Manila Kingpin: The Asiong Salonga Story

CAST:  Jeorge Estregan, Carla Abellana, Philip Salvador, Baron Geisler, John Regala, Ronnie Lazaro, Robert Arrevalo, Perla Bautista; DIRECTOR: Tikoy Aguiluz   

SCREENWRITER:  Roy Iglesias, Rey Ventura; PRODUCER: EDITOR:  MUSICAL DIRECTOR; GENRE: Action, Drama; CINEMATOGRAPHER: Carlo Mendoza; DISTRIBUTOR LOCATION:  Tondo, Manila; RUNNING TIME: 120 minutes

Technical Assessment: 3

Moral Assessment: 2

Cinema Rating: For viewers 18 years old and above

     

Ang Manila Kingpin: The Asiong Salonga Story ay isang pagsasadula ng buhay at kapanahunan ng gang leader na si Nicasio Salonga na naghari sa Tondo mula noong dulo ng mga 1940s hanggang Oktubre 1951, nang siya ay paslangin ilang araw bago dumating ang kanyang ika-27 taong kaarawan.  Lagi na lamang ipinag-aalala si Asiong (George Estregan, Jr.) ng kanyang maybahay na si Fidela (Carla Abellana), at ng kanyang mga magulang (Robert Arevalo at Perla Bautista), nguni’t hindi magpapaawat si Asiong.  Gusto niyang patalsikin ang ibang mga siga sa Maynila na diumano’y nang-aapi sa mga mamamayan ng Tondo.  Kabilang sa mga ito ay sila Totoy Golem (John Regala) at Boy Zapanta (Ronnie Lazaro).  Nahuhulog ang loob ng mga taga-Tondo, lalo na yaong mga kinikikilan ng mga karibal ni Asiong na kilala naman bilang matulungin sa mahihirap, isang makabagong “Robin Hood”.  Mamaliitin nila Golem at Zapanta ang bagitong si Asiong, ngunit hindi susuko si Asiong, gagamitin ang husay niya sa baril at basag-ulo upang mangibabaw at taguriang “Hari ng Tondo”.

Ito ang ikaapat na bersiyon ng kuwentong-buhay ni Asiong Salonga na isina-pelikula na mula pa noong taong 1961.  Hindi kami pinalad na mapanood ang mga naunang bersiyon, pero marami kaming masasabi tungkol dito sa pang-apat na siya namang nanalong Best Picture sa MetroManila Film Festival (MMFF).  Sa larangang teknikal, malaki ang lamang ng Manila Kingpin: The Asiong Salonga Story sa mga katunggali nito sa MFF; anupa’t halos lamunin na nito ang iba’t ibang awards ng MMFF 2011.  Sadyang mahusay ang pagkakagawa ng Manila Kingpin: The Asiong Salonga Story subali’t hindi ito nangangahulugan na walang kapintasan ang pelikula.  Maganda siyang panoorin, basta’t hindi ka na mag-iisip o magtatanong.

Ginawang black and white ang pelikula para mas maging mukhang lumang istorya talaga—tipo bang kapani-paniwala, parang documentary noong wala pang Technicolor, okey.  Nagsilbi din yung black and white para hindi masyadong maging mukhang madugo ang pelikula—dahil ang istorya’y pulos barilan, saksakan, patayan, umaagos ang dugo na tila ba galing sa sirang boke-sendyo.  Kung nagkataong Technicolor ang pelikula, baka masuka na ang manonood sa dami ng dugo, kahit na nga ba isiping mong ketsap lang yung dugong iyon.  

Kahanga-hanga ang galing at tamang-tamang paglapat ng sounds at lighting: hindi tulad ng karaniwang pelikulang Pilipino na minsa’y sobrang dilim at minsan nama’y nakakabulag na sa liwanag na wala sa lugar, at magkaminsay biglang nakakabingi sa lakas ng tunog, maging salita man o musika.  Wala ang mga kapintasang iyan sa Manila Kingpin: The Asiong Salonga Story.

Kapansin-pansin din ang mga piling-piling tugtugin na inilapat sa iba’t ibang bahagi ng pelikula.  Sa totoo lang, hanggang ngayo’y humuhuni pa kami ng Mad World—isang tugtuging paborito namin lalo na’t kung instrumental piano and cello ang pakikinggan—na siyang background music sa libing ni Asiong.  Editing at script, maayos din, makinis, tulad ng screenplay.

Sa pagganap naman ng mga pangunahing mga tauhan ay wala din kaming masasabi kundi tila “kinarir” na talaga ng mga artista ang pagiging mga sanggano: totoong-totoo.  Pero si Carla Abellana, magaling sana mula simula pero nasira sa bandang huli, noong nakaupo siya sa tulay at nasa kandungan niya ang pinaslang na asawang si Asiong: umiiyak siya pero parang masyadong maingat, kulang sa emosyon, parang ayaw maduguan, o kaya’y ayaw pumangit sa hagulgol, halata mo tuloy na umaarte lang, artipisyal ang hinagpis.  Kasi naman, masyadong pinorma ng direktor ang eksenang iyon, nagmistulang pekeng Pieta tuloy.  Minsan, sa kagustuhang maging perfect ang cinematography, nasisira ang katotohan.

Ang tinutukoy naming mga pagkukulang ng pelikula ay, una, ang takbo ng istorya: parang ang daming nilaktawang mahahalagang parte, kaya nagmukhang patse-patse.  Walang hibla na magdudugtong-dugtong at magbibigay saysay sa takbo ng mga pangyayari.  Sana, nilapatan man lamang nila ng konting mga petsa, para nasusundan ng manonood ang mga tunay na pangyayari.  Hindi rin maliwanag kung ano ang tunay na motibo ng mga tauhan, kung bakit nila ginagawa ang mga ginagawa nila (maliban sa gusto nilang maghari), o kaya’y kung saan napupunta ang salaping nakikikil nila (Golem at Zapanta).

Pagtatakhan mo rin kung ganoon bang kagarbong magbihis ang mga sanggano ng Tondo nung panahon ni Asiong—paki-research nga.  Si Asiong mismo ay mahilig mag-Amerikanang puti at tango shoes, walang pinagkaiba sa isang asendero.  Paki-research nga ulit.

Parang hindi rin kapani-paniwala na ang babae ni Asiong ay isang takilyera lamang sa sinehan samantalang sa ganda niyang mala-Paraluman ay puwede na siyang maging artista sa Hollywood noong mga panahong iyon.

Pero ang talagang “pinaka” sa aming mga pintas sa pelikula ay ang idad at hitsura ng gumanap na Asiong.  Ilang taon na ba si George Estregan, Jr.?  Kahit na may hawig siya sa tunay na Asiong, kahit na kulapulan mo pa siya ng makeup, ay hindi pa rin siya magmumukhang 27 anyos—edad ng pagkamatay ni Asiong Salonga.  Mukha tuloy silang mag-ama ng asawa niyang si Fidela.  Dahil dito, nakasira sa pagiging makatotohanan ang pelikula.  Galit ang mga nakatatandang gang leaders kay Asiong, na sa simula pa lang ng pelikula ay nilalait na nila dahil may gatas pa ito sa labi ay nag-aambisyon nang maging hari.  Pero ang tinuringang may gatas pa sa labi ay mukhang 48-anyos na.  Ang epekto ng eksenang ito sa manonood ay, “Teka, hindi ba 27 namatay yung Asiong; eh di, mga 20-23 pa lang siya dito siguro nung binubugbog siya ng mga gang leaders at hindi pa siya kingpin?”

Sa gawing moral naman, gusto lamang balaan ng CINEMA ang mga manonood hinggil sa pagiging “makinis” ng pelikula.  Maaaring dahil sa ganda ng pagkakasa-pelikula ng buhay ni Asiong ay tingalain na siya bilang isang dakilang karamay ng mga dukha.  Tandaan natin na ang “bida” sa pelikula ay isa ring “kontrabida” sa tunay na buhay; katulad ng mga katunggali niyang sanggano, siya ay mamamatay-tao rin kahit na ipinta pa siya ng pelikula bilang isang “mabait” na gang leader o kampiyon ng mga naaapi. Ang mga kriminal na walang pasubaling pumapatay ng tao para busugin ang kanilang mga ambisyon ay hindi dapat itinataguyod bilang mga bayani. Pagkat ang sarili lamang nilang mga pagnanasa ang mahalaga sa kanila, ayaw nilang pasaklaw sa batas, at nagiging sanhi sila ng kaguluhan sa lipunan.  Kung papaslangin mo ang iyong mga kaaway (para lamang “makatulong” ka sa mahihirap), paano naman yaong mga pamilya at mahal sa buhay ng mga taong pinaslang mo?

Matapos ang panonood, narinig namin ang isang lalaki na nagsabing, “Para ka lang nanood sa television!”  Tuloy naisip namin, bakit kaya gumagawa tayo ng ganitong mga pelikula na gumagawang kaakit-akit sa krimen?  

Just like the first version, which was released in 1961 starring former President Joseph Estrada (the second, with Rudy Fernandez, in 1977 and the third, with George Estregan Jr., in 1990), the current one is filmed in black and white purportedly to capture the look and mood of Asiong’s era.

Panday 2: Ang Ikalawang Aklat

CAST: Bong Revilla, Marian Rivera, Philip Salvador, Eddie Garcia, Iza Calzado, Rhian Ramos,Lorna Tolentino, Alice Dixon; DIRECTOR: Mac Alejandre; SCREENWRITER: Carlo Caparas; PRODUCER: GMA Films, & Imus Production; EDITOR:  MUSICAL DIRECTOR  

GENRE:  Fantasy, Fiction; CINEMATOGRAPHER DISTRIBUTOR LOCATION:  Philippines; RUNNING TIME: 110 minutes

Technical Assessment: 2.5

Moral Assessment: 3

Cinema Rating: For viewers 13 years old and below with parental guidance      

SYNOPSIS: After defeating Lizardo (Phillip Salvador), Flavio decided to settle with fiancée Maria (Iza Calzado) in a little town whose citizens are more than grateful to the hero for getting rid of their oppressor. However, Lizardo is hardly dead; he begins his quest for world domination, first, by kidnapping the town's female folk including Maria, second, by murdering the men folk through his many minions, and third, by attempting to disarm Flavio by stealing his magical dagger.

My Househusband: Ikaw na!

CAST: Judy Ann Santos (Mia), Ryan Agoncillo ( Rod), Eugene Domingo (Aida);

DIRECTOR: Jose Javier Reyes; SCREENWRITER:  Jose Javier Reyes  & Mel del Rosario; PRODUCER:  OctoArts; EDITOR:  MUSICAL DIRECTOR; GENRE:  Drama & Comedy;

CINEMATOGRAPHER     DISTRIBUTOR; LOCATION: Philippines;

RUNNING TIME: 110 minutes

Technical Assessment: 3.5

Moral Assessment: 3.5

Cinema Rating: For viewers 13 years old and below with parental guidance

  

Komportableng namumuhay ang pamilya ng mag-asawang Rod (Ryan Agoncillo) at Mia (Judy Ann Santos) kasama ng dalawa nilang anak sa isang middle class subdivision.  Isang matagumpay na Branch Manager ng bangko si Rod at parttime insurance agent ang fulltime na maybahay at ina na si Mia. Sa kabila ng maayos na pagdadala ng pamilya ay nakakatanggap pa rin ng pagmamaliit  si Rod mula sa pamilya ni Mia. Kaya naman gayon na lamang ang pagsisikap niya na patunayan ang kakayanan sa pagdadala ng pamilya ng hindi kinakailangan magfulltime work ang asawang si Mia. Subalit ng biglaang mawalan ng trabaho si Rod ay nagbago ang takbo ng lahat. Sandaling umiral ang pride at paglilihim na halos ikasira ng pagsasama ng mag-asawa. Ang pinakamalaking epekto ng pangyayari ay kung papaano nila maitatawid ang mga gastusin ng pamilya habang naghihintay ng magandang job offer si Rod.  Nagkataon rin na nagkaroon ng emergency sa probinsya nag kasambahay ng pamilya at napilitan si Rod na gampanan pansamantala ang mga gawaing bahay at pag-aalaga sa mga bata na dating fulltime na ginagawa ni Mia.  Sa pananatili sa bahay ay naging malapit na kaibigan  niya ang kapitbahay na si Aida (Eugene Domingo). Magiging instrumento si Aida sa pagproseso ni Rod ng pride nya para maayos ang problema ng mag-asawa. Samantalang sa magandang performance ni Mia sa partime insurance agent work ay nagkaroon ito ng standing offer na fulltime job, pero ayaw ni Rod na magfulltime work siya dahil masasagasaan ang pride niya. 

Maayos ang daloy ng kuwento ng "Househusband".  Magaan nitong tinalakay ang tipikal na isyu ng isang middle class couple. Napanatili ang pagiging wholesome ng pelikula dahil sa maingat na trato na may halong patawa ang isyu ng adultery.  Naipakita ng makabuluhang kwento sa kabila ng limitadong setting at matipid na produksyon. Mainam ang mga kuha ng kamera at pagdedetalye ng mga gawaing bahay na ginampanan ni Ryan.  Dahil magaan ang pelikula ay walang mabigat na mga eksenang kinailangan ang malalalim na paghugot ng emosyon sa pag-arte. Natural ang lahat sa pag-arte at kahit na sa mga hirit ng linya na patawa.

Sagana sa positibong mensahe ang pelikula na kapupulutuan ng aral ng bawat miyembro ng pamilya at kaibigan. Isang magandang material sa pagmumulat ng pantay na kalagayan panlipunan ng lalaki at babae ang pelikulang "Househusband".  Madalas na naipagkakamali ng mga kalalakihan ang pagmamalaki o pride sa prinsipyo.  Kapag nasa sitwasyon na matatapakan ang pride ay pilit nila itong poproteksyunan ng hindi isinasaalang-alang ang epekto sa pamilya na madalas ay napapasama dahil sa nawawalang oportunidad.  Bagamat middle class couple ang itinampok sa pelikula ay pareho rin ng isyu sa mas mahirap o mas  mayaman mag-asawa.  Sa mga panahon na may krisis ang pamilya partikular sa pagitan ng mag-asawa ay mahalaga ang suporta ng mga pamilya ng partido at kaibigan.  

The Nativity Story: a Christmas classic

(Note: Some Christmas movies are meant to be classics.  The Nativity Story is one of them, and due to public demand we’re rerunning its full-length critique by Teresa R. Tunay, especially for those who want to see it in their home theaters).  

  “Sana naman kumuha sila ng maganda-gandang Mary!  Ang pangit naman ng bibig nito!”  (They should have picked a more beautiful Mary!  This one has such ugly lips!)  “At saka hindi ba medyo me idad na si St. Joseph?  Bakit ito, bata?”  (And isn’t St. Joseph supposed to be old?  Why is this one so young?)

Overheard making those comments were two well-heeled elderly ladies among the guests at the premier showing of The Nativity Story in Manila. 

Two weeks later, at a popular mall during the same movie’s regular run, a 30-something woman said to another as they emerged from the theater: “Okay ‘yung anghel na ‘yun ah—me balbas pero walang pakpak!”  (That angel is cool—he has a beard but has no wings!)

This pretty much sums up the big difference in audience perception as far as images of supposedly holy ones go.  The Nativity Story should also teach the Church a thing or two about “packaging” our Saints for public consumption in this day and age.

                                                 Blasting stereotypes

The movie blasts stereotypes—a fact that threatens the characters’ credibility among old school believers—but because the actors play their roles with such depth of characterization, they come across as more human, more real, more reachable.  That means more “copyable”, and therefore more appealing to younger Catholics unwittingly searching for more down-to-earth role models.

We’ve been raised on stampita images of Mary: always in demure poses, head bowed down, hands clasped in prayer.  We are accustomed to remembering Mary mostly as European artists portray her, in fine, gold-trimmed clothing, with tapering fingers and rosebud lips, gentle eyes untouched by sin, sometimes blonde, other times brunette, but never a hair out of place.  

Enter 16-year-old Keisha Castle-Hughes, The Nativity Story’s Mary: olive-skinned, with zits on her face, she unwraps her dark damp hair and wipes her sweat as she slumps beside a tree.  She moves as any 14-year old Jewish girl from Nazareth does, pitting olives with her stubby fingers, going about her kitchen chores, even sitting on the earth with knees apart and a bowl of food between her thighs—so unladylike?   Indeed, this Mary is rough clay, an earthen water jug, while the stampita virgin so dear to our imagination is a Lladro figurine—flawless, shiny, pastel-colored, dust-proof.

And what about Joseph?

And the stampita Joseph?    Of course, he matches the stampita Mary: meek and mild, soul of gentleness, chaste spouse, hands never soiled even when holding a carpenter’s tools—and slightly balding.  The movie’s Joseph, played by Oscar Isaac, is in the prime of youth, doesn’t hide his admiration of Mary from his friends, tends to throw down things when angered, bursting with so much energy you’d think twice before letting your 14-year old go out with him. 

The angel Gabriel is the antithesis of angelic as we also know it from stampitas, classical art, cinema, assorted media, plus chi-chi gift shops in our malls.  Wingless, semi Afro-hairstyled, bearded and bemoustached, his appearance in the sky is heralded by the wind rustling through the leaves.  He descends on earth and hails Mary, but without his white gossamer robe, even the most open-minded moviegoer would wonder, “Who’s this character?”  Actor Anthony Siddig is the farthest thing you could ever imagine being cast as a messenger of God.  Give him an Uzi and he’ll look like a terrorist.  Stick a cigarette in his mouth and he’ll pass for a “durogista”.  And even if he were a real angel, he’d be more credibly cast as a fallen angel.  Anyway, he looks like some character you wouldn’t want to sit next to on a bus. 

And yet Mary believed this angel.  That’s the whole point!   The Nativity Story is all about faith!

From pretty pictures to faith

We all know by heart the story of Jesus’ birth, but The Nativity Story takes us from the Christmas card prettiness we’re familiar with to the next level—faith, a belief in God that does not hinge on the externals.  Mary looks every inch like an ordinary village girl who doesn’t deserve a second glance, but she shows extraordinary strength of character in accepting God’s will conveyed, literally, from out of the blue.  Mary’s discerning ability and effective faith enables her to stand upright and immovable before the neighbors’ malicious eyes, and because of it, God comes down to live among men.

Any village boy would have killed to spare himself from becoming the greatest cuckold in history, but not Joseph.  Upon Mary’s return from visiting Elizabeth, he gets the shock of his life seeing her bulging stomach.  Never having touched Mary at all, the groom elect is troubled, and in his deepest darkest moments could have led the mob in stoning her to death, but he doesn’t.  Instead, he shows remarkable self-control and righteousness in deciding to keep her.  His goodness is justified when the same hirsute angel appears in his dream to substantiate Mary’s claim.  Hence, he becomes Mary’s partner in welcoming the Immanuel into this world.

See—it wasn’t only Mary who said “yes” to God; Joseph did, too.  By the creative and realistic depiction of Mary and Joseph, The Nativity Story has offered inspiring models for us, especially the young.  Mary and Joseph were nameless faces like most of us, two nobodies in Nazareth from where it was believed nothing good could come, and yet, by their enduring witness to the Divine’s presence in their lives, they became virtual co-creators of God.

Might we not wish to be visited by angels who would sweep us off our doubts so our hearts would be God’s alone?  In our prayers and novenas, after telling God of our needs and desires, can we stay a little longer to listen to Him speak of His desires for us?

Our Church—and indeed the world—needs more Marys and Josephs, persons with simple hearts who would put aside personal discomfort in order to follow the dictates of the Divine in their lives.  Mary and Joseph obeyed God in spite of their neighbors’ judgment; thus, in time, Jesus became one of us. 

We all want a better world, but are we willing to put God as Number One in our life for it?  Are we—like Mary and Joseph—willing to obey God at all cost?  Our obedience is a small thank-you gift to offer to The One who has given us life.  Shall we ask Mary and Joseph inspire us then? 

 CINEMA wishes its followers a most blessed Christmas season!

The Lion King 3D

CAST:  Matthew Broderick, Niketa Calame, Jim Cummings, James Earl Jones, Nathan Lane, Ernie Sabella, Jeremy Irons, Robert Guillaume, Rowan Atkinson, Moira Kelly; DIRECTOR:   Rob Minkoff , Roger Allers; SCREENWRITER: Irene Mecchi, Jonathan Roberts; PRODUCER:  Walt Disney; EDITOR:  MUSICAL DIRECTOR; GENRE:  Animation: Drama, Action & Adventure, Kids & Family, Musical & Performing Arts; RUNNING TIME:   89 minutes

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 4

Cinema Rating: For viewers 13 years old and below with parental guidance

One of the most popular Disney animated musicals, The Lion King presents the story of a lion cub's journey to adulthood and acceptance of his royal destiny. Simba (voiced first by Jonathan Taylor Thomas, then by Matthew Broderick) begins life as an honored prince, the son of the powerful King Mufasa (voiced by James Earl Jones). The cub's happy childhood turns tragic when his evil uncle, Scar (voiced by Jeremy Irons), murders Mufasa and drives Simba away from the kingdom.

Lion King goes on the rebound in glorious 3D.  Children in the audience who apparently have seen the original (in DVD and television reruns of oldies) certainly do not mind watching this new 3D release.  And certainly we find quite a number of them—and in fact sat next to them—who have memorized the songs and the story surely from the countless number of times they have viewed The Lion King’s 1994 version.  Unlike most 3D movies which become dark and sometimes muddy on the screen, The Lion King retains its vivid colors, turning this second viewing into a wonderful feels-like-I’m-there experience for kids and adults alike.

The Lion King tells many lessons both for the young and the young at heart.  Obedience is one of them—Simba learns the hard way that disobedience has unpleasant consequences when he ventures into the elephants’ graveyard.  His father Mufasa tells Simba that “being brace doesn’t mean you go out looking for trouble.”  He also sternly tells his cub Simba about the value of responsibility as an adult, especially since he will not be simply another animal in the savannah but a real ruler, the lion king.

Respect for creation and creatures is a well-pronounced value: “Everything you see exists together.  There's a balance to the world and nature. … You must respect all the creatures.”  Viewers may also pick up something about the “don’t worry” attitude repeatedly presented by Simba’s friends Pumbaa and Timon, often in their catchy song “Hakuna Matata”.   While it is true that the worry-free motto is sensible, even biblical, it could also be overdone, leading one to lead a carefree but meaningless life.

Christians may take note of certain elements in The Lion King which are evocative of their faith.  When feeling weak in a trying situation, Simba sees his dead father’s image in the cloud formations, and speaks to him.  A shaman encourages Simba by saying “I know your father… he’s alive… I’ll show him to you… he lives in you…”  When the baby Simba is presented to the kingdom all the animals bow in reverence.  When he returns to the pride after a long absence, Simba is believed to have “returned from the dead to save his people.”    Confronting his enemy whose life is now in his hands, he refuses to kill him to get even—“love your enemies”?

Parents should guide very young children, however, through the violent scenes.  You know, animals attack or eat one another.

Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol

CAST:  Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Jeremy Renner (William Brandt), Paula Patton (Jane Carte), Simon Pegg (Benji Dunn), Ving Rhames,  Vladimir Mashkov,  Michael Nyqvist, Josh Holloway, Lea Seydoux, Anil Kapoor; DIRECTOR:  Brad Bird; SCREENWRITER: J.J. Abrams, Josh Applebaum, Andre Nemec; PRODUCER: Tom Cruise; EDITOR:  MUSICAL DIRECTOR; GENRE:  Mystery & Suspense, Action & Adventure; CINEMATOGRAPHER  

DISTRIBUTOR  Paramount Pictures; LOCATION: Budapest-Moscow, Dubai, Mumbai-India; RUNNING TIME:  133 minutes

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 3

Cinema Rating: For viewers 18 years old and above

    

The film begins with a failed courier intercept in Budapest by the International Mission Force (IMF) team of Jane Carter, Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) and Trevor Hanaway (Josh Holloway). Then, the team helps Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) break out from a Moscow prison so he could be put back to IMF service to track down a Russian nuclear terrorist. His initial mission is to infiltrate Kremlim, however, it goes terribly wrong and Russian agents  are now after Hunt thinking he is responsible for Kremlim bombing. The failed courier intercept and the Kremlim bombing are both related to the ultimate mission: impossible which is to prevent the thermonuclear war between Russia and the US from happening. With the IMF disbanded, the IMF’s chief analyst, William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) becomes part of the now three-man team unpredictably, forcing them to black ops, or ghost protocol, meaning “off the grid.”

Among the MI franchise. This time, the film is focused on the series of interrelated impossible missions that make up one big mission: impossible.  Unlike the previous installments, MI4 is devoid of so much emotional baggage and distractions making  the audience simply glued to the edge of their seats with the death-defying stunts,  mind-blowing adventures and superb special effects  beyond imagination.  Cruise is at his perfect best in this movie and Ethan Hunt’s character is really his. The strong casting and intelligent direction make MI4 an exhilarating viewing experience.

Although a spy-action –adventure genre ala James Bond series, MI4 does away with the usual demands of sex and violence. A scene with sexual insinuations is done in the context of undercover and one’s line of duty. The violence only goes extreme in car crashes, shootings and fighting that are again in the context of preventing a war, thus, preventing the lives of the innocent. However, CINEMA finds  the entirety of the film’s theme requires a sense of maturity to be appreciated. In the battle between good and evil, the film somehow shows that certain evils are necessary to fight evil, i.e. lying, deception, killing, and revenge.  Whether such concept is acceptable in the context of world peace, a debate may be necessary. Perhaps we should rethink, how far should governments go to protect innocent lives? But amidst the film’s moral dilemma, the message of personal sacrifice, integrity and loyalty remains to be strong in MI4; and although the idea of God is significantly absent or lacking in the movie, the innate goodness of the characters may make up for it.

New Year's Eve

CAST:  Robert De Niro, Ashton Kutcher, Michelle Pfeiffer, Hilary Swank, Lea Michele, Abigail Breslin, Sofia Vergara, Jessica Biel, Sarah Jessica Parker, Katherine Heigl, Zac Efron, Sienna Miller, Josh Duhamel, Ice Cube, Jon Bon Jovi, Seth Meyers, Til Schweiger; DIRECTOR:  Garry Marshal; SCREENWRITER: Katherine Fugate; FILM PRODUCER:  Mike Karz, Wayne Allan Rice; MUSICAL DIRECTOR: John Debney; GENRE: Comedy, Romance DISTRIBUTOR:  Warner Bros; LOCATION:  New York City, USA; RUNNING TIME:  117 minutes

Technical Assessment: 3.5

Moral Assessment: 3.5

Cinema Rating: For viewers 14 years old and above

New Year’s Eve eavesdrops on the goings on in the lives of an armful of New Yorkers during the last day of the year.  There’s pastry chef Laura (Katherine Heigle) still smarting from being stood up by would-be groom Jensen (Jon Bon Jovi); a devoted nurse Aimee (Halle Berry) accompanying a patient dying of cancer Stan (Robert de Niro); Claire (Hilary Swank), vice president of the Times Square Alliance whose main concern is to see to it that the ball on Times Square drops according to new year count-down; security guard Brendan (Chris Bridges), friend and supporter of Claire; Russian master electrician Kominsky (Hector Elizondo) in a make-it-or-break-it new year’s eve fix; Kim (Sarah Jessica Parker), a single mother pursuing a runaway daughter Hailey (Abigail Breslin); new year hater Randy (Ashton Kutcher) getting trapped in a freight elevator with Elise (Lea Michele); Paul (Zac Efron) a courier who in exchange for precious new year’s ball tickets is helping an uptight elderly woman Ingrid (Michelle Pfeiffer); a stranded man in Connecticut named Sam (Josh Duhamel) who has no choice but to hitch a ride back to New York with a curious family in order to deliver a new year’s eve speech and to reunite with a woman he met with exactly one year ago; pregnant Tess (Jessica Biel) and her husband (Seth Meyers) in a race with another couple to be the first to  give birth in year 2012 in order to get the hospital’s $25,000 prize.
       Before splitting hairs about the technical aspects of New Year’s Eve, we had to make sure every star in the movie is mentioned.  You’ll know why later.  Stories of these characters are interwoven in this fast-paced feel-good rom-com that critics either love or hate.  It may be often mushy, contrived, implausible, but it is nonetheless likeable, not just watchable, because it’s lighthearted and leaves viewers in an upbeat mood.  Those who say it’s merely a string of disconnected plots with characters not given enough time to develop or deepen, are speaking out of narrow expectations, because in reality, that is life in New York!  The seemingly “disconnected” plots flow from a deeper wellspring of thought that puts New York in a different light.

       New Year’s Eve is about New York and New Yorkers.  It could have been titled “New York, New Year” for its focus on the Times Square mega-event but the human values it espouses are as basic as human rights.  By the opening voice-over alone, New Year’s Eve sounds poised to disprove the notion that there is no longer magic or beauty in New York. Its closing voice-over clinches the whole movie’s message: love, forgiveness, hope, family, commitment, compassion, second chances.  The cruelest rants against the movie are directed towards its stellar cast: Why (they ask) would such great names in moviedom stoop that low appearing in a movie that at most is a mere vehicle for hard-sell product placements?  CINEMA prefers to give the cast the benefit of the doubt since this movie is about new year and new life, released worldwide before Christmas.  The actors—mostly Oscar awardees and nominees—must have owned the movie’s message and thus didn’t mind risking their reputation in order to put it across. An intention that good can’t make the movie that bad, could it?