen given the limitations of the material. The real problem of the film is its structure itself. It apparently lacks the heart in what it really wants to say about human nature in general. The motivations and actions of the characters seem to be no more than functional and the reconciliations appear to be no more than obligatory.  In the end, the audience feels nothing for the characters, even for all its passengers.

No man is an island. The film works on this adage as justification for its character’s decisions.  However, looking at his motivations on the moral context, it is indeed no doubt that his action is an ultimate act of selfishness without regard to the well-being of the other. While growing and dying old alone seem to be a tragedy in itself, humans have the capacity to accept and endure suffering if that would be his or her fate. Altering one’s fate in an artificial and inhuman way is definitely a grave offense against the other person. Even the romance in the Passengers seems to be manipulated and staged for there is deception from the very beginning. Perhaps the film tries to justify Jim’s acts of purifying his intentions but even the film’s resolution does not give enough justice at all. Does the end to love really justify the means to deceive? Was there really love to begin with? Or is it just a product of fear of growing and dying old alone? The film in its entirety plays God. They are all manipulating human possibilities without regard for the divine. It seems God is absent in the outer space.  The characters’ heroic acts for the greater good are commendable as well as their effort to bring life and nature life in the spacecraft is amazing. Forgiveness comes sooner because of love. But then, love is being confused with lust in the film and there was no regard for procreation which adds more confusion with the film’s real intention. But if there is one apparent moral the film depicts it would be the fact that humans are not perfect. Only God is. And when humans start to believe that they are perfect and can even create and manipulate new life through their own effort and intelligence that would be the start of their own downfall. For some graphic nudity and sexual content, CINEMA deems the film may be appropriate only to audiences aged 14 and above. 

Sing

DIRECTOR: Garth Jennings  VOICE CAST:  Matthew McConaughey, Reese Witherspoon, Seth MacFarlane, Scarlett Johansson, John C. Reilly, Taron Egerton, Tori Kelly  SCREENWRITER: Garth Jennings  PRODUCER: Chris Meledandri, Janet Healy  EDITOR: Gregory Perler  MUSIC: Joby Talbot  GENRE:  Animation, Musical Comedy  PRODUCTION COMPANY: Illumination Entertainment  DISTRIBUTOR: Universal Pictures  COUNTRY:  United States LANGUAGE: English  RUNNING TIME: 110 minutes

Technical assessment: 3.5

Moral assessment: 3

CINEMA Rating:  V13 with parental guidance

Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey) has to do something to prevent the closure of the theater house that he has inherited from his father.  He thinks of hosting a singing competition to save the theater and to use his remaining little cash as a prize. He confides this plan to his bestfriend  Eddie Noodleman (John Reilly) who is equally supportive of the idea. But the assistant of Buster mistakenly types on prize amount from $1000 to $100,000.  This expectedly generates interests to many aspiring singers who flock to the audition and showcase their talents. Instead of amending the prize amount, Buster remains optimistic and scouts for sponsors to cover up for the lacking amount.

True to its title, Sing is a movie treat for both music and non-music lovers. It is an entertaining animated musical comedy with “personified” animal characters. The featured songs are a popular selection across decades, hence may be relatable to viewers of all ages.  Sing has a good narrative flow with coordinated sub plots and complementary musical score. Likewise, dialogues are spontaneous and meaningful. The actors behind the voices did an excellent job as demanded by the characters’roles, especially in projecting different emotions.

There is value in appreciation of God-given talents like singing and dancing as projected in Sing.  This serves as an inspiration for someone who is facing financial difficulties to regain losses by opening opportunities for others to showcase their singing talents.   Along with this noble intention in the character of Buster Moon is his determination to continue the legacy of his father and remain optimistic amidst disappointments and challenges.   Similarly, contestants come to join not only with their talents but with varying reasons and aspirations.  While pursuing dreams through talent showcase is a positive action, there are portions in the movie that depict misbehavior, like stealing electricity and money, lying to evade collectors, gender stereotyping, and inordinate leniency to the person who commits mistakes at work.  For this reason, children below 13 years old must be guided by adults, lest they think good intentions justify wrongdoing.

Ang Babae sa Septic Tank 2: Forever is Not Enough

Direction: Marlon Rivera; Lead cast: Eugene Domingo, Kean Cipriano, Cai Cortez, Joel Torre, Jericho Rosales, Agot Isidro; Story/Screenplay: Chris Martinez, Marlon Rivera; Editing : Marya Ignacio; Cinematography: Lee Briones; Producer:Chris Martinez, Marlon Rivera; Music: Von de Guzman; Location: Metro Manila, Baguio; Genre: Comedy/Satire; Distributor: Quantum Films
Technical assessment: 3 
Moral assessment: 3 

CINEMA rating: V14  

Pagkatapos ng limang taon at ang award-winning na pelikulang "Walang-wala", muling magkikita at maaring magsama sa isang pelikula sina Direk Rainer (Cipriano) at Eugene Domingo (Domingo) sa isa na namang pelikula na pinamagatang "The Intinerary". Ang dating tahimik na si Jocelyn (Cortez) ay madaldal na Line Producer. Ang kwentong "The Itinerary" ay hango sa kasalukuyang pinadaraanang problema ni Rainer at ng kanyang asawa at dapat sanang paraan niya upang maayos ang gusot sa kanilang relasyon. Kaya naman puspsan ang bagbantay ng direktor na hindi malihis ang kwento. Pero sa isip ni Domingo, sapat na ang inaning tagumpay at parangal ng isang indie film at panahon na para gumawa sila ng pelikulang kikita sa takilya sa paraang kabisado at hinahanap ng mga manunuod. 

Mahirap iwasang hindi ihambing ang pelikulang ito sa naunang Ang Babae sa Septic Tank kaya naman medyo malata at kapos sa talim ang mga patama ng mga eksena. Kung ang una ay patutsada sa makasariling ambisyon ng mga Indie filmmakers, ngayon naman ay pambabatikos sa mga nauusong romcom (romantic comedy) na kabisadong-kabisado na ang mga sangkap na papatok sa takilya. Andun pa rin naman ang mga “quotable quotes” at "hugot lines", pero masyado nakasalalay ang pelikula kay Domingo at sa script na halos hindi mo na maaninag ang pananaw ng direktor. At dahil sumasapaw ang presensya ni Domingo sa mga eksena, hindi na rin maramdaman ang pinagdaraanang kirot ni Rainer na dapat sanang gigising sa kamalayan ng mga tao na may katotohanan palang nais iparating sa likod ng komedya. Sa kabuuan, nakakaaliw pa rin ang pagganap ni Domingo at sakto naman ang mga hirit ni Cortez at Torre. Sulit naman ang panunuod kung hindi mo gagawing batayan ang talino sa pagkakagawa ng naunang pelikula. 

Ang pelikulang Ang Babae sa Septic Tank 2: Forever is Not Enough ay hindi tungkol sa relasyon nina Rainer at ng kanyang asawa o ang pagbabalik pelikula ni Domingo. Ito ay isang pagbatikos sa kababawan ng mga manunuod na patuloy na tumatangkilik sa mga naka pormulang palabas para lamang matawa, kiligin at magbayad ng P250 sa panandaliang pagtakas sa lupit ng buhay. Wika nga ni Domingo, bakit gagastos ang tao para lang manuod ng paghihirap at lungkot. Pero sa kabilang dako naman, kailangang bang isakripisyo ang sining  at malikhaing pagpapahayag para lamang kumita sa takilya? Ang magandang tanong ng CINEMA, para kanino ang paggawa ng isang pelikula? Para sa mga manunuod na gustong takasan ang katotohanan at mabuhay sa pantasya sa loob ng dalawang oras? Kung ganon ay dapat nga sigurong maging mala-rosas ang pananaw para naman may pagtakas sa mundo—matalino man ito o mababaw.  O para ba ito sa pagpapahayag at paglikha ng obra? Kung gayon ay nasa kamay ng direktor kung ano at papaano ipalalabas ang nasa isip niya—maintindihan man ito ng tao o hindi. Kaya lang ang pelikula sa ngayon ay para sa mga namumuhunan. Kailangang tumabo sa takilya. Kailangang pilahan at kumita. At dahil sa ganitong pananaw, walang usapan ng sining o damdamin.  

Kung magiging masusi ang mga nanonood ng Septic Tank 2 ay dapat silang lumabas sa sinehan ng nakatungo dahil isa itong pagsampal sa nagiging kultura nila bilang manunuod, at mangako sa sarili na sa susunod at pipiliin na nila ang mga tatangkiliking palabas.