Sunday, May 5, 2019

Born Beautiful

DIRECTOR: Perci Intalan  LEAD CAST: Martin del Rosario, Paolo Ballesteros, Lou Veloso  SCREENWRITER: Jun Lana, Rody Vera  PRODUCER: Jane BasasPerci Intalan  EDITOR: Maynard Pattaui  MUSICAL DIRECTOR: Emeron Texon GENRE: Horror Thriller   
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Tey Clamor  LOCATION: Philippines  RUNNING TIME: 108 mins. 
Technical assessment : 2.5 
Moral assessment: 2 
MTRCB rating: R16 
CINEMA rating: V16 
May pinagdaraanan si Barbs (del Rosario). Una, namatay ang kanyang pinakamatalik na kaibigang si Trish (Ballesteros) sa naunang pelikulaSumunod ay tinamaan at sinunog ng kidlat ang isang pang baklang kaibigan.  At ngayon ay napagitna siya sa dalawang lalaki nag-aagawan sa kanyang pagmamahal. Dahil dito ay inisip niyang nagdudulot ng kamalasan ang kanyang pagiging baklaPagpapasyahan niyang mamuhay bilang isang lalaki sa pamamagitan ng “conversion theraphy session”, subalit lalo lamang itong magpapagulo sa kanyang buhay. Mabuti na lamang at ang espiritu ni Trisha ay laging handang magbigay ng payo kapag kailangan na niya. 
Katulad ng naunang pelikulang Die Beauifulpinilit na siyasatin ni Intalan ang masalimuot na pinagdaraanan ng isang transgender sa kasalukuyang panahon. May kurot ang bawat tawa, may sugat ang bawat salita.  Kahit sa makabagong pananaw ngayonmahirap pa rin ang pinagdaraanan ng mga taong hindi nakaayon ang mga pagpili sa idinidiktang pamantayan ng lipunan. Kaya sa mga naglalakas loob na tumaliwaskailagang pagtibayin ang loob at patigasin ang puso. May malalim sanang mensahe ang naratibo kung naging maayos lamang ang pagkakatahi ng mga eksena at pagbuo sa katauhan at mga motibo ni Barbs.Sa halip ay itinuon ito sa katatawanan at nagmistulang sala-salabat na sitcom lamang ang mga tagpo. Nakatatawa, oo. Pero pagkainom mo ng tubig ay sabay na ring mahuhugasan kung ano mang kwento o kwenta ang meron dito. 
Kung ang layunin ng mga gumawa ng Born Beautiful ay palawigin ang pagkakaunawa sa mga isyu ng LGBT o bigyan sila ng karampatang panahon para hindi lamang maging pangbasag sa seryosong mga eksenahindi nila ito nabigyang katarunganKatulad ng nabanggit, mas malakas ang direksyon na ibenta ang komedya at hatakin ang mga manunuod sa magaspang na katatawananMaraming kabastusan na hindi naman talagang kailangan. Kahit na nasa hustong gulang at pag-iisip ang manunuod ay mahihirapan pa ring himayin ang mas makabuluhang pangyayari na maaring pagsimulan sana ng mas matalinong pag-uusap ukol sa LGBT.--PMF 

Saturday, May 4, 2019

Pet Sematary

DIRECTORS: Kevin Kölsch, Dennis Widmyer  LEAD CAST: Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, John Lithgow  SCREENPLAY BY: Jeff Buhler   STORY BY: Matt Greenberg, based on Pet Sematary by Stephen King  PRODUCERS: Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Steven Schneide, Mark Vahradian  GENRE: Horror, Thriller  MUSIC BY:  Christopher Young  EDITED BY: Sarah Broshar  CINEMATOGRAPHY: Laurie Rose  PRODUCTION COMPANY: Di Bonaventura Pictures, Alphaville Films  DISTRIBUTED BY: Paramount Pictures   COUNTRY: United States   LANGUAGE: English  RUNNING TIME: 1 hour 48 minutes
Technical assessment: 2
Moral assessment: 2
CINEMA rating: V18
MTRCB rating: R16
Tired of living in the big city, Dr. Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) moves his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz) and their two kids, eight-year-old Ellie (Jeté Laurence) and toddler Gage (Lucas Lavoie) from Boston to rural Maine. Everyone seems to like their rustic new house, even Church the cat. But the house is along a superhighway with speeding trucks that can squash persons or animals in seconds. When the inevitable tragedy happens, Louis turns to neighbor Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) who tells them about an old Native-American graveyard out back where kids bury their road kill and its powers of bringing the dead back to life. Little did they know that trying it out sets off a dangerous chain reaction that unleashes an unspeakable evil with horrific consequences.
Pet Sematary is both a remake and an adaptation of Stephen King’s 1983 novel. The film feels dated in its approach and in some plot elements. The exposition is also quite too long and it takes a while before the story gets really interesting. There are bits of scares here and there but nothing really unforgettable. The movie tries very hard to be psychological but it fails to really explore the various subplots which could have made it more insightful if not more exciting. The actors have played their parts well although the material does not really call for more depth. This film is one classic example of intelligent characters doing stupid things and it gets in the way of suspending disbelief.
What if your favorite pet dies and you bury it in a place where it could get back to life again? And what if the same is applied to humans? That is basically the film’s premise that calls for debate on dealing with loss, grief and death. Just as when the Creeds are trying to pull their lives together and settle in a more laidback environment to spend more time together and cherish each and every waking moment, tragedy strikes. People have different ways and capacities of coping with loss. It is seen in the film that the Creeds do not have a faith practice and Louis does not really believe in God nor in life after death. Church for the Creeds is nothing more than their pet. The film clearly shows what happens if our happiness depends on people and pets—they will inevitably leave and fail us—so loss would be so painful that one will defy all sorts of reason. The film lacks any redemptive value for the protagonist does not demonstrate any kind of remorse and he just opens up their bodies and souls to be instruments of the devil. In Louis’ desire to bring back to life a dead loved one, he deprives everyone around him of peace and the chance of living a beautiful life. Sometimes, dead is better—as the movie says. Given its theme of psychological and spiritual warfare, and the gore and violence, CINEMA deems Pet Sematary as appropriate only for audiences 18 years old and above.—RPJ

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

'Ningas-kugon'


Are Filipinos that forgiving or are we simply forgetful?
In our Social Studies (in the 50s in my case), we were taught about the destructive habits or attitudes of the Filipinos—the Manana Habit, Talangka Mentality, Filipino Time, Ningas-kugon, Colonial Mentality, etc.  I was too young to care, but being a conscientious pupil, I retained what I learned.  Especially the very graphic explanations of the teacher about the “talangka” (crabs) pulling one another down to clamber to the top of the bucket, and of dried cogon grass bursting into flames and just as quickly dying out.
Ningas-kugon  short-lived enthusiasm, as flames from a grass fire.

Over the years, many disappointing experiences with fellow Filipinos would convince me that those bad habits we heard about in elementary school somehow do have basis in fact.  In our country’s current socio-political situation, for instance, the Ningas-kugon mentality reigns supreme.  Scandalous incidents of national importance would hog the headlines for days or weeks, and then fizzle out even before anything conclusive is reached.  Or is it the public’s interest that wanes through time?
Remember the so-called Mamasapano Massacre, when on January 25,2015, 44 SAF police commandos were slain in the botched anti-terror raid in Maguindanao?  The nation was shocked over the tragedy, and felt betrayed by the government officials who planned the raid.  The public indignation soared when the 44 coffins arrived at the Manila airport and there was no Noynoy to pay respects to them—he was busy attending a car manufacturing event.  Headlines and social media comments burned with righteous anger in sympathy for the bereaved—such a cold-hearted president!  The bloody incident came to be tagged as “SAF 44.” 
On July 14, 2017, it was reported that former president Benigno Aquino III would face criminal trial over Mamasapano tragedy.  A statement from the investigating body said Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales had ordered Aquino charged with usurpation of authority and violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
The remains of the fallen SAF 44 arrive in Manila.
January 25, 2019, on the fourth anniversary of SAF 44, families of the fallen troopers called on the Supreme Court on Padre Faura in Manila to seek justice.  They called on the authorities to act on the case:  “Please notice our pleading because we have been seeking justice for four years now.”  Are they joined in their plea by the public?  It doesn’t seem so.  No sustained reporting from mainstream media; no angry outbursts from netizens.  Why?  The grass has burned out.  Ningas-kugon. 
Who remembers the bank cyber-heist that happened in February 2016?  It involved Bangladesh Bank, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) in the Philippines.  Reactions to the news smacked of warnings, and not a few bank clients feared for their money.  There followed televised hearings (in aid of legislation?), which the man on the street found upsetting if not incredible—for how can something that big happen when Philippine banks are so strict?  Even opening an ordinary savings account with one-thousand pesos would require the client to fill up so many papers with personal information.  How much more if the new accounts involved millions of US dollars?  After the initial furor, the case was forgotten.   
Until January 10, 2019, when the RCBC branch ex-manager Maia Santos-Deguito was reported guilty in the $81-million Bangladesh Bank heist.  The news said Makati Regional Trial court Branch 149 Presiding Judge Cesar Untalan found Deguito guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the Anti-Money Laundering Act.  Again it raised eyebrows, even in banking circles, where “everybody knows a mere branch manager cannot do such things on her own.”  Some believe there’s a cover up somewhere, and that Deguito was persuaded to be tied to the whipping post for a huge consolation sum.  Whatever, the fire seems to have gone out—the people who were alarmed before continue to use banks to safekeep their money.  And those with money to burn go on burning it away in our casinos.

Another half-forgotten scandal: the alleged role of the Bureau of Customs in the shipment from China  on May 17, 1017 of illegal drugs worth over six billion pesos.  On record as containing “kitchenware”, the container with methamphetamine was reportedly passed through the green lane, escaping the xray scanning—a violation of BoC protocol.  The Senate and House hearings invited so many “persons of interest” and disclosed names of companies and individuals (including the president’s son Paolo Duterte) implicated in the shipment, some of them Chinese.  Again, the public reaction was one of outrage. 
On September 5, 2018, the news said “The government has lost its drug transportation case over the 6.4 billion pesos shabu shipment from China that ended up at a warehouse in Valenzuela City, due to double jeopardy… While Taguba and Tan are detained at the Camp Bagong Diwa jail, Richard Tan, whose Hongfei Logistics company leased the warehouse where the shabu was found, and his other Chinese or Taiwanese co-accused remain at large since the Manila RTC ordered their arrest for the drug importation case.”
Now the case seems buried beneath an avalanche of sensational news items.  Should we not be looking deeper into the court decision?  Or at least, gather concerned agencies and citizens to ask, for instance, where the confiscated shabu has gone?  Are the accused still in the country, or have they forever escaped prosecution through the help of Immigration?  We do not want to think ill of our government agencies but circumstances like this make us doubt their sincerity in serving the public.
Ningas-kugon destroys more than grass—it keeps us in a stupor.  We are quick to say the country is a mess, but are we doing our part to right the wrong being done?  These are but a few of the scandalous things that caused us to burst into flames of anger in the recent past.  If you will peep into history you will see that there have been many more that aroused our ire in the distant past, hindering our growth as a nation, but which we soon forgot—or forgave.  Where is our ningas-kugon mentality leading us to?
China's illegal militarization in Philippine territory.
One day, about two years ago, we just woke up to find our waters invaded, with artificial islands containing military installations by a bully nation.  We were furious—but didn’t stay so for long.  Last weekend of March we were told that for the first quarter of 2019 alone, more than 600 “Chinese fishing vessels have been recorded surrounding the sandbars of Pag-asa Island.”  That many?  We would be naïve to think these vessels are only after our galunggong—mackerel scad, which, incidentally, they export back to us.  More than just cursing China over its bullying tactics, we should do our homework and intelligently plan to preserve our sovereignty and save our people.  We can’t afford to treat serious matters with our ningas-kugon attitude.  We must keep the fire burning.  Otherwise, Pilipinas might one day wake up to find it is already a province of China.  And that’s the truth. 

 

Friday, March 29, 2019

Captain Marvel


Directors: Anna Boden, Ryan Fleck
Lead Cast: Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, Ben Mendelsohn, Jude Law, Annette Bening, Lashana Lynch
Screenwriters: Anna Boden, Ryan Fleck, Geneva Robertson-Dworet
Producer: Kevin Feige
Editors: Debbie Berman, Elliot Graham
Musical Director: Pinar Toprak
Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
Cinematographer: Ben Davis                                  
Distributor: Walt Disney
Location: California, USA
Running Time: 2hr 4mins
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3.5
Cinema Rating: V13 – 13 and below with parental guidance
MTRCB Rating: PG13
Vers (Brie Larson) is a member of Starforce—an intergalactic Kree battle squad. She is mentored by Yon-Rogg (Jude Law) who repeatedly reminds her not to let her emotions affect her duties, specifically of the firing of powerful energy beams from her hands. Their mission is to defeat the Skrulls, a species of shape-shifting aliens led by Talos (Ben Mendelsohn) who's obsessed with probing Vers' memory in hopes of getting information on one Dr. Wendy Lawson (Annette Bening) and her work with a light-speed project. Incidentally, Vers interacts with that woman, not as Lawson, but as the artificial intelligence generated leader of the Kree, all while experiencing fleeting memories of a different life that's foreign to her. Then everything comes clearer when she literally crashes into Earth in the year 1995, meets an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), and discovers that she once had a life on this planet. And her name was Carol Danvers. She was an Air Force pilot where she worked alongside her best friend, Maria Rambeau (Lashana Lynch), for Dr. Lawson. With the Skrulls having followed her to Earth, Carol must then figure out the truth as to what's really happening and use her powers to save the day.
Captain Marvel is both intriguing and interesting as Marvel finally releases an on-screen super powerful hero that is both female and feminine. Those who were not familiar with Captain Marvel backstory before watching must surely be shocked to learn that the most powerful superhero of Marvel is actually a woman. That handle alone makes the film a worthwhile watch. The strategies implemented by the film’s producers such as hiring a woman as co-director and getting an acclaimed actress instead of a blockbuster superstar for its lead really worked well for the film’s success in communicating its message across all audiences. The non-linear storytelling approach may be confusing at first but everything becomes cohesive in the middle. The film does not dwell too much on exposition and it worked pretty well as revelations become more interesting as the story progresses. Lead actress Larson aptly balances out three roles in three timelines--that of Vers, of Carol Danvers, and of Captain Marvel. Law as Yon-Rogg provides perfect support. Mendelsohn as Skrull leader Talos and a cat named Goose give the film a different flavor of balanced humor and sentiment—along with the 90’s musical scoring. The fight scenes and the computer graphics may not be that spectacular but the gem of the film lies on its talented cast, and focused storytelling of Marvel’s “herstory”—clearly putting more emphasis on the heart as more powerful than the mind.  
Captain Marvel is said to be a “girl-power” movie—and it really is. For most part of the film, it is emphasized that Carol has been going through a lot of pains, rejections and discriminations as a woman trying to fit in a man’s world. She is always told to not let her emotions get in the way of what she wants to accomplish. Women stereotyped as the “emotional” kind is tackled in the film head-on—and is brutally deconstructed with the presence of the most powerful superhero to date—Captain Marvel. Despite the many hardships and struggles to fit-in, Carol’s determination paid off. The tenacity and strength of a woman’s heart is clearly demonstrated in the film—making the seeming weakness of a woman being emotional more of a strength than a weakness. Women bonding is also apparent in the film with the presence of Carol’s best friend—a woman and a mother, who once experienced discrimination as well for being one. The kind of bonding women have creates a sense of trust and brings out the best in each other. Family values are also depicted in the film as Talos leads his flock as a father deeply concerned for his family’s safety and well-being. Still, the film inevitably has scenes of violence about which young children must be guided while watching. CINEMA deems the Captain Marvel as appropriate for viewers 13 below with parental guidance.—RPJ

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

On the Basis of Sex


DIRECTOR: Mimi Leder
LEAD CAST:  Felicity Jones, Armie Hammer, Justine Theroux, Sam Waterston & Kathy Bates
SCREENWRITER: Daniel Stiepleman
PRODUCER: Robert W. Cort
EDITOR: Michelle Tesoro
MUSICAL DIRECTOR: Mychael Danna
GENRE: Drama
CINEMATOGRAPHER: Michael Grady
DISTRIBUTOR: Focus Features
LOCATION: USA
RUNNING TIME: 120 mins.
Technical assessment:  3.5
Moral assessment:  4
CINEMA rating:  V14
At a time when a woman in Harvard Law School was a rarity, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg (Felicity Jones) would enroll “in order to better understand (her) lawyer-husband”, Martin (Armie Hammer).  In remission from cancer, Martin becomes a willing house-husband, cooking and baby-sitting their daughter as Ruth continues with her studies and at the same time attending Martin’s law classes for him.  Then Ruth discovers one case—Moritz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.  Single and acting as caregiver to his mother, Charles Moritz (Chris Mulkey) is arbitrarily denied a $296 tax deduction because he is male when the US law assumes caregivers are female.  The Ginsburgs and ACLU attorney Mel Wulf find this as a gender discrimination against men and offer their services pro bono, and the rest is history.
Smart cinematography, crisp editing, and engaging dialogue all combine to spare the movie from the talking heads syndrome.  Based on the true story of the woman whose perseverance,  intelligence, and chutzpah propelled her to the US Supreme Court, On the Basis of Sex seems a tad too simplistic.   The impressive performance by British actor Felicity Jones in the lead role may have sprung from the reported approval of the real Justice Ginsburg who told Jones, “I have seen your work; you can do it!”  Revolving around one albeit landmark case, the script takes an admiring viewpoint—perhaps because it is written by Ruth’s nephew, Daniel Stiepleman—and falls short of portraying a truer-to-life success story of the iconic Ruth Ginsburg.  And because the real Ruth Ginsburg is still active and alive at 85, the movie takes on the coloration of an image-building endorsement used in political election campaigns.
All things considered, even though this woman of substance comes across almost like a caricature in the film, it is nevertheless an inspiring one, capable of empowering young women in a male-dominated profession.  Many a woman would be envious of Ruth for having a husband who is beyond supportive.  Many a father would learn a thing or two from Mr. Ginsburg on how to handle a teenage child.  Ruth’s passion is inspiring, her sense of justice instinctive and keen.  What the script lacks in story-telling detail is adequately filled by the factual epilogue that comes after the last cameo shot of Justice Ginsburg ascending the steps of the Supreme Court.  The audience leaves the theater realizing how great, indeed, is the Jewish woman who struggled against gender bias and triumphed in a society that was not ready to be kind to either Jews or women.  Although the film is wholesome in general, its theme may not be appealing to children.—TRT