Rise of the Planet of the Apes

CAST: James Franco, Tom Felton, Andy Serkis, Brian Cox, Freida Pinto, John Lithgow, David Hewlett, Tyler Labine, Leah Gibson, Jamie Harris; DIRECTOR: Rupert Wyatt; WRITER: Amanda Silver, Rick Jaffa, Jamie Moss, Pierre Boulle; GENRE: Animation, Suspense/Thriller; RUNNING TIME: 110 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 3.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes opens with a mad hunt for simians in the deep jungle, for transporting to a laboratory in New York, where Will Rodman (James Franco) does research  exploring drug therapies for diseases of the brain.  One of the apes, named Bright Eyes, soon catches the technicians’ eye for her superior intelligence—the effect, apparently, of her being given the test drug.  Convincing his boss that the drug has great potential for medical and financial success, Will makes a presentation for the board of directors to invest in the breakthrough drug.  Bright Eyes is supposed to be the star of the presentation, but as she is coaxed out of her cell, Bright Eyes becomes vicious, resulting in a wild chase in the laboratory that ends in the presentation room where Bright Eyes is shot dead on the conference table.

Soon Will and his assistant discover a baby chimpanzee under Bright Eyes’ bed, and realize that the dead chimp in her ferocious behavior was not being aggressive but only being protective of her new born.  Meanwhile, the boss has ordered that all 12 chimpanzees being drug tested be put away.  Because Will and the assistant do not have the heart to put down the baby chimp, Will agrees to secretly take it home for a few days.  Days stretch into weeks, months and years until the baby chimp, named Caesar by Will’s Alzheimer-stricken father, grows into a remarkably intelligent simian.  Caesar’s loyalty to his human family results in mayhem, disturbing the neighborhood until there is no choice but for Caesar to be hauled away to the local zoo. 

If you have seen Planet of the Apes’ progenitors, you might expect another B-movie of this one, but no.  First, the apes here are no longer actors wearing ape suits.  And the apes here are… well, the apes here rise, as the title says.  Especially Caesar.   Motion-captured by Andy Serkis, Caesar—who reaps our kudos for singlehandedly creating the suspense in this film—is nothing the audience is prepared to meet.   Serkis motion-captured the character Gollum in Lord of the Rings—remember?

Motion-capturing is a fascinating cinematic process where the human actor plays the part but the film character’s image is subsequently superimposed on the actor’s.  Avatar used the same technology and the same WETA FX team of technicians.  In this case, the actor is Serkis, and the character is Caesar the chimp.  Thus in the final product we don’t see Serkis anymore, only the chimp.  That’s pretty tough for Serkis who had to learn how to move and emote like an ape for his character to be credible.  Human acting skills plus technology equals astonishing movie moments.  Director Rupert Wyatt plus Serkis plus WETA FX techno-magic equals the rise of Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  Add to that the just-right script by Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver and you have a powerful tale to remember.  Franco’s performance also reveals a compassionate dimension never before seen in past roles.  We cannot go on assessing the film without eventually giving spoilers.   In order to grasp the complexity of the plot as well as the mysteriousness of life that it dwells on, one must view the film—rather, experience the film—even without reading a review of it.    

One exceptionally good thing about Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the confident handling by Wyatt of red-hot issues like DNA manipulation, man’s cruelty to animals, father-son relationship, corporate greed and the dignity of death.  His almost casual treatment of such delicate subjects serves as a flawless background for unexpected tenderness, much like crumpled black velvet cradling exquisite pearls in its folds.  We have yet to meet a person who wasn’t uplifted from watching this film.  Go see it and tell us what you think.

Cowboys & Aliens

CAST: Olivia Wilde, Harrison Ford, Daniel Craig, Sam Rockwell, Clancy Brown, Paul Dano, Keith Carradine, Abigail Spencer,, Ana de la Reguera, Noah Ringer; DIRECTOR: Jon Favreau; SCREENWRITER:  Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Damon Lindelof, Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby; PRODUCER: Alex Kurtzman, Scott Michelle Rosenberg, Roberto Orci, Brian Grazer, Ron Howard; EDITOR: Dan Lebental, Jim May; MUSICAL DIRECTOR: Harry Gregson-Williams; GENRE: Action/Adventure, Science Fiction/Fantasy, Thriller,  Western & Adaptation; CINEMATOGRAPHER: Matthew Libatique; DISTRIBUTOR: Universal Pictures; LOCATION: USA; RUNNING TIME: 118 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3.5

Moral Assessment: 3

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

A stranger (Daniel Craig) who knows and remembers nothing except the English language stumbles into a desert town named Absolution with a shackle around one wrist.  Lean and mean, he s a gunslinger and is feared from the start, but when recognized as the wanted criminal Jon Lonergan, he becomes the target of the town’s iron-fisted ruler Colonel Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford).  Absolution’s town folks live in fear but the fear of human tyrants turns into terror of the unknown when the town is attacked by screaming aliens who set it on fire and abduct townsfolk at random.  Then the mysterious stranger Lonergan becomes the town’s sole hope for salvation. Lonergan slowly starts to recall who he is and where he’s been, and discovers the power behind the shackle on his wrist.  Aided by another mysterious traveler Ella (Wilde), Lonergan forms a posse oddly composed of  his opponents, Dolarhyde and his cohort, outlaws, Apache warriors.  They have one thing in common: their survival is threatened by the aliens.

The title sounds jokey, but the movie is not.  It’s in fact a cross between a class B Western (set in 1873) and class B science fiction, but in fairness, director Jon Favreau makes the odd combination work, turning it into light entertainment that is never too funny to look trivial.  But maybe because at this point, one cannot imagine a movie being that funny when Daniel Craig is in it, he who plays characters in movies that forbid him to smile.   Besides, Craig is, after all, still James Bond in the back of our mind, nobody to fool around with.  That may not be too good for Craig’s career in the long run.  Stereo-typing equals predictability, see?  It’s bad for the box office.  But let’s focus on Cowboys and Aliens for now.  Technically it’s okay, even surprising at some turns in spite of its computer generated protagonists, and with some big names in the kitchen like Harrison Ford, Steven Spielberg, Ron Howard and Brian Gazer, the viewer is assured the storyline is worth the time it takes to finish a bucket of popcorn in the theater.

Cowboys and Aliens is “new” in the sense that the good guys and the bad guys of the traditional Westerns here stop trying to annihilate each other and instead merge to fight off the extraterrestrials.  When enemies unite to reduce collateral damage by saving the innocent, that’s good for planet earth, isn’t it?  When bad guys rise to goodness and good guys rise to heroism, the transformation does everyone a lot of good, correct?  Cowboys and Aliens is strong on promoting the family, too, and that makes it easier for the viewer to close an eye on its Western style and CGI violence.  There’s a part where a character complains that God hasn’t done much for him, and another answers to the effect that we shouldn't expect God to do everything—we have to “earn His presence... recognize it, and act on it”.   Not a bad message for a movie that aims to be a different Western, one with aliens with secret inner parts that unfold from their chest cavities—like the lethal drills that protrude from James Bond’s car tires—to rip humans open.

Ang Babae sa Septic Tank

CAST: Eugene Domingo, JM de Guzman, Kian Cipriano, Cai Cortez; DIRECTOR: Marlon Rivera; SCREENPLAY: Chris Martinez; LOCATION: Manila; GENRE: Comedy; RUNNING TIME:100 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 2.5

Moral Assessment: 2.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

Hindi magkamayaw sina Rainier (JM de Guzman) at Bingbong (Kian Cipriano) sa ginagawa at binubuo nilang indie film  na pinamagatang “Walang-wala” na siyang ipambabato nila sa mga international film festivals.  Si Rainier ang producer habang si Bingbong naman ang direktor. Kasama nila bilang Production Manager si Jocelyn (Cai Cortez). Habang pinag-uusapan ng dalawa ang binubuong kuwento ay nabubuo naman ang mga eksenang ito sa isip ni Jocelyn. Ang “Walang-wala” ay patungkol sa isang ina na si Mila na nahihirapang tustusan ang pangangailangan ng pito niyang anak kung kaya’t mapipilitan siyang ibenta sa pedopilya ang isa niyang anak. Si Eugene Domingo ang pangunahin nilang artista na nais nilang gumanap bilang bida. Sa sanga-sangang imahinasyon at paghihimay nina Rainier at Bingbong, kasama na rin ang panghihimasok ni Eugene Domingo bilang bida ng pelikula, makikita ang iba’t-ibang perspektibo at posibilidad ng “Walang-wala”. Nariyang maging isa itong dokumentaryo, musical at maging isang soap opera.

Isang matalinong produksiyon ang Ang Babae Sa Septic Tank. Nagawa nitong kilitiin ang imahinasyon ng mga manonood sa maraming posibilidad ng isang materyal pampelikula. Sa pagsilip sa mundo ng paggawa ng independent film ay makikita ang maraming realidad na nakapaloob dito. Bagama’t simpleng maituturing ang kuwento ay hitik ito sa mensahe patungkol sa pang-aabuso ng sistema ng sining na siya mismong kinabibilangan ng pelikula. Walang itulak kabigin ang mga nagsiganap at nangungun na riyan si Eugene Domingo na gumanap bilang siya at ginampanan din niya sa iba’t-ibang atake ang papel ni Mila. Isa ito sa pinakamahusay na pagganap ni Domingo at hindi tatayo ang pelikula kung hindi dahil sa husay niya. Sa kabuuan ay pulido ang pagkakagawa ng pelikula sa kabila ng kakulangan nito ng tunay na kuwento. Ang mga komentaryo nito sa lipunan ay sapat na upang mapukaw at makiliti ang mga manonood.

Sa gitna ng matitinding hagalpak ng tawa ay hinahalukay ng Ang Babae sa Septic Tank ang maraming sakit ng ating lipunan. May matinding kahirapan sa ating paligid at walang konkretong aksiyon ang mga mamamayan upang ito ay maibsan. Sa halip, ito ay niroromantiko at inaabuso ng ilang sektor ng lipunan na tulad ng pulitika at particular na rin ang sining ng pelikula. Sa kahirapan ng buhay nakakatagpo ng inspirasyon ang mga alagad ng sining na ginagamit lamang nila sa pansariling interes. Ang kahirapan, prostitusyon, at marami pang sakit ng lipunan na makikita sa mga bansang kung tawagin ay Third World tulad ng Pilipinas, ang siyang pumapatok at bumebenta sa mga film festivals na karaniwang ginagawa sa mga bansang mauunlad. Ang pelikulang tumatalakay sa mga sakit ng ating lipunan ang siyang ipinapamalas sa mata ng mga banyaga. Sa prosesong ito, nagiging mababa ang tingin sa atin bilang lipunan kapalit ng tagumpay para sa mga tinuturing na alagad ng indie filmmaking.  Katulad ng mga simbolong umiinog sa pelikula, sa kabila ng kinang ng mga bituin at makinang na daigdig ng pelikula, pawang “dumi” lang ang  lahat na itinatago ang kabulukan sa halip na usisain at gawin ang nararapat upang maiangat ang uri ng pamumuhay ng mahihirap nating mga kapatid at kababayan. 

Larry Crowne

CAST: Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Rami Malek, Bryan Cranston, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Wilmer Valderrama, Taraji P. Henson, Pam Grier; DIRECTOR & WRITER: Tom Hanks; GENRE: Comedy, Drama; RUNNING TIME: 99 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3

Moral Assessment: 3.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

Just-divorced Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks) has been Employee of the Month for eight months straight at the local UMart store.  But he is the first to go when retrenchment time comes.  Reason?  He has no college degree.  Now jobless and with a mortgaged house, he sells all but the barest necessities through his neighbor Lamar (Cedric the Entertainer) and enrols at the local community college.  There he is befriended by a fetching young woman Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) who playfully christens him “Lance Corona”, updates his look and his lifestyle to match the new name, and invites him to join their scooter club.  In Public Speaking class he meets the teacher Mercedes Tainot (Julia Roberts), and from then on life becomes one safe and  wholesome scooter ride.

 

The story is good, no doubt about that.  But in its telling, the viewer might somehow expect something more gripping, some seismic spurts to lend spice to break the bland succession of events and to heighten the impact of the plot’s positive aspects.  But then, although the subject is serious enough to merit a more profound, dramatic treatment, Larry Crowne is still billed as a romance-comedy, so it’s a compromise at best, but not without merits.  As far as the script demands, lead stars Hanks and Roberts did their best and came out convincing and credible personae as what you might encounter in a small town that can pretty much exist without the rest of the world encroaching on private lives.   You get to view them as Larry Crowne and Mercedes Tainot, stripped of the glamour of their real life Hollywood identities, which makes them real good actors in our eyes. 

 

In its own quiet way Larry Crowne succeeds in giving hope for fresh beginnings to persons nearing the end of their line.  Larry is tearful over his retrenchment but it also serves to emphasize his tender nature: he is one hero who rises above misfortune without firing a gun, burning a building or plotting revenge on his oppressors.  The only “violence” here is when he smashes his scooter onto a couple of tables displaying cheap garage sale items.  Hanks as director and writer (with Nia Vardalos) probably created the Larry character to remind us that gentlemen are a vanishing breed in this day and age.  For what male nowadays would have the guts to disengage himself from a woman’s tight embrace and a devouring kiss-hungry mouth, say goodnight politely, and while tickled to high heavens still walk away without looking back?  Larry Crowne is also a subtle statement about prejudice against non-college graduates in America, a bias so common it’s been taken for granted.

Captain America

CAST: Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell, Stanley Tucci; DIRECTOR: Joe Johnstone; SCREENPLAY: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeekyl; Based on Captain America by Joe Simon; EDITING:  Robert Dalva and Jeffrey Ford; PRODUCER: Kevin Feige; MUSIC: Alan Silvestri; GENRE: Sci-Fi Action; DISTRIBUTOR: Paramount Pictures; LOCATION: USA; RUNNING TIME: 124 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 3.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

Steve Rogers wants to serve his country and enlist in the Army. However, he is not physically qualified to become a soldier and is rejected for the 5th time. After he and his best friend attend the Modern Marvels of Tomorrow exposition, Rogers tries his luck one last time. Scientist Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci) overhears Roger’s fervent conviction and approves his application to the US Army’s special unit, Strategic Scientific Reserve. Rogers works hard and displays common sense but always falls short to the physical demands of the training, much to the disgust of Col. Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) who believes he is simply too weak and skinny to be chosen as the super soldier experiment. But when he shows how he is willing to sacrifice himself to save the team, Erskine knows he has found the right person. The experiment transforms Rogers into a well-built muscular soldier with enhanced physical. However, Erskine is killed by a Nazi spy and the transformed Rogers is simply reduced into a performing war mascot, Captain America touring cities and camps. However, SSR officer Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) refuses to believe that this is Rogers destiny and helps him fly into enemy lines to save his enlisted childhood friend, now captured by Schmidt/ The Skull (Hugo Weaving). Captain America destroys the base, saves 400 soldiers, brings back hi-tech enemy weapons and proves his worth in fighting the war.

It is always inspiring to learn the back stories of popular heroes whose quests and triumphs we already know. Captain America presents Steve Rogers as a character with dreams and struggles any person can identify with. The story telling is straightforward and clear with a production design that is well-researched and thorough. The visual technique is entertaining but average. Ironically, the story development is more interesting in the first act, where Rogers struggles to be accepted in the US Army. The movie begins to lose momentum during the 2nd act where Captain America battles with the Skull because the scenes are longer than necessary and too much emphasis is given to the special effects and post production techniques. Overall, Captain America is enjoyable (especially is watched in 3D) but pales in comparison to Iron Man and Thor which completes the back story of the Avengers characters.  It gives a good back story but offers nothing new or noteworthy. It is entertaining enough to hold the audience captive for the next few minutes but not memorable enough to be talked about after wards.

Captain America emphasizes two strong points. First, heroism is not about the strength of the body but the genuineness of the desire to protect and serve up to the point of self- sacrifice. Although Rogers was physically transformed into a super soldier, it was his heart and spirit that made him a hero.  Second, the movie reminds us how every person has a place in history if only he will patiently persist and learn not to run away from pain or failure.

Although the theme and language of the movie is suitable for the family, it remains a war movie with several violent action scenes that may be disturbing to the younger audiences.

Bridesmaids

CAST: Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Rose Byrne, Wendi McLendon-Covey, Ellie Kemper, Melissa McCarthy, Chris O'Dowd, Matt Lucas, Jill Clayburgh, Rebel Wilson; DIRECTOR: Paul Feig; WRITER: Annie Mumolo; GENRE: Comedy; RUNNING TIME: 125 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3

Moral Assessment: 2

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 18 and above.

Some film critics claim Bridesmaids is a female version of Hangover 2, but that won’t be quite accurate since the only thing the two buddy-flicks share is the tendency to overdo the foul language and the sexuality elements in the story.  Even then, Bridesmaids pales in comparison to the sickening humor of Hangover 2; at least Bridesmaids shows the dynamics of friendship when competition sets in, whereas the latter’s plot revolves around the misdemeanors of friends who indulge in excesses for its own sake.  Director Paul Feig has made Bridesmaids fast-paced enough to keep the viewer awake and expecting comic one liners but it also has drama justified by Annie’s pathetic situation.  Character development is good, and acting is plausible.

Annie (Kristen Wiig) is a thirty-something on the road to self-destruction.  Depressed and broke since she gave up her cake shop, she now seems to flit from day to day without a clear goal in life.  Worse, she fools herself that she’s okay, even if she’s no more than a “f—k buddy” to a grubby looking guy (Jon Hamm) who won’t let her sleep over after sex.  Despite all that, her best friend, bride-to-be Lillian (Maya Rudolph), asks Annie to be her Maid of Honor.  Flattered and thrilled Annie accepts the honor and meets the other bridesmaids, newly wed Becca (Ellie Kemper) back from a honeymoon in Disneyland,  foul-mouthed and ill-mannered Megan (Melissa McCarthy),  a dissatisfied mother Rita (Wendi McLendon-Covey), and the rich, beautiful and perfect Helen (Rose Byrne).  As the wedding day comes near it appears that the wedding is not about the bride but about the rivalry between Lillian’s impeccable and ever-reliable friend Helen and Annie, her lifelong best friend and now Maid of Honor.  Seeing her BFF status threatened, Annie crumbles in spite of the offer of a stable future from caring cop Rhodes (Chris O’Dowd); she makes a mess of herself and the wedding plans, thus earning for herself the title “Maid of Dishonor”.

Is this comedy funny?  Is defecating on a bathroom sink funny?  Or doing it crumpled on the street while wearing a wedding dress (that’s not yet even paid for)?  Laughable perhaps but not funny.  But then maybe Bridesmaids is not just meant to be laughed at.  Somehow it’s got a heart.  Women may find it easy identifying with any of the characters in Bridesmaids, but if you’re for dignity in womanhood you wouldn’t want to be Annie—she who comes unglued, squanders herself on a swine and can’t see beyond her self-defeating woes.  Loyalty, compassion and understanding are shown in characters Lillian, Rhodes, Megan and Annie’s mother who see in Annie something worth nurturing and reviving.  In a particularly unnerving way Annie is told that she is her own problem and her own solution.  That is the core of Bridesmaids' message, and while the movies may only be fit for adults, the message is for women of all ages. 

 

Prom

CAST: Aimee Teegarden, Thomas McDonell, Danielle Campbell,Yin Chang, Kylie Bunbury, Nicholas Braun, Jared Kusnitz, Jonathan Keltz, De'Vaughn Nixon, Nolan Sotillo; DIRECTOR: Joe Nussbaum; WRITER: Katie Wech; GENRE: Comedy, Drama; RUNNING TIME: 103 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3.5

Moral Assessment: 3

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

SYNOPSIS: In Disney's "Prom" every couple has a story and no two are exactly alike. Several intersecting stories unfold at one high school as the big dance approaches. "Prom" portrays the precarious passage from high school to independence as some relationships unravel and others ignite. For Nova Prescott, it's a battle of wills as she finds herself drawn to the guy who gets in the way of her perfect prom. Fellow seniors Mei and Tyler harbor secrets, while others face all the insecurity and anticipation that surrounds one of high school's most seminal events. There are hundreds of nights in high school, but there's only one prom night. 

The Adventures of Pureza: Queen of the Riles

CAST: Milai Canteveros, Jason Francisco, Martin Del Rosario, Bianca Manalo, Bekimon, Nico Antonio, Joem Bascom, Ms, Gina Pareno; DIRECTOR: Soxie Topacio; PRODUCER: Star Cinema & Cine Screen; DISTRIBUTOR: Star Cinema; GENRE: Romantic Comedy; LOCATION: Manila; RUNNING TIME: 115 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3

Moral Assessment: 2.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

Nakatira si Pura (Melai Cantiveros) sa gilid ng riles kasama ang itinuturing niyang nakababatang kapatid na si Ulam (Martin del Rosario). Lahat ng trabaho ay pinapasok ni Pura para maipantustos sa pangangailangan nilang magkapatid at lalo na para sa pag-aaral ni Ulam. Sa gitna ng kabi-kabilang mga raket ay pinakamataas na pangarap pa rin ni Pura ang maging isang modelo. Ang matalik na kaibigan naman ni Pura na si Ruben (Jason Francisco) ay nagta-trabaho bilang driver ng isang sindikato. Magpupumilit si Pura nang minsang utusan si Ruben ng sindikato na sunduin ang isang paparating na modelo galing Brazil. Sa di sinasadyang pangyayari ay mawawala sa kanilang paningin ang Brazilian model at manganganib ang kanilang buhay sa sindikato kung kaya’t susubukan ni Pura na humalili sa mga dapat sana’y gagampanan ng modelo tulad ng pagrampa, pag-pose sa pictorial at iba pa. Pero mas magiging simula pa lamang ito ng mga nakaambang panganib sa buhay ng magkaibigang Pura at Ruben.

Hindi malinaw ang takbo ng kuwento ng pelikula. Lumiko-liko ito sa maraming direksyon ngunit hindi pa rin nagkaroon ng malinaw na patutunguhan. Bagama’t nakasentro ang kuwento sa buhay ni Pura, sumasanga-sanga ito sa kung saan-saan. Resulta tuloy ay pawang sabog at peilkula at di nito gaanong naaliw ang manononood. Nasayang ang husay ng mga nagsiganap lalo na ang bida na si Cantiveros at Francisco. Nagkulang sa hagod ang mga esksena na pawang minadali lang lahat. Labas tuloy ay nagkulang sa pagiging komedya ang pelikula. Sa dami rin ng gusto nitong sabihin ay hindi pa rin siya nakarating sa nais nitong paroonan. Karamihan din sa mga sangkap ng patawa na ihalo sa pelikula ay gasgas na kundi man muling ibinabalik ang ‘toilet: humor.”

Ang bidang si Pura ay larawan ng isang uliran kapatid at kaibigan.  Bagama’t  sumasabog ang kuwento ng The Adventures of Pureza: Queen of the Riles ay maliwanag naman ang mensahe nito ukol sa paggawa ng kabutihan at pag-iwas sa gawaing masama. Sa kabila ng pagkapit ni Pura sa patalim sa panahon ng kagipitan, nakuha pa rin nitong ipaglaban ang mga kaibigan at isakripisyo ang kaligtasan ng kanyang buhay alang-alang sa kapatid at mga kaibigan. Yun nga lang, nakababahala ang ginawang pagsisinungaling ng ilang tauhan sa oras ng pangangailangan. Baka isipin ng mga mas nakababatang manonood na ang pagsisinungaling ay tama. Nariyan din ang nakababahalang paggamit ng pelikula ng sinaunang “toilet humor” na ginagawang kasangkapan sa pagpapatawa ang mga bagay na dapat sana’y sa pribadong pagkakataon lamang ginagawa at pinag-uusapan. Sa kabila nito, nariyan pa rin ang pamamayani ng pakikipag-kapwa-tao, pagkiling sa mabuti, paggawa ng kabutihan at pagmamalasakit sa kapwa maging kadugo man ito o hindi. At sa pagkakaroon nito ng bidang katulad ni Cantiveros, mabibigyan ng pag-asa ang maraming mga katulad niya na kadalasan ay agad nahuhusgahan dahil sa panlabas na anyo. Pwede rin palang maging bida sa pelikula kahit hindi mestiza at ang lahat ay may karapatang mangarap, umibig at ibigin. 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 2)

CAST: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Gary Oldman, Ralph Fiennes, Jamie Campbell Bower, Helena Bonham Carter, Jason Isaacs, Tom Felton, Alan Rickman; DIRECTOR: David Yates; WRITERS: J.K. Rowling, Steve Kloves; GENRE: SciFi/Fantasy, Action/Adventure; RUNNING TIME: 130 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 3.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) takes possession of the Elder Wand, the most powerful wand in the world that can render its wielder invincible.  Meanwhile, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint), determined to put down Voldemort, pursue their search for the remaining Horcruxes containing pieces of Voldemort’s soul—the destruction of which would lead to his death.  The trio learn that one of them is in a vault at the goblin bank, and to find the others they need to go to Hogwarts.  But the Deatheaters and the Dementors are hovering over the place; besides, master-of-treachery Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) is now Hogwarts headmaster.  In the somber atmosphere of Hogwarts which is now on lockdown, everybody is pinning their hopes on Harry Potter who has grown from terrified lad to a powerful, self-assured wizard. 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 2) crowns the ten-year saga involving eight films helmed by four directors.  The series also made its leads Radcliffe, Watson and Grint among the youngest child star millionaires in film history.  The series seems to have evolved along with the maturing of its three young lead characters—with the childish Quidditch games gradually giving way to wizardry employed in earnest by the characters who have recognized their destiny as champions of good versus evil. The film provides a satisfying conclusion to the Harry Potter series that has thrilled audiences of all ages on a magical roller coaster ride and earned over six billion dollars from box office sales alone.

What is so potent about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 2) is not so much the pyrotechnics (although the movie is far from short on that department) but the subtler ways through which the drama and the tension between good and evil are portrayed through an interweaving of magic and reality.  Sure there are spells and wands and goblins and giants plus one rabid dragon coming into play but when the smoke clears the glory of the human spirit shines.  Those who have read the book would know what we are alluding to, but those who have followed only the movie version may be in for startling revelations.

 

We do not mean to spill out spoilers but something must be said about this story that has taken a whole decade and almost 20 hours of screen time to tell.  For some it could present a lesson in rash judgment.  Just as CINEMA refrains from critiquing a film before we see it—that’s why what we write are called “reviews”: first we view the film, then re-view it with a more critical eye—we can also only assess the merits of an epic fantasy after it is sealed by its concluding episode.  When the first of this J. K. Rowling series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, came out in 2001, not a few observers thought it was but another potboiler glamorizing witchcraft and sorcery at the expense of young people’s perception of reality.  But the subsequent box-office success of the series points to a satisfied need in the viewer, something we dare not delve into in this review.  Whether it is a simple need to be entertained or one that seeks profound metaphysical answers, we can’t tell, but this concluding series begs to be viewed in the context of the whole epic narrative. 

It is nothing short of grace, quiet grace that falls like rain on parched earth, that comes upon us as we see the final minutes of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.  We see Harry, Hermione and Ron almost two decades after the battle at Deathly Hallows, but instead of wishing they were back on their flying brooms we heave a sigh of relief that they are where they are.  We realize these “kids” have become part of our life.  We have seen them grow into their roles through ten years of fantasy and adventure and now that they have come of age, we wish every good thing for them as though they were part of our family.  While we found amusement in their juvenile exploits we now experience amazement in their ordinariness.  Showing the three principals wearing wedding rings and pushing baby prams, this film roots for family life as the ultimate in human fulfillment. 

The single scene that ought to redeem J. K. Rowling’s opus in the eyes of its early critics and raise its moral value a notch higher is the one shot among Hogwart’s ruins, with Harry holding the Elder Wand which is rightfully his.  Ron says, “It’s the most powerful wand in the world, it makes you invincible… what do we do with it?”  Hermione turns to Ron and exclaims, “We?”  Harry doesn't say a word but does something in reply that stuns his two companions.  

When you see the movie and come to this scene, watch your thought to see what it reminds you of.  Surprise!

 

 

Amigo

CAST: Joel Torre, Garret Dillahunt, Yul Vazquez, D.J. Qualls, Rio Locsin, Dane DeHaan, Chris Cooper, Jemi Paretas, James Parks; DIRECTOR/SCREENWRITER/EDITOR:  John Sayles; PRODUCER: Maggie Renzi; RUNNING TIME: 128 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3

Moral Assessment: 3

CINEMA Rating:  For viewers age 13 and up with parental guidance.

Village Chief Rafael Dacanay a.k.a Amigo (Joel Torre) sends the remaining Spanish invaders to prison under the revolutionary government.  A the end of  Spanish occupation, a troop of American soldiers led by Lt Compton (Garret Dillahunt) under the command of his military superiors  occupies the remote rural village  in the Philippines .  Lt Compton collaborates with Rafael in the course of their stay in the village and calls him Amigo, a Spanish word means friend.  The Americans do not recognize the existing revolutionary government and therefore all supporters are considered rebels and subject to execution.  Rafael is aware of the movement of the rebels because his brother is one of the leaders.  Lt Compton suspects Rafael as an enemy and put him under surveillance.

Whilst the film Amigo is about war and American occupation in the Philippines in 1900, it was not likely to show the usual ground or air attacks rather isolated shootings that left dead bodies.  It depicts a remote village with strong religious practices in view of the long time presence of Spaniards.  The story focuses on the character of Rafael Dacanay or Amigo and his struggle to play his role as a friend to his constituents, the rebels and the Americans.  The character of Lt Compton is also given equal exposure in the film.  As a simple narrative the film uses variety of approaches such as mix of nationalities from the lead to the least characters, mix of languages, use of subtitles, sub-themes that include nationalism, love story, inter-cultural, religion and tradition. The director succeeded in putting them together and makes use of the sound effects and musical score for continuity.  The production design for 1900 setting is good although it appears to be too refined and tidy for a remote area.  The film has a good cinematography in conveying details such as the nipa hut construction in bayanihan scene. However, despite several interesting features of the film, the entire run of two hours can be dragging at some points and may invite viewers to sleep.  Overall, the film Amigo is one those low budgeted films that obviously exerted efforts to put up a good one.

What makes a good leader?  The film Amigo features three types of leader that are present at the same time in a remote village.  They are, a native village chief, an American soldier officer, and a revolutionary one.  First is the village chief who cares so much for his constituents aims for peace and unity.  He is highly principled and willing to sacrifice to protect those who need it. He fought silently till the end of this life.  Second is the American troop leader who leads by the rule, level-headed, not too bad but can disregard life when someone defies the rules.  Third one is the revolutionist  who defies oppression. He is passionate and aggressive in his fight for freedom.  He can also be violent and disrespectful of life.  Ironically, the rebel leader was even a former seminarian who attended religious formation. One common thing among the three leaders, none of them seeks discernment for wise decisions, all of them look only at themselves.  The film shows strong religious inclination among the village people especially the woman, however, the image of the priest in the film is obviously tainted by power and politics.  Whilst known historical names were mentioned several times and the American occupation really happened in the Philippines, the film does not necessarily present factual truth.

Temptation Island

CAST: Marian Rivera, Ruffa Mae Quinto, Heart Evangelista, Lovi Poe, Solenn Heussaff, John Lapus, Aljur Abrenia, Rom Rodriguez, Mikael Daez; DIRECTOR and WRITER: Chris Martinez;  PRODUCER: Regal Films; GENRE: Comedy; LOCATION: Philippines

Technical Assessment:  2 

Moral Assessment:  2

CINEMA Rating:  For viewers age 18 and above.


    Apat na dalaga mula sa iba’t ibang antas ng lipunan ang sumali sa paligsahang “Miss Manila Sunshine Supermodel Search”, sa iba’t iba ring mga dahilan: si Virginia P. (Heart Evangelista), isang estudyante sa kolehiyo na sumali lamang para makakawala sa kanyang pamilya; si Serafina F. (Lovi Poe), isang “spoiled socialite” sumali dahil banidosa siya; si Pura K., (Solenn Heussaff), dating anak mayaman nguni’t wala nang pera para tustusan ang engrandeng debut na pangarap niya; at   si Christine G. (Marian Rivera), na nagbabalak gamitin ang kanyang nobyo at kanyang katawan para maimpluwensiya ang huradong papanalunin siya.  Sa dinami-dami ng mga contestants, ang apat na ito ang naging mga finalists.

Kasalukuyang nasa isang cruise ship sila upang itanghal ang evening gown competition nang magkasunog at sumabog ang barko.  Sa madaling salita, lumubog ang barko ngunit nakalikas ang apat na dalaga, at nagkasama-sama sila sa isang islang mistulang disyerto, kasama rin ang baklang pageant coordinator na si Joshua (John Lapus) at ang kanyang boyfriend (Mikael Daez); ang waiter sa barko na si Umberto (Tom Rodriguez); si Alfredo (Aljur Abrenica), isang stowaway na pasahero ng barko; at isa pang babae, si Maria (Ruffa Mae Quinto) na yaya at laging kabuntot ng mayamang socialite na si Serfania F.    

Hindi gasinong nasubok ng pelikula ang husay ng mga pangunahing artista sa pagganap, gawa marahil ng kababawan ng istorya at katauhang nasasangkot.  Bagama’t may kuwento naman masasabi ang pelikula, hindi nito masunggaban ang atensiyon ng manonood pagka’t higit pang minahalaga nito ang mga kababawan ng mga tauhan kaysa sa takbo ng istorya.  Kahit may mga hidwaan at kumpitensya ang apat na dalagang contestants, halimbawa, hindi ito ang siniryoso ng pelikula, bagkus ay naging pokado ito sa “kabaklaan” ng mga modelo.

Maraming parte na pinahaba at tuloy naging nakakasawa o nakakaantok pagkat wala itong maihaing katuturan sa manonood man o sa takbo ng istorya.  May mga bahagi din namang nakakatawa, at halos lahat ng mga iyon ay dahil sa papel ni Quinto bilang “alila” ni Poe.  Naiba siya sa apat na reyna-reynahan pagkat hindi siya nakikipagtarayan, bagkus ay sunud-sunuran lamang ng among abusada.

Ilang puntos din ang salungat sa pagkamakatotohanan ng pelikula, kaya’t nasasabi naming hindi nito dinidibdib ang sarili niyang kuwento.  Halimbawa, ilang araw na sila sa isla, gutom, uhaw, babad sa init kung araw, at nginig naman sa ginaw sa gabi pagkat wala silang tulugang maayos—pero ang lilinis at ang gaganda pa rin nila, ang puputi pa rin at ni hindi man lamang namula nang bahagya samantalang dapat ay sunog na sila sa araw.

Di ba—para maging kapani-paniwala ang kuwento—dapat ay nangangalumata na sila sa pagod, burado na ang makeup, nanlilimahid na ang damit sa pawis (dahil walang liguan), gutom at uhaw na pagkat wala silang makain at mainom dito sa disyertong walang tumutubong halaman?  Teka—sa lawak ng disyertong iyon, wala kaming nakitang balon o sapa man lang, kaya saan sumalok ng tubig ang alilang si Maria para gumawa ng barokeng sofa na upuan ni Serafina?  Wala rin kaming nakitang halaman o punong kahoy, kaya saan din nanggaling ang mga tuyong dahon na ginawa nilang tent?  May abanikong anahaw pa si Joshua!  Atsaka nung kumain sila ng barbecue, saan sila namitas ng berdeng dahon na pinambalot sa karne, at saan din sila nakapulot ng parilyang pinag-ihawan?

Kung sabagay, katatawanan o comedy ang pelikula, kaya siguro ipinagpalagay na lang ng direktor at manunulat na si Chris Martinez na “mapapatawad” na ng mga manonood ang ganoong mga pagkukulang.  Ang mahalaga siguro sa kanila ay mapatawa nila ang audience. Pero kung gusto nitong magpatawa, bakit naman isinali pa ang isang napakaselang isyu na kung sa tunay na buhay ay sadyang magiging sanhi ng kabigatan ng loob at matinding hirap sa konsiyensiya sa taong daranas nito?

Gusto lang kaya talagang magpatawa ng pelikula, o hangad ba nitong punahin at pagtakhan ng manonood ang nangyayari sa tunay na buhay—ang pagiging obsessed ng mga makabagong babae sa pagkakaroon ng lalaking makakasiping sa ano mang kalagayan?  Isipin nyo na lang, kung kailan ang dapat manguna sa kanilang isipan ay ang kanilang buhay, nakukuha pa mag-agawan sa mga lalaki?  At nagsasamantala naman ang mga lalaki sa mga “uhaw” na babae?  May magpapakamatay pa dahil naagawan ng kasiping!