Cast: John Cusack, Clark Duke, Craig Robinson, Rob Corddry; Director: Steve Pink; Producers: John Cusack, Grace Lo, Matt Moore, John Morris; Screenwriters: Josh Heald, Sean Anders, John Morris; Music: Christophe Beck; Editor: George Fosley, Jr., James Thomas: Genre: Comedy; Cinematography: Jack N. Green; Distributor: Metr0-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM); Running Time: 100 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 1.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Former best friends Adam (John Cusack), Nick (Craig Robinson) and Lou (Rob Corddy) have lost touch over the years. They reunite when Lou is hospitalized for an accidental poisoning. Adam and Nick show up to make sure that Lou does not commit suicide. For old time’s sake and to give themselves a break, they embark on a trip to the ski resort that holds most of their memories as teenage friends. They also bring along Adam’s Geeky nephew Jacob (Clark Duke). There, they pursue their old version of fun – sex, drugs and alcohol. Their wild night ends up in a slope-side hot tub and its malfunctioning magically brings them back to 1986. Much to their surprise, they are back in their teenage bodies as well.
Hot Tub Time Machine looks as tired as its premise. As with the characters in the film who have become tired old men, the film has nothing but tired old jokes: toilet humor, sexual overtones, and profanities are all over the place. In theory, the story seems hilarious and promises bunch of laughs and a degree of 1980’s nostalgia. But the execution does not come up believable nor exciting. For those who can relate to the era, some scenes may be appealing and can bring out some laughs here and there but are never enough to sustain the movie’s supposedly comedic feel. The casts come out strong though. Cusack, Corddry and Robinson make a solid comic team. But with this old and mediocre material, their talent has been put to waste.
Looking at the film in larger context, it is supposed to talk about life’s second chances. If men could only live their lives all over again, they would make far better choices so they can live far better lives. It could’ve been an inspiring turning point in the movie if it did not dwell too much on the scatological humor, rough and crude language, graphic casual sex, profanities and nudity. Friendship is also given emphasis in the film but it remained in a quite shallow level for their concept of fun is more destructive than productive. The younger audiences are supposed to learn a lot from the movie’s middle-aged characters who grew up seeing themselves as failures due to the wrong choices they made when they are still young. However, much of the film’s content – sex, drugs, alcohol, violence and gore, is not suitable to the very young audiences with impressionable minds for they may be influenced by the film’s morally disturbing values.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Diary of a Wimpy Kid
Cast: Zachary Gordon,Robert Capron, Rachael Harris, Steve Zahn; Director: Thor Freudenthal; Producers: Nina Jacobson, Bradford Simpsopl Screenwriters: Jackie Filgo, Jeff Filgo, Gabe Sachs, Jeff Judah, Jeff Kinney; Music: Theodore Shapiro; Editor: Wendy Greene Bricmont; Genre: Comedy/ Family; Cinematography: Jack N. Green; Distributor: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Location: Canada: Running Time: 94 min.;
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
The wimpy kid in The Diary of a Wimpy Kid is wise-cracking Greg Heffley (Zachary Gordon) who actually thinks his diary is not a diary but a “journal”. Entering his first year of middle school, Greg grapples with the awkward situation of a pre-teen, and thus his “journal” begins, chronicling everything going on in his head, at home and in school—the three locations he finds himself in day in and day out. Home is well-meaning if sometimes distracted parents (Rachael Harris and Steve Zahn), mean older brother Rodrick (Devon Bostick), and the youngest in the family, a nonverbal toddler. School is mostly teens who think Greg is a nerd and a geek; the 12-year old school paper editor Angie (Chloe Moretz); and his almost-buddies, tubby boy Rowley Jefferson (Robert Capron) and Chirag Gupta (Karan Brar), the only boy shorter than Greg. Greg wants to be the most popular kid in school at all cost but his popularity is all in his mind. He thinks he is smart (which he is) and cannot, therefore, accept when someone inferior wins the popularity race hands down.
The Diary of a Wimpy Kid presents a realistic and credible picture of Junior High School in America, with a sensitive story spiced up with humor. There’s a device in the movie that demonstrates the power of the herd-mentality in middle school—the slice of mold-coated Swiss cheese that’s been on the school ground for ages because nobody dares touch it. Anyone seen touching it instantly becomes a pariah, an “untouchable” literally, whom the whole student population avoids because…. Because! Based on the books of cartoonist Jeff Kinney, the movie features Kinney’s drawings and hand-letterings on the wimpy kid’s diary’s pages. The movie is fast-paced and nimble, the action engaging, and the dialogue bright. But most of all, the child actors are real performers—whether in lead or support roles, they are the ones who carry the movie since the adult roles are minimal.
While The Diary of a Wimpy Kid may be a family movie, it’s not for young children; in fact, even older children and pre-teens, would need parental guidance in order to see the movie in the proper perspective. Though the lead characters are pre-teens, the situations presented are mostly for teens. The content is also suited to teens, particularly scenes that imply drug use by older teen, show bullying by older teens, scare young characters by referring to devil worshippers, etc. There’s a good spiel by Greg’s mother where she clearly and unequivocally makes her point to her children that adult/girlie magazines are a no-no in the Heffley household because they degrade women. The better thing here is, she is obeyed by her children. The one most important thing the wimpy kid learns is the supremacy of truth in human relationships. In that sense, the movie subtly speaks of growth and maturing of the lead character—he begins by desiring popularity without knowing how to achieve it, and ends up taking responsibility for his mistakes, the broken friendship, the undeserved award.
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
The wimpy kid in The Diary of a Wimpy Kid is wise-cracking Greg Heffley (Zachary Gordon) who actually thinks his diary is not a diary but a “journal”. Entering his first year of middle school, Greg grapples with the awkward situation of a pre-teen, and thus his “journal” begins, chronicling everything going on in his head, at home and in school—the three locations he finds himself in day in and day out. Home is well-meaning if sometimes distracted parents (Rachael Harris and Steve Zahn), mean older brother Rodrick (Devon Bostick), and the youngest in the family, a nonverbal toddler. School is mostly teens who think Greg is a nerd and a geek; the 12-year old school paper editor Angie (Chloe Moretz); and his almost-buddies, tubby boy Rowley Jefferson (Robert Capron) and Chirag Gupta (Karan Brar), the only boy shorter than Greg. Greg wants to be the most popular kid in school at all cost but his popularity is all in his mind. He thinks he is smart (which he is) and cannot, therefore, accept when someone inferior wins the popularity race hands down.
The Diary of a Wimpy Kid presents a realistic and credible picture of Junior High School in America, with a sensitive story spiced up with humor. There’s a device in the movie that demonstrates the power of the herd-mentality in middle school—the slice of mold-coated Swiss cheese that’s been on the school ground for ages because nobody dares touch it. Anyone seen touching it instantly becomes a pariah, an “untouchable” literally, whom the whole student population avoids because…. Because! Based on the books of cartoonist Jeff Kinney, the movie features Kinney’s drawings and hand-letterings on the wimpy kid’s diary’s pages. The movie is fast-paced and nimble, the action engaging, and the dialogue bright. But most of all, the child actors are real performers—whether in lead or support roles, they are the ones who carry the movie since the adult roles are minimal.
While The Diary of a Wimpy Kid may be a family movie, it’s not for young children; in fact, even older children and pre-teens, would need parental guidance in order to see the movie in the proper perspective. Though the lead characters are pre-teens, the situations presented are mostly for teens. The content is also suited to teens, particularly scenes that imply drug use by older teen, show bullying by older teens, scare young characters by referring to devil worshippers, etc. There’s a good spiel by Greg’s mother where she clearly and unequivocally makes her point to her children that adult/girlie magazines are a no-no in the Heffley household because they degrade women. The better thing here is, she is obeyed by her children. The one most important thing the wimpy kid learns is the supremacy of truth in human relationships. In that sense, the movie subtly speaks of growth and maturing of the lead character—he begins by desiring popularity without knowing how to achieve it, and ends up taking responsibility for his mistakes, the broken friendship, the undeserved award.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
How to Train Your Dragon
Cast: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, America Ferrera; Directors: Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders; Producer; Bonnie Arnold; Screenwriters: Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders; Music: John Powell; Editor: Maryann Brandon, Darren T. Holmes; Genre: Animation/ Adventure/ Comedy; Distributor: Paramount Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 98 min.;
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Hiccup is the last boy people would suspect to grow into a dragon slayer. Even his own father (Gerard Butler) who is chief of the Viking colony snickers at the idea that the small, fragile looking boy, despite his innate pluckiness, can ever amount to anything of use in the village’s persistent problem of defending itself against winged dragons. It is in fact a very ordinary, quiet, even pleasant village, except that it’s under constant attack by slick and vicious dragons of all shapes, shades and sizes. By some strange twist of fate, Hiccup gets to befriend the most feared dragon of them all which he found alone and injured on a secluded beach.
How to Train Your Dragon, in 3-D, is a visual feast for young and old, and food for thought for mature viewers. The segment on the young boys and girls being trained in the art of dragon slaying is a particularly interesting one, showing dragons in varying degrees of ferocity. There have been quite a number of taming-your-dragon movies shown lately since Avatar, but How to Train Your Dragon seems to be the one whose story is focused on the personal relationship between a dragon and a human being—and a young boy, at that. While the flawless animation is engaging, it’s the story that makes the movie worth the price of admission.
If you’re a father thinking of seeing this movie with your son, go. You’ll love it. Don’t be surprised if you see yourself in the Viking father with such high expectations of his son. Your son, most likely, will identify with Hiccup who may not seem all too docile but who seeks his father’s respect as well. The father here learns not to judge mere externals, but instead give his son space to be himself. The son, on the other hand, learns to follow his own nose, not to be strait-jacketed by his father’s and other people’s expectations, even those of his peers. Courage is the virtue highlighted here, as Hiccup tames terrible dragon, and goes against prevailing beliefs that try to bully people into wanting kill dragons instead of understanding them, and eventually becoming the dragons’ masters instead of their slayers.
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Hiccup is the last boy people would suspect to grow into a dragon slayer. Even his own father (Gerard Butler) who is chief of the Viking colony snickers at the idea that the small, fragile looking boy, despite his innate pluckiness, can ever amount to anything of use in the village’s persistent problem of defending itself against winged dragons. It is in fact a very ordinary, quiet, even pleasant village, except that it’s under constant attack by slick and vicious dragons of all shapes, shades and sizes. By some strange twist of fate, Hiccup gets to befriend the most feared dragon of them all which he found alone and injured on a secluded beach.
How to Train Your Dragon, in 3-D, is a visual feast for young and old, and food for thought for mature viewers. The segment on the young boys and girls being trained in the art of dragon slaying is a particularly interesting one, showing dragons in varying degrees of ferocity. There have been quite a number of taming-your-dragon movies shown lately since Avatar, but How to Train Your Dragon seems to be the one whose story is focused on the personal relationship between a dragon and a human being—and a young boy, at that. While the flawless animation is engaging, it’s the story that makes the movie worth the price of admission.
If you’re a father thinking of seeing this movie with your son, go. You’ll love it. Don’t be surprised if you see yourself in the Viking father with such high expectations of his son. Your son, most likely, will identify with Hiccup who may not seem all too docile but who seeks his father’s respect as well. The father here learns not to judge mere externals, but instead give his son space to be himself. The son, on the other hand, learns to follow his own nose, not to be strait-jacketed by his father’s and other people’s expectations, even those of his peers. Courage is the virtue highlighted here, as Hiccup tames terrible dragon, and goes against prevailing beliefs that try to bully people into wanting kill dragons instead of understanding them, and eventually becoming the dragons’ masters instead of their slayers.
Clash of the Titans
Cast: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Feinnes, Jason Flemyng, Gemma Artenton; Director: Loius Leterrier; Producers: Kevin De La Noy, Basil Iwanyk; Screenwriters: Travis Beacham, Phil Hay, Matt Manfredi; Music: Ramin Djawadi; Editor: Vincent Tabaillon, Martin Walsh; Genre: Action/ Adventure; Cinematography: Peter Menzies Jr.: Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures: Location: UK: Running Time: 106 min.;
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Perseus (Sam Worthington) is a demigod, son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) and a human mother. As an infant, Perseus was found by a fishing couple in a box that rises out from the sea, containing the corpse of his mother and himself. He is not aware of his being super human until much later in the story when it s revealed that Zeus had stolen into Perseus’ mother’s bedchamber disguised as her husband, and thus sired Perseus. He grows up with the adoptive fishermen-parents, knowing little of the world outside of their fishing boat. When Perseus is captured along with others at sea and taken to Argos, his unusual prowess at hand-to-hand combat reveals his real lineage. Perseus is tasked with leading a band of warriors to defeat Hades, the god of the underworld, before Hades can wrestle power out of his brother Zeus.
Clash of the Titans is a “re-imagining” of the 1981 original film. Greek mythology, even when simply read, stimulates the imagination enough into creating its own “visuals” inside the reader’s head. Meeting characters in books who are supposed to be gods but who behave like ordinary men—disguising themselves and siring bastards with mortal women they fancy, plotting revenge against their brother, using their superhuman powers to pick on ordinary mortals—offers rich literary delights and occasions for warming up one’s faculty for moral judgment. Make these characters alive on the screen, throw in computer enhancement to demonstrate the full extent of the power of the gods’ fury or benevolence, and you have Clash of the Titans. Olympus gods, of course, are a far cry from God—capital “G”—as we are taught by religion. So be guided. Detach yourself from the idea of heaven and eternal life in the Christian context, and just enjoy the place where these gods reside—if you notice that their carpeting is made of clouds, then you can make your own conclusions, guilt-free.
The technical excellence of the film’s CGI is obviously above par, even when some of the creatures invite good-natured ribbing from the audience. The snakey-headed Medusa slithering through those Greek columns in her lair and turning everyone (who dares look at her) into stone is a work of art, no less. Intriguing are those giant arachnids that at first looked menacing but later on turned out to be domesticated beasts of burden carrying reed houses for the nomadic mortals across the desert. They’re the tamer cousins, supposedly, of the humongous scorpions that crawl over the rocks, pluck humans out of battle and drop them dead on the desert sand, literally. Hades (Ralph Fiennes) materializing from black billowing smoke and unleashing the power of hell upon anyone who crosses him also keeps you on your toes, wondering what mischief he’s up to next. (He couldn’t quite be that damaging, though, once you recall that the smiling cat in Alice in Wonderland has that same power to materialize from smoke—only less threatening). Neeson makes a more-human-than-god Zeus, non-threatening in his highly polished armor and with dark hair badly needing a shampoo. Worthington as Perseus is credible as the god-sired man with a man-made cinematic image—his being the only male in the movie with close-cropped hair and without a beard should give you a clue as to his Olympian DNA.
What’s the moral of the story? After all, when you talk about gods, there must be some moral tidbit tucked in somewhere between the pyrotechnics and the deus ex machina tricks, right? But what can you say about gods who get annoyed when humans fail to show them respect? Well… let’s see… there’s something worth pondering there about Perseus being a son-of-a-god but preferring to remain a mere fisherman for the rest of his life. His survival depends solely on his acceptance of his power as a god, and in this story he creates his destiny. That’s a lot to talk about in the family reunion, or over fish and chips with the gang. If you feel you missed something important, by all means, see it again. But please see it in 2-D—it’s kinder to your eyes and to your pocket.
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Perseus (Sam Worthington) is a demigod, son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) and a human mother. As an infant, Perseus was found by a fishing couple in a box that rises out from the sea, containing the corpse of his mother and himself. He is not aware of his being super human until much later in the story when it s revealed that Zeus had stolen into Perseus’ mother’s bedchamber disguised as her husband, and thus sired Perseus. He grows up with the adoptive fishermen-parents, knowing little of the world outside of their fishing boat. When Perseus is captured along with others at sea and taken to Argos, his unusual prowess at hand-to-hand combat reveals his real lineage. Perseus is tasked with leading a band of warriors to defeat Hades, the god of the underworld, before Hades can wrestle power out of his brother Zeus.
Clash of the Titans is a “re-imagining” of the 1981 original film. Greek mythology, even when simply read, stimulates the imagination enough into creating its own “visuals” inside the reader’s head. Meeting characters in books who are supposed to be gods but who behave like ordinary men—disguising themselves and siring bastards with mortal women they fancy, plotting revenge against their brother, using their superhuman powers to pick on ordinary mortals—offers rich literary delights and occasions for warming up one’s faculty for moral judgment. Make these characters alive on the screen, throw in computer enhancement to demonstrate the full extent of the power of the gods’ fury or benevolence, and you have Clash of the Titans. Olympus gods, of course, are a far cry from God—capital “G”—as we are taught by religion. So be guided. Detach yourself from the idea of heaven and eternal life in the Christian context, and just enjoy the place where these gods reside—if you notice that their carpeting is made of clouds, then you can make your own conclusions, guilt-free.
The technical excellence of the film’s CGI is obviously above par, even when some of the creatures invite good-natured ribbing from the audience. The snakey-headed Medusa slithering through those Greek columns in her lair and turning everyone (who dares look at her) into stone is a work of art, no less. Intriguing are those giant arachnids that at first looked menacing but later on turned out to be domesticated beasts of burden carrying reed houses for the nomadic mortals across the desert. They’re the tamer cousins, supposedly, of the humongous scorpions that crawl over the rocks, pluck humans out of battle and drop them dead on the desert sand, literally. Hades (Ralph Fiennes) materializing from black billowing smoke and unleashing the power of hell upon anyone who crosses him also keeps you on your toes, wondering what mischief he’s up to next. (He couldn’t quite be that damaging, though, once you recall that the smiling cat in Alice in Wonderland has that same power to materialize from smoke—only less threatening). Neeson makes a more-human-than-god Zeus, non-threatening in his highly polished armor and with dark hair badly needing a shampoo. Worthington as Perseus is credible as the god-sired man with a man-made cinematic image—his being the only male in the movie with close-cropped hair and without a beard should give you a clue as to his Olympian DNA.
What’s the moral of the story? After all, when you talk about gods, there must be some moral tidbit tucked in somewhere between the pyrotechnics and the deus ex machina tricks, right? But what can you say about gods who get annoyed when humans fail to show them respect? Well… let’s see… there’s something worth pondering there about Perseus being a son-of-a-god but preferring to remain a mere fisherman for the rest of his life. His survival depends solely on his acceptance of his power as a god, and in this story he creates his destiny. That’s a lot to talk about in the family reunion, or over fish and chips with the gang. If you feel you missed something important, by all means, see it again. But please see it in 2-D—it’s kinder to your eyes and to your pocket.
Everybody;s Fine
Cast: Robert de Niro, Kate Beckinsale, Drew Barrymore, Sam Rockwell; Director: Kirk Jones; Screenplay: Kirk Jones; Story: Giusseppe Tordanatore; Producer: Gianni Nunnari, Glynis Murray, Ted Field, Vittorio Cecchi Gori; Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures; Running Time:95 minutes;; Genre: Drama/ Comedy
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
Rating: For viewers 13 and below with parental guidance
Lonely widower Frank Goode (Robert de Niro) has been busy for days preparing for a weekend get-together with his busy adult children coming from different distant places. But then he receives phone calls from each of them telling him they could no longer make it. Disappointed, Frank, despite his ill health, decides to pack his bags and travel cross-country to surprise his children. He visits first his youngest, David, only to find out that he’s not yet home and no one really know about his whereabouts. Frank then goes to his eldest, Amy (Kate Beckinsale) but he only receives a cold welcome from her. He then heads to Robert’s (Sam Rockwell) place and their meeting turns out strained as well. When he meets his daughter Rosie (Drew Barrymore) in Las Vegas, he discovers all his offspring are hiding something from him – about their lives and about David.
The film veers away from the dark theme of the original Giusseppe Tordanatore’s Stanno Tutti Bene. This remake, Everybody’s Fine, takes the conventional Hollywood route so the theme appears lighter than it’s supposed to be. The premise remains interesting and the entire viewing experience is really touching. De Niro is as usual consistent with his solid acting backed by a strong support cast of Rockwell, Beckinsale and Barrymore. They make a good ensemble as a family disunited and later on reunited. Although the film has the tendency to be overly melodramatic, it is able to avoid monotony and predictability putting in some new elements of dream sequences that turn out both clever and ingenious. The entire flow of emotions is consistent all throughout and the film delivers its message with utmost clarity. The use of the telephone lines as a symbolic transition device has been an effective thread in putting the story’s complicated pieces together.
Frank’s character represents most of the fathers not only in middle class American setting, but the general family set-up as well. Fathers are expected to be good providers so they work hard all their lives just to make sure there’s food on the table and their children would grow up to become the best they can be. The fathers’ time is mostly spent at work and they are rarely seen home. Until it would be too late for fathers to realize they hardly know their children. As in the case of Frank, aside from the fact that he hardly knows them, they are seem distant to him that they’d rather tell lies about what they’ve become so as not to disappoint him. The film has clearly shown the importance of family and of communication in the home. The crucial role that parents, specifically fathers, play in molding their children. Father’s role after all, does not end in being a good provider but only starts there. What’s more essential is the strong emotional foundation he’s going to give to his offspring by finding and making time for them. The mother remains to be at the center of every home. In the film, the mother’s absence is really felt by both the father and the children. After all, it was the mother who has held their family together with her knack for listening. Although every character in the movie seems not to be fine, the end message is hopeful as they make room for forgiveness, acceptance and tolerance. There are only some minor serious issues in the film such as drug use and abuse, divorce and homosexual relationships, although made and justified in context, these may not be suitable for the very young audiences so CINEMA recommends the film for viewers 13 years old and below with parental guidance.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Babe I Love You
Cast: Anne Curtis, Sam Milby, Tetchie Agbayani, Nikki Bacolod, Megan Young; Director: Mae Czarina Cruz; Distributor: Star Cinema Productions; Genre: Romance: Location: Philippines;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Hindi maganda ang simula ng pagkakakilala ng sales promo girl na si Sasa Sanchez (Anne Curtis) at architecture professor na si Nico Borromeo (Sam Milby). Naunang nakatikim si Sasa ng kasupladuhan ni Nico ng alukin niya ito ng produktong alak at nang masamain ng huli ang pagtulong nina Sasa kasama ang mga kaibigan upang iligtas si Nico laban sa mga holdaper. Hindi tinantanan ni Sasa si Nico ng paniningil sa idinulot na pinsala ng pagtulong sa kanya sa hiniram niyang sasakyan at sa kanyang leeg. Upang tumigil sa maiskandalong paniningil ni Sasa ay napilitan si Nico na pumayag ipagmaneho ito upang makapaghanapbuhay habang nagpapagaling ng neck injury. Sa "arrangement" nilang ito ay magkakaroon sila ng pagkakataon na makilala ang isa't isa at makikita ang mga magagandang katangian sa kabila ng mga katayuan sa buhay. Masaya na mahirap ang pamilya ni Sasa na binubuo ng ina at tatlo pang kapatid na iba-ibang ama. Samantala may sariling isyu si Nico sa kanyang pamilya partikular sa kanyang ina na isang sikat na book writer at mayamang academician dahil siya at ang kanyang nakaraan bilang pasaway na anak ang sinisisi sa maagang pagkamatay ng kanyang ama. Sa kahirapan ng kanyang loob ay pinipilit niyang abutin ang kanyang ina subalit paano mangyayari ang lubos na pagkakasundo nila ng ina kung tuluyan siyang ma-involved sa katulad ni Sasa na mayroon din pangit na nakaraan?
Gasgas na at madaling mahulaan ang kwento ng "Babe, I love You" subalit nabigyan ng kulay na mahusay na produksyon at timpla ng direktor. Maganda ang pagkakahatid ng pinagsamang light at heavy drama. May mga tampok na eksena ang mga pangunahing tauhan at epektibo na naihatid ng mga nagsiganap. Maganda ring ideya ang voice over bago matapos ang pelikula kung saan literal na ibinahagi ang mahalagang aral at mensahe. Akma ang pag-iilaw sa mga eksena may kinakailangang bigyan-diin, gayundin ang paglalapat na musika. Bagama't madalas na pa-cute ang dating ng mga close-up shot sa mga bida at medyo eksaherada ang focus ng camera sa magagandang legs ni Anne ay nabawi ito ng magagandang aspetong teknikal ng pelikula.
Binigyan-diin sa pelikulang "Babe, I Love you" na ang hindi magandang nakaraan ay maaaring pagsikapan na mabawi at tuluyang makapagbago kung mabibigyan lamang ng panahon at pagkakataon. Sa ganitong sitwasyon ay malaki ang gampaning papel ng pamilya, mga kaibigan, lipunan, ng tanging minamahal at ng pananalig sa Diyos na nagbibigay ng pag-asa. Mahalaga ang ituon ang pansin sa gustong makamit, alamin ang pangunahin sa buhay at bigyan dignidad ang sarili sa pagtahak sa landas ng tagumpay. Salat sa yaman at limitado sa kaalaman si Sasa, may panahong naging mahina sa kanyang nakaraan, pero nagsikap na iwasto at ituon ang serbisyo sa pamilya sa maayos na paraan. Pagtanggap sa pagkakamali, kapatawaran at pamamayani naman ng pagmamahal ang namagitan kina Nico at kanyang ina. Dito sila kapwa humugot ng lakas upang harapin ang sakit ng paghihiwalay at pagpapalaya sa isa't isa. Pinahalagahan nila ang panahon na ibinigay nila sa kani-kanilang mga sarili at hindi sila nabigo na matuklasan ang magandang idinulot nito sa kanila sa muli nilang pagkikita. Positibo sa mensahe at madamdaming tagpo ang pelikula na kapupulutan ng aral ng mga manonood.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Romeo at Juliet
Cast: Alessandra de Rosi, Victor Basa, Max Eigenmann, Bing Pimentel, Jay Manalo, Rosanna Roce; Director: Adolf Alix, Jr. ; ; Running Time: 90 minutes; Genre: Drama; Location: Manila
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
Rating: For viewers 18 and above
Si Angel (Alessandra de Rossi) ay namasukan bilang isang high class escort service sa gabi upang matustusan ang sarili sa kanyang pag-aaral sa araw. Makikilala niya si Joseph (Victor Basa), isa ring estudyante na gaya niya at agad itong mabibighani sa kanya. Hindi alam ni Joseph ang lihim na buhay ni Angel sa gabi. Sa gitna ng kanilang umuusbong na pagmamahalan ay ang komplikasyon ng kani-kanilang masasaklap na nakaraan at karanasan sa kani-kanilang mga magulang. Si Angel ay inaabuso noon ng kanyang ama (Jay Manalo), habang si Joseph naman ay pinagmamalupitan ng konserbatibong ina (Bing Pimentel). Ito at ang madilim na lihim ni Angel ang magdadala sa kapahamakan ng kanila sanang pag-iibigan.
Bagamat karaniwan ang kuwento ng Romeo at Juiet, kakaiba pa rin ang dating nito sa pagbibigay ng makabagong koneksyon sa klasikal na nobela ni William Shakespeare. Mahusay ang pagkakatagni ng kuwento na ginamit ang mga kabanata sa nobela upang bigyang kahulugan ang bawat bahagi ng paglalahad sa pelikula. Walang itulak kabigin din ang pag-arte nina de Rossi at Basa, lalo na ang ilang beteranang nagsiganap. Maganda ang kuha ng camera at maayos naman ang pagkakadirehe. May malaking pagkukulang lang ang kuwento sa dahilang hindi gaanong napagigting ang dapat sana'y malalim na pag-iibigan ng dalawang pangunahing tauhan. Hindi masyadong ramdam ang bigat at lalim ng kanilang samahan. Marahil dahil madalas lumihis ang kuwento sa pagmamahalan ng dalawa. Marahil nasobrahan din ang pagpapaliwanag sa ilang bagay na hindi naman sentro ng pelikulla. Tuloy walang gaanong dating ang kinalabasan ng kuwento sa kabuuan.
Bukod sa pagmamahalang mauuwi sa trahedya, mayroong lumulutang na mensahe ang pelikula patungkol sa kinahihinatnan ng isang tao base sa klase ng magulang at pagpapalaki na mayroon siya. Sinasabi nito na malaki ang papel na ginagampanan ng isang magulang sa magiging buhay ng kanilang anak. Sa uri ng pagpapalaki na ito mahuhubog ang kaisipan ng isang bata sa paggawa niya ng mga desisyon sa buhay at ito'y dadalhin niya hanggang sa paglaki. Sa aspetong ito ay may magandang punto ang pelikula dahill pinahahalagahan nito ang papel ng magulang at pamilya sa buhay ng isang tao. Ngunit mayroong kaunting pagmamalabis ang pelikula sa pagpapakita ng maraming eksena na may patungkol sa sekswalidad. Hindi naging malinaw ang tayo ng pelikula ukol sa maraming bagay na bumabagabag sa ating lipunan sa usaping ito. Sa kabuuan, ang pelikula ay maaring mag-iwan ng hindi magandang impluwensiya sa mga batang manonood at tunay naman na maraming maseselan na usapin sa pelikula kagaya ng insesto, pang-aabusong sekswal, pre-marital sex, prostitusyon, pornograpiya, sekswal na dibersyon at marami pang iba. Kaya nararapat lamang ang pelikula sa mga may edad 18 pataas.
Friday, March 26, 2010
I Love You Philip Morris
ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor, Leslie Mann, Rodrigo Santoro; Directors: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa; Producers: Andrew Lazar, Far Shariat; Screenwriters: John Requa, Glenn Ficarra; Music: Nick Urata; Editor: Thomas J. Nordberg; Genre: Drama/ COmedy; Cinematography: Xavier Perez Grobet; Distributor: Cinestar; Location: USA; Running Time: 110 min;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
The movie is a true story of Steven Russell (Carrey), a married father whose exploits landed him in the Texas criminal justice system. He fell madly in love with his cellmate (Ewan McGregor), who eventually was set free, which led Russell to escape from Texas prisons four times.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Same sex relationship with sexual activities is presented as normal and acceptable; it can be misleading to the youth.
Cast: Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor, Leslie Mann, Rodrigo Santoro; Directors: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa; Producers: Andrew Lazar, Far Shariat; Screenwriters: John Requa, Glenn Ficarra; Music: Nick Urata; Editor: Thomas J. Nordberg; Genre: Drama/ COmedy; Cinematography: Xavier Perez Grobet; Distributor: Cinestar; Location: USA; Running Time: 110 min;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
The movie is a true story of Steven Russell (Carrey), a married father whose exploits landed him in the Texas criminal justice system. He fell madly in love with his cellmate (Ewan McGregor), who eventually was set free, which led Russell to escape from Texas prisons four times.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Same sex relationship with sexual activities is presented as normal and acceptable; it can be misleading to the youth.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Book of Eli
Cast: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis; Directors: Albert Hughes, Allen Hughes; Producers: Broderick Johnson, Andrew A. Kosove, Joel Silver, David Valdes, Denzel Washington; Screenwriter: Gara Whitta; Music: Atticus Ross, Leopold Ross, Claudia Sarne; Editor: Cindy Mollo; Genre:; Cinematography: Don Burgess; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 118 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
The movie takes place in a world of chaos and mayhem 30 years after the apocalypse. Eli (Denzel Washington) has been travelling on foot in search for water source. He is generally peaceful and quiet but has superb combat skills he will not hesitate to use if provoked. He enters a dilapidated town built and run by Carnegie (Gary Oldman), an ambitious gang leader who desires to build more towns if only he can find the only remaining copy of the Bible. Impressed by Eli’s skills, Carnegie decides to have him seduced by his blind concubine’s daughter, only to find out later that he carries the very book he has been searching for. Carnegie then plots to kill Eli and take possession of the only copy of the King James Bible, while Eli, believing that God is on his side, uses all his skills to protect his precious cargo until he is able to properly turn it over.
The movie offers a fresh breath of treatment for an old plot - a peaceful man with a mission who is capable of killing his enemies single handedly if provoked. The production is decent and engaging with an authentic interpretation of a world that survived the worst. One can see semblances of old Western movies and modern action flicks with its staging and cinematography. The script is intriguing but there are several loopholes in the storyline’s logic and Eli’s character. Fortunately, the visual play each scene provides balances its shortcomings. Washington and Oldman play their respective roles convincingly.
The Book of Eli presents a bit of a predicament. On the one hand, it might be possible to excuse the brutality of the film and take this in the context of a chaotic world after the war. On the other hand, one might wish to just look at all the objectionable violence and dismiss the movie's values altogether. The movie may appear to be merely a violent film but if you will take a closer look the movie is interspersed with several religious ideologies. First, there is Eli’s journey to faithfully carry out and complete the mission entrusted to him. Second, amidst a world consumed by chaos and violence, the Word of God seems to be a beacon of hope and change. Third, Eli’s spirituality is almost authentic as he not only carries and protects the Bible but also reads passages daily and has even memorized the entire book. He also prays a lot, frequently quotes and shares passages from the Bible and emphasizes the need to look at the spirit not just the words of the passages. He reveals that he walks by faith and not by sight. However, several scenes have intermittent strong language, violence and sexual innuendos, although not endorsed as a way of life, they will still disturb the sensibilities of most people.
Film might not be appropriate for children younger than 14 and parents are cautioned to guide their teenagers when watching the movie.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
The movie takes place in a world of chaos and mayhem 30 years after the apocalypse. Eli (Denzel Washington) has been travelling on foot in search for water source. He is generally peaceful and quiet but has superb combat skills he will not hesitate to use if provoked. He enters a dilapidated town built and run by Carnegie (Gary Oldman), an ambitious gang leader who desires to build more towns if only he can find the only remaining copy of the Bible. Impressed by Eli’s skills, Carnegie decides to have him seduced by his blind concubine’s daughter, only to find out later that he carries the very book he has been searching for. Carnegie then plots to kill Eli and take possession of the only copy of the King James Bible, while Eli, believing that God is on his side, uses all his skills to protect his precious cargo until he is able to properly turn it over.
The movie offers a fresh breath of treatment for an old plot - a peaceful man with a mission who is capable of killing his enemies single handedly if provoked. The production is decent and engaging with an authentic interpretation of a world that survived the worst. One can see semblances of old Western movies and modern action flicks with its staging and cinematography. The script is intriguing but there are several loopholes in the storyline’s logic and Eli’s character. Fortunately, the visual play each scene provides balances its shortcomings. Washington and Oldman play their respective roles convincingly.
The Book of Eli presents a bit of a predicament. On the one hand, it might be possible to excuse the brutality of the film and take this in the context of a chaotic world after the war. On the other hand, one might wish to just look at all the objectionable violence and dismiss the movie's values altogether. The movie may appear to be merely a violent film but if you will take a closer look the movie is interspersed with several religious ideologies. First, there is Eli’s journey to faithfully carry out and complete the mission entrusted to him. Second, amidst a world consumed by chaos and violence, the Word of God seems to be a beacon of hope and change. Third, Eli’s spirituality is almost authentic as he not only carries and protects the Bible but also reads passages daily and has even memorized the entire book. He also prays a lot, frequently quotes and shares passages from the Bible and emphasizes the need to look at the spirit not just the words of the passages. He reveals that he walks by faith and not by sight. However, several scenes have intermittent strong language, violence and sexual innuendos, although not endorsed as a way of life, they will still disturb the sensibilities of most people.
Film might not be appropriate for children younger than 14 and parents are cautioned to guide their teenagers when watching the movie.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Alice in Wonderland
Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham-Carter, Anne Hathaway, Allan Rickman; Director: Tim Burton; Producer: Richard Zanuck; Screenwriter: Linda Woolverton; Genre: Fantasy; Distributor: Walt Disney; Location: UK; Running Time: 105 min;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Young Alice has been having a recurring dream of going down a dark hole leading to a strange-looking place. When she reaches 19 years old, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is obliged to accept a public wedding proposal from a suitor whom she has no affection for. So when a white rabbit wearing a waistcoat distracts her, she runs from the crowd to follow the strange creature. In her pursuit of the rabbit, Alice falls into the rabbit hole and finds herself in a place that she has already seen in her dreams, Wonderland. However, it’s no longer the happy place it once was. Alice bumps into Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) and from him she discovers that her coming has been foretold for she is believed to be the only one who can save the land by slaying the Red Queen’s (Helena Bonham-Carter) huge flying dragon, the Jabberwocky, and restoring power to the White Queen (Anne Hathaway). However, Alice is reluctant for she believes all these are just part of a dream and she would soon wake-up.
This children’s classic by Lewis Carroll is re-lived in this latest and updated version that comes in 3D technology. As expected, Tim Burton’s adaptation is dark yet full of substance. The core message remains faithful to the original although the entire feel is made contemporary and the look borderlines into surreal aesthetics that is Burton’s signature. Audiences are taken into a visual treat this time with live characters and colorful magnificent backdrops. The sound, scoring and cinematography are all in place. The real gem in the film is the performance of its actors. Wasikowska, perfect for her role, does an excellent job playing the grown-up Alice. Her unique charm and combination of cleverness and innocence make her a memorable character. Hathaway’s appearance is comparatively brief but interesting just the same. Depp is as usual fantastic, but Bonham-Carter as the Red Queen with the oversized head dominates every scene she’s in with her
Alice in Wonderland has brought its audience to a place that exists only in one’s wild imagination. The film has shown the power of believing in the impossible. The Red and White Queens clearly represent the battle between good and evil, and this helped bring to the fore the maturing of Alice from adventuresome girl to courageous young woman. She has held dearly the teachings of her parents, except, understandably, when forced to marry somebody she does not love. In this sense, she has come of age, defying authority and unexamined social traditions to use her own mind to do what is right. Alice’s character strongly depicts self-confidence and optimism, traits that are given recognition in the end when she is granted the opportunity to venture into the real world with real characters and real challenges.
Due to the dark depiction and images (i.e., chopped fingers used as potion, smoking cat, animals treated cruelly, etc.) that may not appear wholesome to the very young audience, CINEMA strongly recommends parental guidance for audiences below 13 years old.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Young Alice has been having a recurring dream of going down a dark hole leading to a strange-looking place. When she reaches 19 years old, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is obliged to accept a public wedding proposal from a suitor whom she has no affection for. So when a white rabbit wearing a waistcoat distracts her, she runs from the crowd to follow the strange creature. In her pursuit of the rabbit, Alice falls into the rabbit hole and finds herself in a place that she has already seen in her dreams, Wonderland. However, it’s no longer the happy place it once was. Alice bumps into Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) and from him she discovers that her coming has been foretold for she is believed to be the only one who can save the land by slaying the Red Queen’s (Helena Bonham-Carter) huge flying dragon, the Jabberwocky, and restoring power to the White Queen (Anne Hathaway). However, Alice is reluctant for she believes all these are just part of a dream and she would soon wake-up.
This children’s classic by Lewis Carroll is re-lived in this latest and updated version that comes in 3D technology. As expected, Tim Burton’s adaptation is dark yet full of substance. The core message remains faithful to the original although the entire feel is made contemporary and the look borderlines into surreal aesthetics that is Burton’s signature. Audiences are taken into a visual treat this time with live characters and colorful magnificent backdrops. The sound, scoring and cinematography are all in place. The real gem in the film is the performance of its actors. Wasikowska, perfect for her role, does an excellent job playing the grown-up Alice. Her unique charm and combination of cleverness and innocence make her a memorable character. Hathaway’s appearance is comparatively brief but interesting just the same. Depp is as usual fantastic, but Bonham-Carter as the Red Queen with the oversized head dominates every scene she’s in with her
Alice in Wonderland has brought its audience to a place that exists only in one’s wild imagination. The film has shown the power of believing in the impossible. The Red and White Queens clearly represent the battle between good and evil, and this helped bring to the fore the maturing of Alice from adventuresome girl to courageous young woman. She has held dearly the teachings of her parents, except, understandably, when forced to marry somebody she does not love. In this sense, she has come of age, defying authority and unexamined social traditions to use her own mind to do what is right. Alice’s character strongly depicts self-confidence and optimism, traits that are given recognition in the end when she is granted the opportunity to venture into the real world with real characters and real challenges.
Due to the dark depiction and images (i.e., chopped fingers used as potion, smoking cat, animals treated cruelly, etc.) that may not appear wholesome to the very young audience, CINEMA strongly recommends parental guidance for audiences below 13 years old.
Green Zone
ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Matt Damon, Greg Kinnear, Amy Ryan, Brendan Gleeson; Director: Paul Greengrass; Producers: Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Lloyd Levin, Paul Greengrass; Screenwriter: Brian Helgeland; Music: John Powell; Editor: Christopher Rouse; Genre: Action/ Adventure/ War; Cinematography: Barry Ackroyd; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: Baghdad, Iraq; Running Time: 125 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
Green Zone is a film set in the chaotic early days of the Iraqi War when no one could be trusted and every decision could detonate unforeseen consequences.
During the U.S.-led occupation of Baghdad in 2003, Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Damon) and his team of Army inspectors were dispatched to find weapons of mass destruction believed to be stockpiled in the Iraqi desert. Rocketing from one booby-trapped and treacherous site to the next, the men search for deadly chemical agents but stumble instead upon an elaborate cover-up that inverts the purpose of their mission.
Spun by operatives with intersecting agendas, Miller must hunt through covert and faulty intelligence hidden on foreign soil for answers that will either clear a rogue regime or escalate a war in an unstable region. And at this blistering time and in this combustible place, he will find the most elusive weapon of all is the truth. (Universal Pictures.)
OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF THE FILM: Can be resource material for discussion on the morality of war.
Cast: Matt Damon, Greg Kinnear, Amy Ryan, Brendan Gleeson; Director: Paul Greengrass; Producers: Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Lloyd Levin, Paul Greengrass; Screenwriter: Brian Helgeland; Music: John Powell; Editor: Christopher Rouse; Genre: Action/ Adventure/ War; Cinematography: Barry Ackroyd; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: Baghdad, Iraq; Running Time: 125 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
Green Zone is a film set in the chaotic early days of the Iraqi War when no one could be trusted and every decision could detonate unforeseen consequences.
During the U.S.-led occupation of Baghdad in 2003, Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller (Damon) and his team of Army inspectors were dispatched to find weapons of mass destruction believed to be stockpiled in the Iraqi desert. Rocketing from one booby-trapped and treacherous site to the next, the men search for deadly chemical agents but stumble instead upon an elaborate cover-up that inverts the purpose of their mission.
Spun by operatives with intersecting agendas, Miller must hunt through covert and faulty intelligence hidden on foreign soil for answers that will either clear a rogue regime or escalate a war in an unstable region. And at this blistering time and in this combustible place, he will find the most elusive weapon of all is the truth. (Universal Pictures.)
OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF THE FILM: Can be resource material for discussion on the morality of war.
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Red Shoes
Cast: Marvin Agustin, Nikki Gil, Lisa Lorena, Techie Agbayani, Tirso Cruz III, Iwa Moto; Director: Raul Jorolan; Writer: James Ladioray; Producer/ Distributor: Tony Gloria/Unitel; Running Time: 110 minutes; Location: Manila; Genre: Drama, Romance;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Nang mapatalsik sa puwesto ang mga Marcos noong 1986, pinasok ng mga taong-bayan ang Malacanang. Kabilang dito ang batang si Lucas (Marvin Agustin) na nagnakaw ng isang pares ng sapatos na pula ni Imelda Marcos. Ibinigay niya ang kanang pares sa kanyang ina (Lisa Lorena) na nagluluksa sa pagkamatay ng kanilang padre de pamilya (Tirso Crus III) at ang kaliwang kapares naman ay ibinigay niya sa kanyang unang babaeng minahal na si Betina (Nikki Gil). Sa kanilang paglaki ay magiging magkasintahan sina Lucas at Betina ngunit sila’y magkakahiwalay bunga ng matinding di-pagkakaunawaan na mag-uugat sa pagtataksil ni Lucas. Samantalang ang ina naman ni Lucas ay panay ang pagkonsulta sa mga ispiritista upang makausap ang kaluluwa ng kanyang amang natabunan sa ginagawang Film Center ni Imelda.
Kakaiba ang kuwentong nais ihatid ng The Red Shoes. Nagawa nitong kilitiin ang imahinasyon ng manonood sa pagkokonekta nito sa mga tunay na pangyayari sa ating kasaysayan. Maayos naman ang pagkakalahad ng kuwento bagama’t magulo sa kabuuan ang mensahe nito. Maganda ang mga kuha ng kamera at ang mga lokasyong ginamit. Kitang-kita na nag-uumapaw sa talinong artistiko ang mga nasa likod ng pelikula. Maganda rin ang intensiyon nilang magbigay ng panibagong putahe sa mga manonood ng pelikulang Pilipino. Mahuhusay naman ang mga nagsiganap, yun nga lang, bihira silang maramdaman bilang mga tunay na tao--dala ng masyadong pag-ayos sa istruktura ng pelikula, lumabas na pawang artipisyal at mukhang mga karikatura ang kanilang mga karakter. Sayang, sapagkat kita naman ang sinseridad ng lahat sa maayos na pagganap.
Sa simula pa lang ay problemado na ang pelikula sa maraming usaping moral. Nariyan agad ang "romanticizing" sa pagnanakaw ng isang bata. Bagama’t walang malisya sa parte ng bata ang pagnanakaw, hindi nililinaw ng pelikula kung ang pagnanakaw ay tama o mali. Maaari ding sinasabi ng pelikula na hindi ito mabuti sa pamamagitan ng pagpapakitang hindi naging maayos ang buhay ng pangunahing tauhan sa kabuuan, subalit ang ganoong mga mensahe ay dapat na dumating ng lubos na malinaw upang hindi nakakalabo sa isipan ng nanonood. Umikot ang kuwento sa iba’t-ibang uri ng pagnanakaw: pang-aagaw ng asawa, pagnanakaw ng sandali ng pagtataksil. Nariyan din ang paniniwala ng ina ni Lucas sa mga ispiritista at ilang mga pamahiin. Ipinakita namang ang gawaing pagtawag ng kaluluwa at paniniwala sa ispirtista ay hindi tama at madalas, ang mga ito’y pawang mga huwad. Hindi rin mabuti na ipinipresenta ng pelikula na katanggap-tanggap ang pagtatalik ng dalawang taong hindi naman kasal. Mabuti na nga lang at wala namang hubaran at malabis na halikan na ipinakita. Nakakabahala nga lang na baka isipin ng mga batang manonood na sapat na dahilan ang pagmamahal upang humantong sa pagtatalik ang relasyon. Sa kabuuan naman ng pelikula ay malinaw ang pinaka-mensahe nito ukol sa pagmamahal, pagpapatawad at pagpaparaya.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Extraordinary Measures
Cast: Brendan Fraser, Harrison Ford, Keri Russell; Director: Tom Vaughn; Producers: Carla Santos Shamberg, Michael Shamberg, Stacey Sher; Screenwriters: Robert Nelson Jacobs, Geeta Anand; Music: Andrea Guerra; Editor: Anne V. Coates; Genre: Drama; Cinematography: Andrew Dunn; Distributor: CBS Films; Location: USA; Running Time: 105mins.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
The movie is based on the reports of Wall Street journalist, Geeta Anand in 2004. It follows the struggles of John Crowley (Brendan Fraser), a pharmaceutical executive on the rise, whose 8-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter have been diagnosed with Pompe disease. His greatest dilemma is that this rare genetic disorder with no known cure will eventually spread to his children’s vital organs and kill them at a young age. But John will not give up and lose his children so easily. He meets Dr. Robert Stonehill, (Harrison Ford), a rustic University researcher who has discovered an enzyme that could possibly cure Pompe disease. The bulk of the plot focuses on John’s struggle to build a foundation, then run a bio-tech company and try to work with Dr. Robert in spite of personality clashes.
The plot is easy to follow and develops quite predictably. The script has a tendency to be too syrupy and weepy at times and has a prolonged focus on the melodrama. But still Jacobs and Vaughan manage to create a captivating movie. The performances of Fraser, Ford and Russell are solid and genuine. The camerawork is clean and the editing is tight. Technically, the movie is more than good but not necessarily great. Overall, the movie succeeds in evoking sympathy for a father battling the odds to save his children.
The movie is strong in its message about family. John’s efforts are commendable and Aileen’s (his wife) support for him despite the uncertainty of the situation is inspiring. Another strong point of the movie is its message of hope and acceptance of God’s will. Accepting one’s fate, no matter how painful, is a sign of humility and complete trust in His providence. The movie would have been perfect if the element of prayer or faith were also highlighted as source of courage and strength in overcoming his ordeal. It would be best for parents to remind their children that in real life, faith and spirituality play a major role in sustaining a person through his pain and struggles.
The emotional stress of the movie might not be suitable for very young audiences. Although it does have a strong positive message, parents might feel uncomfortable to have their children sit through all the yelling and crying in the movie.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
The movie is based on the reports of Wall Street journalist, Geeta Anand in 2004. It follows the struggles of John Crowley (Brendan Fraser), a pharmaceutical executive on the rise, whose 8-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter have been diagnosed with Pompe disease. His greatest dilemma is that this rare genetic disorder with no known cure will eventually spread to his children’s vital organs and kill them at a young age. But John will not give up and lose his children so easily. He meets Dr. Robert Stonehill, (Harrison Ford), a rustic University researcher who has discovered an enzyme that could possibly cure Pompe disease. The bulk of the plot focuses on John’s struggle to build a foundation, then run a bio-tech company and try to work with Dr. Robert in spite of personality clashes.
The plot is easy to follow and develops quite predictably. The script has a tendency to be too syrupy and weepy at times and has a prolonged focus on the melodrama. But still Jacobs and Vaughan manage to create a captivating movie. The performances of Fraser, Ford and Russell are solid and genuine. The camerawork is clean and the editing is tight. Technically, the movie is more than good but not necessarily great. Overall, the movie succeeds in evoking sympathy for a father battling the odds to save his children.
The movie is strong in its message about family. John’s efforts are commendable and Aileen’s (his wife) support for him despite the uncertainty of the situation is inspiring. Another strong point of the movie is its message of hope and acceptance of God’s will. Accepting one’s fate, no matter how painful, is a sign of humility and complete trust in His providence. The movie would have been perfect if the element of prayer or faith were also highlighted as source of courage and strength in overcoming his ordeal. It would be best for parents to remind their children that in real life, faith and spirituality play a major role in sustaining a person through his pain and struggles.
The emotional stress of the movie might not be suitable for very young audiences. Although it does have a strong positive message, parents might feel uncomfortable to have their children sit through all the yelling and crying in the movie.
Cop Out
Cast: Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan, Juan Carlos Hernandez; Director: Kevin Smith; Producers: Polly Cohen Johnsen, Marc Platt, Michael Tadross; Screenwriters: Robb Cullen, Mark Cullen; Music: Harold Faltermeyer; Editor: Kevin Smith; Genre: Action/ Comedy; Cinematography: David Klein; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: New York, USA; Running Time: 107 mins.
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Cop buddies Jimmy Monroe (Bruce Willis) and Paul Hodges (Tracy Morgan) receive a one-month suspension without pay for bungling up a bust operation which ends up with an informant dead. Bristling with indignation, the two surrender their official firearms and badges but continue to do their own investigating. Feeling very sure of their hunches, they get involved in the usual police work as though they were not under suspension, barging into homes and arresting suspects without warrants, rescuing hostages and madly pursuing and shooting dead those they think to be the bad guys. Will a couple of daring but disobedient cops fight lawbreakers while defying rules themselves?
The action/comedy flick directed by Kevin Smith has all the elements to entertain moviegoers as long as they don’t demand much beyond what’s served them. Car chases, shoot-outs, a bit of drama in relationship snags, laughter, tension from good guys versus bad buys battles—ingredients that keep you amused and alert for around a couple of hours. If the more critical moviegoer detects weaknesses in Cop Out, it is perhaps due to the fact that it is Smith’s first shot at mainstream action-comedy entertainment. While Smith has built a reputation as a ground-breaker, he is better known as a writer than as a director, thus his being the director but not the writer of Cop Out would be responsible for the movie’s occasional weedy spots, like poor camera angles, talking heads, trite gags and villains no one would take seriously.
So that you won’t berate yourself for coughing up nearly two hundred pesos (including the popcorn and soda) for the love of Bruce Willis and then finding him not quite up to your expectations, look at the brighter side of Cop Out. Indeed it has some bright and solid notes that pull the movie up considerably, like that part where Paul goes mad with suspicion over his wife’s fooling around, and that where Jimmy gets into a battle of wills against his ex-wife’s husband (about his daughter’s forthcoming wedding). Watch out for those two moments because they provide subtle leads into your own ideas about good and bad. They’re good points for discussion with family, classmates, friends or prayer community as well. As for the predictable but implausible ending which should make you question the worthiness of the two cops who pursue a case on their own and in spite of their suspension order, be reminded that Cop Out is meant to be action/comedy—and if you understand that its primary aim is to entertain, you’ll see why its plot is based on fantasy, not reality.
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Cop buddies Jimmy Monroe (Bruce Willis) and Paul Hodges (Tracy Morgan) receive a one-month suspension without pay for bungling up a bust operation which ends up with an informant dead. Bristling with indignation, the two surrender their official firearms and badges but continue to do their own investigating. Feeling very sure of their hunches, they get involved in the usual police work as though they were not under suspension, barging into homes and arresting suspects without warrants, rescuing hostages and madly pursuing and shooting dead those they think to be the bad guys. Will a couple of daring but disobedient cops fight lawbreakers while defying rules themselves?
The action/comedy flick directed by Kevin Smith has all the elements to entertain moviegoers as long as they don’t demand much beyond what’s served them. Car chases, shoot-outs, a bit of drama in relationship snags, laughter, tension from good guys versus bad buys battles—ingredients that keep you amused and alert for around a couple of hours. If the more critical moviegoer detects weaknesses in Cop Out, it is perhaps due to the fact that it is Smith’s first shot at mainstream action-comedy entertainment. While Smith has built a reputation as a ground-breaker, he is better known as a writer than as a director, thus his being the director but not the writer of Cop Out would be responsible for the movie’s occasional weedy spots, like poor camera angles, talking heads, trite gags and villains no one would take seriously.
So that you won’t berate yourself for coughing up nearly two hundred pesos (including the popcorn and soda) for the love of Bruce Willis and then finding him not quite up to your expectations, look at the brighter side of Cop Out. Indeed it has some bright and solid notes that pull the movie up considerably, like that part where Paul goes mad with suspicion over his wife’s fooling around, and that where Jimmy gets into a battle of wills against his ex-wife’s husband (about his daughter’s forthcoming wedding). Watch out for those two moments because they provide subtle leads into your own ideas about good and bad. They’re good points for discussion with family, classmates, friends or prayer community as well. As for the predictable but implausible ending which should make you question the worthiness of the two cops who pursue a case on their own and in spite of their suspension order, be reminded that Cop Out is meant to be action/comedy—and if you understand that its primary aim is to entertain, you’ll see why its plot is based on fantasy, not reality.
Up in the Air
Cast: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick, Jason Bateman, Amy Morton; Director: Jason Reitman: Screenwriters: Jason Reitman, Sheldom Turner, Walter Kirn; Genre: Drama/ Romance; Running Time: 109 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) refers to himself as a “Termination Facilitator”. His job entails firing people from their jobs. When companies decide to downsize but wish to avoid this difficult task, they call upon Ryan’s company to do it for them. Ryan loves his job. He thinks he is a humane, compassionate way. Besides, he like the predictability and perks of high-end business air travel around the country with the minimum essentials in his suitcase (his backpack). His minimalist extends to his personal life where the limits close personal relationships and avoids commitments. Then he meets Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), a charming, sophisticated business traveler who thinks almost like himself, practically his psychic twin. Ryan arranges his schedules so Alex and he can have steamy rendezvous at airports. Without explicit commitments, they develop a “relationship’ through they practically do not know each other. Ryan also meets Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a bright, ambitious young graduate newly hired by the company. She suggests firing people via video conferencing. It will save the company airfare. This does not sit well with Ryan but to keep his job, he has to teach Natalie the ropes and they travel together. Natalie is Ryan’s opposite. She values relationships, especially the family. She takes the job so she can be near her boyfriend, through at times she is overcome with doubt and regret over the sad reactions of the dismissed employees. How will these two women eventually influence Ryan’s life? How will Ryan’s minimalist beliefs fare in the face of true emotion?
At the relatively young age of 32, Jason Reitman has proven his mettle as film director as evident in the film Up in the Air. And as screenwriter in the same film, in cooperation with Sheldom Turner, he has shown just as excellent a hand.
The story is tightly knit with not a single line or scene out of place. The start of the movie featuring non-actors, the aggrieved people who have actually been recently fired, voicing their own personal painful reactions is a movie clever touch and an effective one, too. And immediately, we are connected to Ryan Bingham, the corporate hitman, the role so ably given life with confidence, class and charm by George Clooney making it look palatable. The casting is just right. So it is with Vera Farmiga’s Alex, the suave girl friend/ non girl friend of Ryan, out for a fling or a good time. Under-acting, both are subtle and impressive. Anna Kendrick as the young, emotional, tightly wound character Natalie Krener is the perfect foil and she does justice to her role. Though there may be comic elements, this can hardly he called a comedy. Actually the twist at the end is so ironic. It may give the viewer some insights he may not have expected.
We are entertained by the movie Up in the Air and our pleasure is probably due to the way the story has unfolded, or the excellent way the movie is made. And one may have discerned some values that may have enriched us, perhaps contributed to our understanding of life. This is the story of a man who loathes being tied down, who wants to live his life “freely", who thinks commitments or close relationships would be hindrances to what he thinks is a wonderful life, but who realizes in the end that his life is meaningless and empty. Ryan Bingham does not say in so many words but his later actions and attitudes towards the end, is it possible he may have changed? Indeed, as one character said, "Life is better with company". Is he ready to get committed or start a genuine relationship with someone? It's just too bad if that someone may not be the suitable partner for a stable relationship. And we see how people, including Ryan may misread a person's character and intentions like that of Alex who wants an "escape" she says, from her reality. One realizes that commitments to be made must be done with care. It turns our Ryan does not know Alex well enough. As for Natalie, she eventually laso came to her own realization. The movie shows how ruthless and easily corporations let go of long-serving employees. One wonders how one can cope if one is on the receiving end of such treatment. Are there some ways of preparing for this including on the emotional/ spiritual side? Frequent vulgar language as well as objectional extra marital sexual relationships make this movie disturbing, despite its technical excellence.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Crazy Heart
Cast: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal; Director: Scott Cooper; Screenwriters: Scott Cooper; Thomas Cobb Producers: T-Bone Burnett, Judy Cairo, Rob Carliner, Scott Cooper, Robert Duvall; Music: Stephen Bruton, T.Bone Burnett; Editor: John Axelrad; Genre: Drama; Distributor: 20th Century Fox; Cinematography: Barry Markowitz; Location: USA; Running Time: 105 minutes;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Jeff Bridges plays the character of Otis “Bad” Blake, a has-been country singer and songwriter who once had a wonderful career. Because of his addiction to alcohol and smoking, and failure in his personal life, he now sings in small time bars and bowling alleys merely for survival. He is almost broke, always drunk and wasted. He in on a road tour alone, upon the instructions of his manager, travelling small towns to perform. In one of his small town gigs, he meets journalist Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal) who wants to write his life story. They eventually fall for each other. However, his addiction always gets in the way towards a normal, happy life. If he doesn't shape up, he is bound to lose everything – his music and his love.
Based on a 1987 novel, the film's plot faithfully follows the struggle of an alcoholic musician. There is really nothing new with the story except that the acting of Jeff Bridges is so believable that he nearly disappears into his character. The scenes are portrayed so real and poignant as if one is watching a documentary. The nuances and the darkness of Bad Blake's story are portrayed more realistically than dramatically in a sense that the audience is just as drowned as he is to his pain and frustrations. The supporting casts delivered commendable performances as well. As a musical drama, the music plays a strong impact in the movie's storytelling. Jeff Bridges cannot only act, he also sings well.
Crazy Heart is about a lost soul that is Bad Blake. He really lives up to his name playing the bad guy that he is. He smokes a lot, and drinks a lot more. Women come up to him so he easily falls into temptation but never feels guit. He is succumbed to frustrations and failures of his own making, thus living a directionless, meaningless life. Until Jean came along his life who finally gives him a reason to live and more importantly, a reason to redeem himself. He is able to do so with love as his motivation. The value of love, family and friendship is powerfully depicted in the story. Bad Blake’s journey towards redemption can also be a source of inspiration to those who have reached the rock bottom of their lives thinking that change is hopeless. However, the film may have shown a bit too much of darkness in Blakes character that it overshadows whatever goodness left in him. His passion for his craft and music is commendable though. However, sexual relationships outside marriage were shown in the fim as acceptable. Although made in context, this remains to be morally problematic so CINEMA deems the movie as appropriate only to mature viewers 18 and above.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Jeff Bridges plays the character of Otis “Bad” Blake, a has-been country singer and songwriter who once had a wonderful career. Because of his addiction to alcohol and smoking, and failure in his personal life, he now sings in small time bars and bowling alleys merely for survival. He is almost broke, always drunk and wasted. He in on a road tour alone, upon the instructions of his manager, travelling small towns to perform. In one of his small town gigs, he meets journalist Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal) who wants to write his life story. They eventually fall for each other. However, his addiction always gets in the way towards a normal, happy life. If he doesn't shape up, he is bound to lose everything – his music and his love.
Based on a 1987 novel, the film's plot faithfully follows the struggle of an alcoholic musician. There is really nothing new with the story except that the acting of Jeff Bridges is so believable that he nearly disappears into his character. The scenes are portrayed so real and poignant as if one is watching a documentary. The nuances and the darkness of Bad Blake's story are portrayed more realistically than dramatically in a sense that the audience is just as drowned as he is to his pain and frustrations. The supporting casts delivered commendable performances as well. As a musical drama, the music plays a strong impact in the movie's storytelling. Jeff Bridges cannot only act, he also sings well.
Crazy Heart is about a lost soul that is Bad Blake. He really lives up to his name playing the bad guy that he is. He smokes a lot, and drinks a lot more. Women come up to him so he easily falls into temptation but never feels guit. He is succumbed to frustrations and failures of his own making, thus living a directionless, meaningless life. Until Jean came along his life who finally gives him a reason to live and more importantly, a reason to redeem himself. He is able to do so with love as his motivation. The value of love, family and friendship is powerfully depicted in the story. Bad Blake’s journey towards redemption can also be a source of inspiration to those who have reached the rock bottom of their lives thinking that change is hopeless. However, the film may have shown a bit too much of darkness in Blakes character that it overshadows whatever goodness left in him. His passion for his craft and music is commendable though. However, sexual relationships outside marriage were shown in the fim as acceptable. Although made in context, this remains to be morally problematic so CINEMA deems the movie as appropriate only to mature viewers 18 and above.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
It's Complicated
Cast: Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin, John Krasinki; Director: Nancy Meyers; Producers: Nancy Meyers, Scott Rudiri; Screenwriter: Nancy Meyers; Music: Hans Zimmer, Heitor Pereira; Editor: Joe Hutsing, David Mortiz; Genre: Romantic Comedy; Cinematography: John Toll; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: Santa Barbara, California, New York: Running Time: 110 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Jane (Meryl Streep) and Jake (Alec Baldwin) used to be husband and wife. After the divorce, Jake marries Agness (Lake Bell). Jane—when the kids are grown up and out of the house—is in the exciting process of building her dream kitchen. She runs a bake shop-restaurant and makes perfect muffins and croissants. Her architect for this project is Adam (Steve Martin). Jane and Jake are somehow led by fate to get together again when they are preparing for the wedding of their eldest daughter. A reunion that starts as harmless enough is boosted by a drink and a dance, and another and another, until they wake up next morning beside each other in bed. Now the wife is her ex-husband’s mistress, an affair that does not lack in rooters—Jane’s sex-fixated, menopausal friends. Architect Adam, on the other hand, is quietly nursing an increasingly strong attraction for Jane and her croissants, and Jane, enthusiastic about her dream kitchen, is reciprocating by baking him the croissants he craves, all the while having trysts with her ex-husband which is soon to be uncovered by her future son-in-law (John Krasinski). It’s really complicated.
They say It’s complicated is a romantic comedy, but they didn’t say for what age audience. Usually romantic comedies are—like Valentine’s Day and the rest of the lot—are populated by yuppies, adolescents, by nubile bodies aged between 13 and 23 or thereabouts who, incidentally, would not think twice about baring their tanned and taut bods for the camera. But It’s Complicated has for its leading lady a respectable actress way past reproductive age who would not shed off her flesh-colored bra in a post-coitus bed scene. (Well, if the director says a woman her age should be that modest, who are we to contest that, especially if it syncs with the character’s persona?) The acting is great, and one never knows until the end which man this modest woman would ride off with into the sunset. Kudos to the director Nancy Meyers (Private Benjamin and The Parent Trap) for the good screenplay, and also for keeping the supporting actors in their places—not upstaging Streep, Baldwin and Martin. The movie is part drama, part comedy, and the lines are evenly divided between profound and funny—although there’s one really hilarious scene where (spoiler coming!) Baldwin is naked before a laptop.
As a comedy, It’s complicated is entertaining enough but also shows sensitivity in handling the… well, handling the complications of taking human situations and feelings too lightly. Jane is a strong woman, despite appearing emotionally flaky when with her girlfriends. The children of the former couple Jane and Jake are presented as being mature and well-adjusted. If this were a drama that would not look realistic, but since this is meant to be comic, that’s forgivable. Despite its light approach and considerable restraint in the lead characters, It’s complicated is grown up stuff, and therefore may be limited to adult audience. Young minds will not benefit from its adult theme, not understand what really goes on deep inside adult minds when their lives get to be so complicated.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
I Miss You Like Crazy
Cast: John Lloyd Cruz, Bea Alonzo, Maricar Reyes, Noel Trinidad, Tirso Cruz III; Director: Cathy Garcia-Molina; Producer/ Distributor: Star Cinema ; Running Time:125 minutes; Location: Manila, Malaysia; Genre: Drama, Romance
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
Rating: For viewers ages 14 and above
Si Allan (John Lloyd Cruz) ay nagta-trabaho bilang account executive sa isang bangko na pag-aari ng mga magulang ng kasintahan niyang si Daphne (Maricar Reyes). Sa kabila ng pagkakaroon ng halos lahat ng bagay sa buhay, tila may hinahanap-hanap pa rin siya. Magbabago ang lahat nang makilala niya si Mia (Bea Alonzo) sa isang kakatwang eksena sa Pasig Ferry. Sapagkat simple at masayahin si Mia, pawang may kakaiba agad na mararamdaman si Allan dito. Isang araw ay muling magku-krus ang kanilang landas at sila ay magkakausap at magkakasama nang matagal. Lalong mahuhulog ang loob nila sa isa’t-isa. Ngunit mayroong problema sa parte ni Allan, hindi magawang iwan ni Allan si Daphne dahil kaakibat rin nito ang pagtalikod sa magandang buhay na kanyang matagal na pinagsumikapan at pinangarap. Nang hindi piliin ni Allan si Mia, ay bumalik ang huli sa Malaysia kung saan siya nagtatrabaho bilang hotel receptionist. Makalipas ang ilang taon ay hahanapin at susundan ni Allan si Mia sa Malaysia ngunit si Mia ay may iba ng mahal at malapit na ring ikasal sa isang Malay. Magkatuluyan pa kaya silang dalawa?
Maganda ang daloy ng kuwento ng Miss You Like Crazy. Kahit pa sabihing alam na ng manonood ang kahahantungan ng kuwento, nagawa pa rin nitong papaniwaling ilihis sa inaasahan at pahirapan ang dalawang pangunahing tauhan na magkatuluyan. Iyon nga lang, sadyang may mga elemento sa pelikula na nagbibgay-dahilan para asahan na nang manonood ang katapusan nito. Sa kabila pa rin nito’y matagumpay ang pelikula sa pagbibigay ng bagong-bihis sa isang kuwentong pag-ibig ng dalawang taong nagkahiwalay, kapwa nabigo at kapwa nahirapan sa pagpili at sa bandang huli’y tadhana pa rin ang nagpasiya sa kanilang kapalaran. Hindi matatawaran ang husay sa pag-arte nila Cruz at Alonzo. Maging si Reyes ay lutang ang kahusayan kahit pa kung tutuusin, siya’y baguhan sa larangan ng pag-arte. Maganda ang kuha ng kamera na nagpakita at nagdala sa manonood sa ilang magandang lugar sa Malyasia. Marami ring makabuluhang linyang magpapa-isip at magpapakilig sa manonood.
Patungkol sa isang wagas na pagmamahalang nagkatagpo sa isang maling panahon ang pelikula. Ipinakita kung paanong ang tunay na pag-ibig ay nahihirapang gumawa ng desisyon dahil sa takot nilang makasakit ng damdamnin ng iba. Ang dalisay na pag-ibig nga naman ay nagsasakripisyo at nagpaparaya. Ipinakita sa kuwento na maaring magmahalan ang dalawang tao kahit pa hindi pa sila gaanong magkakilala. Hindi ito gaanong makatotohanan at maaring magbigay ng maling pananaw sa manonood ukol sa pag-ibig. Lumutang nang husto ang konsepto ng mabilisang pagmamahalan at pag-asa sa tadhana ang kuwento. Mga mahika sa pag-ibig na maaring totoo lamang sa iilan. Higit na nakababahala rin ang pagpapakita ng relasyong sekswal ng mga tauhan sa labas ng kasal. Pawang ang mga ito’y katanggap-tanggap na sa lipunan at hindi na pinagtatalunan kung tama o mali. Nakababala ang pelikula sa aspetong ito. Pero ilan sa mga mabubuting aral sa pelikula ay ang pagpapakitang ang tunay na pagmamahal ay matiyagang naghihintay at sa pag-aasawa, ang kinakailangan ay parehas ang pagmamahal at respeto ng dalawang tao sa isa’t-isa. Ipinakita rin sa pelikula ang pagrespeto sa relihiyon at paniniwala ng isang tao. Gayunpaman, dahil sa ilang maseselang tema sa pelikula, nararapat lamang ito sa manonood na may gulang 14 pataas.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
Rating: For viewers ages 14 and above
Si Allan (John Lloyd Cruz) ay nagta-trabaho bilang account executive sa isang bangko na pag-aari ng mga magulang ng kasintahan niyang si Daphne (Maricar Reyes). Sa kabila ng pagkakaroon ng halos lahat ng bagay sa buhay, tila may hinahanap-hanap pa rin siya. Magbabago ang lahat nang makilala niya si Mia (Bea Alonzo) sa isang kakatwang eksena sa Pasig Ferry. Sapagkat simple at masayahin si Mia, pawang may kakaiba agad na mararamdaman si Allan dito. Isang araw ay muling magku-krus ang kanilang landas at sila ay magkakausap at magkakasama nang matagal. Lalong mahuhulog ang loob nila sa isa’t-isa. Ngunit mayroong problema sa parte ni Allan, hindi magawang iwan ni Allan si Daphne dahil kaakibat rin nito ang pagtalikod sa magandang buhay na kanyang matagal na pinagsumikapan at pinangarap. Nang hindi piliin ni Allan si Mia, ay bumalik ang huli sa Malaysia kung saan siya nagtatrabaho bilang hotel receptionist. Makalipas ang ilang taon ay hahanapin at susundan ni Allan si Mia sa Malaysia ngunit si Mia ay may iba ng mahal at malapit na ring ikasal sa isang Malay. Magkatuluyan pa kaya silang dalawa?
Maganda ang daloy ng kuwento ng Miss You Like Crazy. Kahit pa sabihing alam na ng manonood ang kahahantungan ng kuwento, nagawa pa rin nitong papaniwaling ilihis sa inaasahan at pahirapan ang dalawang pangunahing tauhan na magkatuluyan. Iyon nga lang, sadyang may mga elemento sa pelikula na nagbibgay-dahilan para asahan na nang manonood ang katapusan nito. Sa kabila pa rin nito’y matagumpay ang pelikula sa pagbibigay ng bagong-bihis sa isang kuwentong pag-ibig ng dalawang taong nagkahiwalay, kapwa nabigo at kapwa nahirapan sa pagpili at sa bandang huli’y tadhana pa rin ang nagpasiya sa kanilang kapalaran. Hindi matatawaran ang husay sa pag-arte nila Cruz at Alonzo. Maging si Reyes ay lutang ang kahusayan kahit pa kung tutuusin, siya’y baguhan sa larangan ng pag-arte. Maganda ang kuha ng kamera na nagpakita at nagdala sa manonood sa ilang magandang lugar sa Malyasia. Marami ring makabuluhang linyang magpapa-isip at magpapakilig sa manonood.
Patungkol sa isang wagas na pagmamahalang nagkatagpo sa isang maling panahon ang pelikula. Ipinakita kung paanong ang tunay na pag-ibig ay nahihirapang gumawa ng desisyon dahil sa takot nilang makasakit ng damdamnin ng iba. Ang dalisay na pag-ibig nga naman ay nagsasakripisyo at nagpaparaya. Ipinakita sa kuwento na maaring magmahalan ang dalawang tao kahit pa hindi pa sila gaanong magkakilala. Hindi ito gaanong makatotohanan at maaring magbigay ng maling pananaw sa manonood ukol sa pag-ibig. Lumutang nang husto ang konsepto ng mabilisang pagmamahalan at pag-asa sa tadhana ang kuwento. Mga mahika sa pag-ibig na maaring totoo lamang sa iilan. Higit na nakababahala rin ang pagpapakita ng relasyong sekswal ng mga tauhan sa labas ng kasal. Pawang ang mga ito’y katanggap-tanggap na sa lipunan at hindi na pinagtatalunan kung tama o mali. Nakababala ang pelikula sa aspetong ito. Pero ilan sa mga mabubuting aral sa pelikula ay ang pagpapakitang ang tunay na pagmamahal ay matiyagang naghihintay at sa pag-aasawa, ang kinakailangan ay parehas ang pagmamahal at respeto ng dalawang tao sa isa’t-isa. Ipinakita rin sa pelikula ang pagrespeto sa relihiyon at paniniwala ng isang tao. Gayunpaman, dahil sa ilang maseselang tema sa pelikula, nararapat lamang ito sa manonood na may gulang 14 pataas.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Edge of Darkness
ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston, Bojana Novakovic, Shawn Roberts; Director: Martin Campbell; Producers: Graham King, Michael Wearing; Screenwriters: William Monahan, Andrew Bovell; Music: Howard Shore; Editor: Stuart Baird; Genre: Horror/ Suspense/ Drama; Cinematography: Phil Meheux; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: Massachusetts, USA Running Time: 117 min.;
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
CASINO ROYALE filmmaker Martin Campbell director directs a remake of his own BBC miniseries with this thriller. Mel Gibson stars as Thomas Craven, a man who has spent year as a detective in Boston. When his own daughter is killed near the door of his home, Craven realizes that her death is only one piece of a puzzle filled with corruption and conspiracy, and it falls to him to discover who is behind the crime.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Film is too violent for children and teenagers.
Cast: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston, Bojana Novakovic, Shawn Roberts; Director: Martin Campbell; Producers: Graham King, Michael Wearing; Screenwriters: William Monahan, Andrew Bovell; Music: Howard Shore; Editor: Stuart Baird; Genre: Horror/ Suspense/ Drama; Cinematography: Phil Meheux; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: Massachusetts, USA Running Time: 117 min.;
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
CASINO ROYALE filmmaker Martin Campbell director directs a remake of his own BBC miniseries with this thriller. Mel Gibson stars as Thomas Craven, a man who has spent year as a detective in Boston. When his own daughter is killed near the door of his home, Craven realizes that her death is only one piece of a puzzle filled with corruption and conspiracy, and it falls to him to discover who is behind the crime.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Film is too violent for children and teenagers.
Invictus
ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon, Clint Eastwood; Director: Clint Eastwood; Producers: Lori McCreary, Robert Lorenz, Mace Neufeld; Screenwriters: Anthony Peckham; Genre: Drama/biographical protrait; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: South Africa; Running Time: 135 min.;
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
The film tells the inspiring true story of how Nelson Mandela joined forces with the captain of South Africa's rugby team, Francois Pienaar, to help unite their country. Newly elected President Mandela knows his nations remains racially and economically divided in the wake of apartheid. Believing he can bring his people together through the universal language of sport, Mandela rallies South Africa's underdog rugby team as they make an unlikely run to the 1995 World Cup Championship match. (Warner Bros.)
Cast: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon, Clint Eastwood; Director: Clint Eastwood; Producers: Lori McCreary, Robert Lorenz, Mace Neufeld; Screenwriters: Anthony Peckham; Genre: Drama/biographical protrait; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: South Africa; Running Time: 135 min.;
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
The film tells the inspiring true story of how Nelson Mandela joined forces with the captain of South Africa's rugby team, Francois Pienaar, to help unite their country. Newly elected President Mandela knows his nations remains racially and economically divided in the wake of apartheid. Believing he can bring his people together through the universal language of sport, Mandela rallies South Africa's underdog rugby team as they make an unlikely run to the 1995 World Cup Championship match. (Warner Bros.)
Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief
Cast: Logan Lerman, Kevin McKidd, Steve Coogan, Catherine Keener, Maria Olsen; Director: Chris Columbus; Screenplay: Joe Stillman, Rick Riordan; Producer/ Distributor: 20th Century Fox ; Running Time:125 minutes; Location: USA; Genre: Fantasy
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
Rating: For viewers ages 13 and below with parental guidance
Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) is a young man dealing with various issues at home and school. He and his mother (Catherine Keener) live with an abusive stepfather. Percy’s Dyslexia and ADHD make schooling even harder for him. In one field trip to a Greek history museum, Percy is attacked by his substitute teacher (Maria Olsen) who turns into a monstrous winged creature. Shocked and confused, his real identity is then revealed to him – that he is the son of a Greek god Poseidon and is accused of stealing Zeus’ lightning bolt so his uncle Hades (rival of his father), and his mignons are after him. Upon learning this, Percy is sent off to a safe retreat in the woods to meet and train with other children who are also offspring of a Greek god and human parent. While training swordsmanship and other skills for future battle, Percy finds out that his uncle Hades is holding his mother in the underworld. Percy sneaks out of the camp together with Annabeth (Melina Kanakaredes), daughter of Athena and Grover (Brandon T. Jackson), his protector, to rescue his mother and at the same time prove his innocence that he did not steal the lightning bolt that must be returned to Zeus to prevent the brewing war among the Olympians which poses imminent threat and danger to both the mortal and immortal worlds.
Another film adaptation of a novel, Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief reminds the audience of the Harry Potter series. Sadly though, the film pales in comparison in terms of depth and magnitude. Although the film has its strengths that rely heavily on the Greek mythology accent in storytelling, it falls short in terms of cohesiveness and characterization. It will not also help if an audience is not knowledgeable of the Greek history and literature. But then, the visual effects are a spectacle and a real delight especially for young viewers. The script is apparently shallow but perhaps, it is the film’s way of reaching out to its audience. There is drama, humor and youth sensibilities combined that make the feature an effective venue for teen entertainment.
Greek gods and goddesses represent people’s aspiration for fame, fortune and power. For the longest time, the Greek mythology is believed to have inspired and influence many in terms of having concrete images and portrayals of God. Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is able to provide these images on a positive tone. The offspring of a Greek god and human parent are born good and the voice of conscience they hear are actually the voice of their parent gods. This portrayal metaphorically represents God, whose voice we often hear but most of the time, fail to recognize. The said voice leads the main characters towards the right path and corrects decisions. The world of casino depicted in the film represents the hell of the worldly society. Alluring, enticing and without any trace of suffering, but all these are nothing but superficial traps leading to misery. Hell is seen as the destruction of human kind where despair, hopelessness and sin prevail. The antagonist in the story wants the destruction of Olympians so that he would be heir to the throne and rule the universe. Such hunger and greed for power, and disrespect of authorities never succeed. Ultimately, in the battle between good and evil, the former remains victorious. And this is possible only because, the good took action, recognized his innate power and goodness, and never allowed evil to succeed. There is a certain degree of violence and sexual innuendos in the film, although in context, that makes it appropriate only to audiences 13 years old and below with parental guidance.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Couples Retreat
Cast: Vince Vaughn, Jason Bateman, Jon Favreau, Faizon Love, Kristen Bell; Direction: Peter Billingsley; Screenplay: Jon Favreau, Vince Vaughn, Dana Fox; Producer: Scott Stuber; Music: A.R. Rahman; Genre: Romantic Comedy; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: South Pacific; Running Time: 107 minutes;
Technical Assessment : 2.5
Moral Assessment : 2.5
CINEMA Rating : For mature viewers 18 and above
Four couples fly to a Southern Pacific island named Eden to have a fun-filled holiday under the pretense of attending a couples’ therapy retreat facilitated by famous Frenchman Marcel (Jean Reno). The couples include typical husband and wife Dave (Vince Vaughn) and Ronnie (Malin Akerman) who are having problems with their teenaged daughter; high school sweethearts Joey (Jon Favreau) and Lucy (Kristen Davis) who are in the brink of separating; childless couple Jason (Jason Bateman) and Cynthia (Kristen Bell) who initiated the retreat and recently divorced Shane (Faizon Love) and his girlfriend Trudy (Kali Hawk). On the island, the group is ushered to Eden West and drilled with rules and policies, including the mandatory attendance in the couples’ therapy sections. Realizing the amenities of the resort, the couples agree to put up with a few hours of couples session. Fortunately, the unusual therapy sessions proved to be valuable as couples learned underlying issues of their relationship and an accidental trip to Eden East, the part of the island delegated for the singles, make them realize the love and commitment they still have for their spouses.
COUPLES’ RETREAT falls flat both in its attempt to be romantic and funny. The script is predictable, mediocre and sloppy although it does develop fairly well. With this kind of script, it is hard to decide whether the performances are wasted or are just unimaginative by themselves. It even falls flat visually despite its efforts to show the charm of Bora Bora. Despite the feel good ending, the movie fails to latch on the viewers’ hearts to become memorable. There are some good funny moments and a few tender scenes but overall it lacks that certain spice to become brilliant. A few months from now, even those who watch the movie will forget they did watch it.
Marriage is not just a piece of paper after a ceremony but a lifelong commitment celebrating true love. Couples Retreat reminds us about the value of keeping that commitment and exerting all efforts to keep the love alive between spouses. However, the methods invoked to bring out these themes, obviously just played out for comedy, are not credible alternative for real values rooted in spirituality. Young adults may be misled to think that humor is enough to repair a relationship.
There are several disturbing situations in the film including an adulterous relationship, rear nudity and jokes with sexual undertones and crude language. The movie better suited for mature adults.
Technical Assessment : 2.5
Moral Assessment : 2.5
CINEMA Rating : For mature viewers 18 and above
Four couples fly to a Southern Pacific island named Eden to have a fun-filled holiday under the pretense of attending a couples’ therapy retreat facilitated by famous Frenchman Marcel (Jean Reno). The couples include typical husband and wife Dave (Vince Vaughn) and Ronnie (Malin Akerman) who are having problems with their teenaged daughter; high school sweethearts Joey (Jon Favreau) and Lucy (Kristen Davis) who are in the brink of separating; childless couple Jason (Jason Bateman) and Cynthia (Kristen Bell) who initiated the retreat and recently divorced Shane (Faizon Love) and his girlfriend Trudy (Kali Hawk). On the island, the group is ushered to Eden West and drilled with rules and policies, including the mandatory attendance in the couples’ therapy sections. Realizing the amenities of the resort, the couples agree to put up with a few hours of couples session. Fortunately, the unusual therapy sessions proved to be valuable as couples learned underlying issues of their relationship and an accidental trip to Eden East, the part of the island delegated for the singles, make them realize the love and commitment they still have for their spouses.
COUPLES’ RETREAT falls flat both in its attempt to be romantic and funny. The script is predictable, mediocre and sloppy although it does develop fairly well. With this kind of script, it is hard to decide whether the performances are wasted or are just unimaginative by themselves. It even falls flat visually despite its efforts to show the charm of Bora Bora. Despite the feel good ending, the movie fails to latch on the viewers’ hearts to become memorable. There are some good funny moments and a few tender scenes but overall it lacks that certain spice to become brilliant. A few months from now, even those who watch the movie will forget they did watch it.
Marriage is not just a piece of paper after a ceremony but a lifelong commitment celebrating true love. Couples Retreat reminds us about the value of keeping that commitment and exerting all efforts to keep the love alive between spouses. However, the methods invoked to bring out these themes, obviously just played out for comedy, are not credible alternative for real values rooted in spirituality. Young adults may be misled to think that humor is enough to repair a relationship.
There are several disturbing situations in the film including an adulterous relationship, rear nudity and jokes with sexual undertones and crude language. The movie better suited for mature adults.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Valentine's Day
Cast: Jessica Alba, Kathy Bates, Jessica Biel, Bradley Cooper, Eric Dane, Patrick Dempsey, Hector Elizondo, Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, Topher Grace, Anne Hathaway, Carter Jenkins, Ashton Kutcher, Queen Latifah, Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift; Director: Garry Marshall; Producers: Mike Karz, Wayne Allan Rice, Josie Rosen; Screenwriter: Katherine Fugate; Music: John Debney; Editor: Bruce Green; Genre: Comedy/ Romance; Cinematography: Charles Minsky; Distributor: New Line Cinema; Location: Los Angeles, California; Running Time: 125 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
As everyone in Los Angeles anticipates Valentine’s Day, flower shop owner Reed (Ashton Kutcher) prepares for the busiest day of the year. But before he does that, he proposes marriage to live-in girlfriend Morley (Jessica Alba). While his best friend Julia (Jennifer Garner), is madly in-love with his doctor boyfriend (Patrick Dempsey) whose leaving for a scheduled surgery in another city. Julia does not suspect that his boyfriend might be hiding something from her. Her best friend Kara (Jessica Biel), meanwhile, insists that she attends her “I hate Valentine’s Day” party that same night. Theirs and other lives of various characters dealing with different issues of romance, falling in and out of love, break-up and making-up, intertwines further in one of the most celebrated and overrated, usually commercialized, occasions in the world.
Valentine’s Day treatment tends to be lighter as compared to other films of the same genre. The convoluted plots and subplots never really rise beyond expectations. The entire thread of the story just remained at a comfortable level without added depth and substance. Most scenes are nothing more than romantic clichés that the audience may have already seen in a movie or two. The material comes out as very limiting to the supposedly powerhouse cast. But then, Valentine’s Day still passes off as a date movie with some of its romantic twists and relatable subplots. The film also provides some good laughs and uplifting moments with its showcase of various kinds of love. The strength of the film really lies on its stellar casts whom audiences anticipate to see on the big screen only that their appearances seem to be very brief, leaving their fans wanting for more.
What really is the relevance of Valentine’s Day? This is one important question posed by the movie. Has this day really lost its relevance and is nothing more than a product of commercialism? Valentine’s Day has tried answering these questions by presenting various lives of people longing for love, looking for love and holding on to love. They all believe that love exists and it’s the only thing on the planet that keeps everyone sane. Some may have lost their faith in love but they eventually find it in the most unexpected moment. The really disturbing aspect of the movie however is the somewhat distorted concepts of love that appears to center on sex. Most characters in the story, most of the time, relate love with sex as if the two are interchangeable terms. The kid’s concept of love remains to be the purest along with that of the mother’s love. Love between friends of the opposite sex seems to be impossible to remain platonic because it eventually leads to mutual attraction. But then, marrying one’s best friend is almost always a good idea for friendship is a good foundation of love. Communication, honesty, forgiveness, tolerance and acceptance are some of the virtues associated with love and is really shown effectively in the movie. The entire concept of the film however, with some adult themes, nudity and presentation of homosexual and extra-marital affairs, although made in context, make the movie appropriate for mature audience only.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Love Happens
Cast: Aaron Eckhart, Jennifer Aniston, Dan Fogler, Judy Greer; Director: Brandon Camp; Producers: Scott Stuber, Mike Thompson; Screenwriters: Brandon Camp, Mike Thompson; Music: Christopher Young; Editor: Dana E. Glauberman; Genre: Drama, Comedy, Romance; Cinematography: Eric Alan Edwards; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 109 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Burke (Aaron Eckhart) has just lost his wife and writes a self help book to cope with his own grief. During seminars, he helps people who lost their loved ones get over their pain and loneliness. But when alone in his room, he is a complete mess. When he holds a weekend seminar in Seattle, the place where his wife died, he meets Eloise (Jennifer Aniston) a florist who has no luck in finding her true love. As their friendship develops into something deeper, Burke begins to admit that he has not exactly been faithful to what he is preaching because of a secret surrounding his wife’s death. Eventually, Eloise helps him get over his grief and guilt and makes love happen for both of them.
In general Love Happens is technically above average and manages to bring out a happy sighs from the viewers when the end credits begin to roll. The storyline, though predictable, moves decently and the acting is adequate. Aniston and Eckhart make a believable pair. The music is endearing and does not exaggerate the feel-good-scenes. It is good but not memorable and few years from now, you cannot expect it to be in any list of must-see love stories.
There are a number of positive messages in the film. One, it celebrates life and teaches us to accept death. Love Happens illustrates hope as it follows a person goes through his sorrow and his learning to forgive himself and move on. Two, the film shows us how charity is an act when one stranger is willing to give more than he can afford so that another person may suffer less. The movie showcases several characters in their various degrees of sadness or pain while appreciating and people who help them overcome their grief.
Dear John
Cast: Channing Tatum, Amanda Seyfried, Richard Jenkins, Henry Thomas; Director: Lasse Hallstrom; Producers: Marty Bowen, Wyck Godfrey, Ryan Kavanaugh; Screenwriter: Jamie Linden; Music: Deborah Lurie; Editor: Kristina Boden; Genre: Drama, Romance, War; Cinematography: Terry Stacey; Distributor: Paramount Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 105 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
John (Channing Tatum), a soldier of the U.S. Army Special Forces is having a two week leave to be with Mr. Tyree (Richard Jenkins), his father who collects rare coins with a passion bordering on abnormality. Also on a spring break is Savannah Curtis (Amanda Seyfried), a young college student whose physical beauty matches her idealism. One fateful day on a South Carolina beach, John happens to be around when Savannah accidentally drops her purse by the pier and John skillfully retrieves it from the deep water. In the two glorious weeks that follow, the two new acquaintances fall madly in love, enjoy their short time together, even get to know each other’s family and neighbors. After the two week togetherness the two lovers vow to keep their love alive during John’s one year tour of duty by frequently writing each other. But 9/11 happens and John, the good soldier answers the call of duty and enlists again for deployment abroad. This time the separation is much longer. Until when can the two lovers endure the lengthy separativeness? Will the love letters suffice to keep the flame of love burning?
One familiar with Nicholas Spark’s novels or films based on these novels will most probably be conditioned to expect a bitter sweet ending to our current Dear John, another adaptation to the screen of the popular novelist’s work. And true enough, just like the favorite romances, his The Notebook and Message in a Bottle, the film Dear John has that twist almost at the end that makes the ending “not too happy nor too sad” and therefore bearing some similitude to life. A romance is hardly expected to be “realistic” in the sense that it cannot be grim and dead serious but the viewer may appreciate some semblance to life as in the logical development of this story and of its characters. Love, indeed, can be mentioned as among the “collateral damage” in a war. Then, love may not be extinguished but it can undergo a change. Very good photography has captured the beautiful sunshiny ambience surrounding happy young love as well as the grime, hardship and danger in the war scenes as depicted or sepia shades interspersed between the reading of the love letters. The lead characters are well cast. Pensive Channing Tatum with his beautifully chiseled body and Amanda Seyfried with her Rapunzel-like golden hair and expressive eyes are right for the roles which they do adequately well. There is not much depth to the characterization but we note Savannah’s compassionate nature as shown in her attitude towards the special child and John’s mildly autistic father. We also note the patriotic streak in John which impels him to answer his country’s call, a sacrifice that costs him dearly. Such character traits have a bearing on the outcome of the story. Director Lasse Hallstrom handles the story with a tender light touch so that the film acquires a quiet, somewhat lyrical, equality.
Dear John has many things going for it. It is technically good, for one. It has also some positive values. The lead character Savannah comes from a well to do family. But she is unlike other young rich girls her age, on vacation from college. True, she has time far fun but she also gives some attention to those less fortunate, like her autistic neighbor whom she teaches to ride a horse and with whom she spends time. She is idealistic and dreams of building a camp for needy children after graduation. She envisions a life not only of pleasure but also of giving. She probably understands John’s father better than John himself so that she mentions that he may be an undiagnosed mild case but needs understanding, nevertheless. John did not at first really understand his father with whom he could hardly communicate but he does spend some time with him. Autism is poignantly portrayed and the involved families have generously accepted the consequences of the “disability”. Another positive value portrayed is John’s readiness to respond to his country’s needs. However, in spite of the film’s technical excellence and other good points noted, the picture is rated below average because it is blighted by some negative values. Pre-marital sex can never be condoned. Aside from the sensuality, there is also some violence. Only mature viewers 14 years old and above should allowed to see this movie.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
John (Channing Tatum), a soldier of the U.S. Army Special Forces is having a two week leave to be with Mr. Tyree (Richard Jenkins), his father who collects rare coins with a passion bordering on abnormality. Also on a spring break is Savannah Curtis (Amanda Seyfried), a young college student whose physical beauty matches her idealism. One fateful day on a South Carolina beach, John happens to be around when Savannah accidentally drops her purse by the pier and John skillfully retrieves it from the deep water. In the two glorious weeks that follow, the two new acquaintances fall madly in love, enjoy their short time together, even get to know each other’s family and neighbors. After the two week togetherness the two lovers vow to keep their love alive during John’s one year tour of duty by frequently writing each other. But 9/11 happens and John, the good soldier answers the call of duty and enlists again for deployment abroad. This time the separation is much longer. Until when can the two lovers endure the lengthy separativeness? Will the love letters suffice to keep the flame of love burning?
One familiar with Nicholas Spark’s novels or films based on these novels will most probably be conditioned to expect a bitter sweet ending to our current Dear John, another adaptation to the screen of the popular novelist’s work. And true enough, just like the favorite romances, his The Notebook and Message in a Bottle, the film Dear John has that twist almost at the end that makes the ending “not too happy nor too sad” and therefore bearing some similitude to life. A romance is hardly expected to be “realistic” in the sense that it cannot be grim and dead serious but the viewer may appreciate some semblance to life as in the logical development of this story and of its characters. Love, indeed, can be mentioned as among the “collateral damage” in a war. Then, love may not be extinguished but it can undergo a change. Very good photography has captured the beautiful sunshiny ambience surrounding happy young love as well as the grime, hardship and danger in the war scenes as depicted or sepia shades interspersed between the reading of the love letters. The lead characters are well cast. Pensive Channing Tatum with his beautifully chiseled body and Amanda Seyfried with her Rapunzel-like golden hair and expressive eyes are right for the roles which they do adequately well. There is not much depth to the characterization but we note Savannah’s compassionate nature as shown in her attitude towards the special child and John’s mildly autistic father. We also note the patriotic streak in John which impels him to answer his country’s call, a sacrifice that costs him dearly. Such character traits have a bearing on the outcome of the story. Director Lasse Hallstrom handles the story with a tender light touch so that the film acquires a quiet, somewhat lyrical, equality.
Dear John has many things going for it. It is technically good, for one. It has also some positive values. The lead character Savannah comes from a well to do family. But she is unlike other young rich girls her age, on vacation from college. True, she has time far fun but she also gives some attention to those less fortunate, like her autistic neighbor whom she teaches to ride a horse and with whom she spends time. She is idealistic and dreams of building a camp for needy children after graduation. She envisions a life not only of pleasure but also of giving. She probably understands John’s father better than John himself so that she mentions that he may be an undiagnosed mild case but needs understanding, nevertheless. John did not at first really understand his father with whom he could hardly communicate but he does spend some time with him. Autism is poignantly portrayed and the involved families have generously accepted the consequences of the “disability”. Another positive value portrayed is John’s readiness to respond to his country’s needs. However, in spite of the film’s technical excellence and other good points noted, the picture is rated below average because it is blighted by some negative values. Pre-marital sex can never be condoned. Aside from the sensuality, there is also some violence. Only mature viewers 14 years old and above should allowed to see this movie.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Did You Hear About Morgans?
Cast: Hugh Grant, Meryl Jessica Parker, Sam Elliott, Mary Steenburgen; Director: Marc Lawrence; Producers: Martin Shafer, Liz Glotzer; Screenwriter: Marc Lawrence; Music: Theodore Shapiro; Editor: Susan E. Morse; Genre: Drama; Cinematography: Florian Ballhaus; Distributor: Sony Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 123 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
High profile and successful Manhattan couple, Meryl (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Paul Morgan (Hugh Grant) have almost everything going for them except their failing marriage caused by Paul’s infidelity and Meryl’s suspected infertility. Meryl has been living alone in her apartment and Paul has been staying in a hotel for three months already. But when they witness a murder and become a target of a professional killer, they will have no choice but to come to terms that they will live together again under one roof. The FBI’s witness protection program takes them away from New York to a tiny town in Ray, Wyoming. There, they will experience a totally different life together away from the city, with Paul trying very hard to rekindle their old romance. Will Meryl finally give in?
The premise, though pretty interesting, remains to be the usual Hollywood mainstream. The film has lots of strengths and acting is one of them. Parker fits the role of a materialistic city girl perfectly and Grant is as convincing although quite predictable. There are still some stereotypical portrayals present in the story like the typical New Yorkers and country folks but the story does not dwell on too much of these so the entire picture comes out as refreshing. The suspense part is a bit slow and does not really build into a climax and the romance lacks certain sparkle. But the Parker-Grant tandem provides some sort of depth and maturity in the romance so they are able to pull it off. The focus on the marital issues comes out effectively and it is this part of the movie where the audience is tickled. The laughs are good enough and do not undermine the audience’s intellect.
Marital problems and issues abound the fast-paced city lifestyle so the film’s theme will always be timely and relevant. There are two distinct characters in the story and their differences are really apparent. Issues of infidelity, communication differences, personality differences, and even infertility are discussed in the film head-on. Infidelity is a mistake in any relationship and the movie tells the audience just as that. No justification. No compromise. It is wrong and will always be wrong in the eyes of men and in the eyes God. But then, the film also recognizes the value of forgiveness. It is in forgiving one another that a couple stays together in marriage. It is also in forgiveness that they are able to fully fulfill their marriage vows. However, as shown in the movie, forgiveness is not given easily unless there is sincere contrition on the part of the offender. Paul has to say sorry so many times but the words meant nothing until Meryl felt the sincerity. When the Morgans lived in the tiny town of Wyoming, they are able to appreciate one another - both their similarities and differences. Once they have been away from the busy and materialistic city lifestyle, they are able to communicate like they have never done before. And finally, the Morgans are able to realize life’s essentials – relationships. More than the wealth and status, it is their marriage—their family, that is worth keeping and worth saving.
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
High profile and successful Manhattan couple, Meryl (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Paul Morgan (Hugh Grant) have almost everything going for them except their failing marriage caused by Paul’s infidelity and Meryl’s suspected infertility. Meryl has been living alone in her apartment and Paul has been staying in a hotel for three months already. But when they witness a murder and become a target of a professional killer, they will have no choice but to come to terms that they will live together again under one roof. The FBI’s witness protection program takes them away from New York to a tiny town in Ray, Wyoming. There, they will experience a totally different life together away from the city, with Paul trying very hard to rekindle their old romance. Will Meryl finally give in?
The premise, though pretty interesting, remains to be the usual Hollywood mainstream. The film has lots of strengths and acting is one of them. Parker fits the role of a materialistic city girl perfectly and Grant is as convincing although quite predictable. There are still some stereotypical portrayals present in the story like the typical New Yorkers and country folks but the story does not dwell on too much of these so the entire picture comes out as refreshing. The suspense part is a bit slow and does not really build into a climax and the romance lacks certain sparkle. But the Parker-Grant tandem provides some sort of depth and maturity in the romance so they are able to pull it off. The focus on the marital issues comes out effectively and it is this part of the movie where the audience is tickled. The laughs are good enough and do not undermine the audience’s intellect.
Marital problems and issues abound the fast-paced city lifestyle so the film’s theme will always be timely and relevant. There are two distinct characters in the story and their differences are really apparent. Issues of infidelity, communication differences, personality differences, and even infertility are discussed in the film head-on. Infidelity is a mistake in any relationship and the movie tells the audience just as that. No justification. No compromise. It is wrong and will always be wrong in the eyes of men and in the eyes God. But then, the film also recognizes the value of forgiveness. It is in forgiving one another that a couple stays together in marriage. It is also in forgiveness that they are able to fully fulfill their marriage vows. However, as shown in the movie, forgiveness is not given easily unless there is sincere contrition on the part of the offender. Paul has to say sorry so many times but the words meant nothing until Meryl felt the sincerity. When the Morgans lived in the tiny town of Wyoming, they are able to appreciate one another - both their similarities and differences. Once they have been away from the busy and materialistic city lifestyle, they are able to communicate like they have never done before. And finally, the Morgans are able to realize life’s essentials – relationships. More than the wealth and status, it is their marriage—their family, that is worth keeping and worth saving.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Where the Wild Things Are
Cast: Max Records, Catherin Keener, Mark Ruffalo, Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper, Paul Dano, James Gandolfini; Director: Spike Jonze; Producers: Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman, Maurice Sendak; Screenwriters: Spike Jonze, Dace Egger; Music: Karen O Carter Burwell; Editor: Eric Zumbrunnen; Genre: Animation, Fantasy; Cinematography: Lance Acord; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Running Time: 101 min.;
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
The movie is an adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s 1963 award winning children’s book. It stars 9 year-old Max (Max Records), a boy with a very active imagination and bad temper. He constantly throws tantrums when things don’t go his way. When his divorced mother, Connie (Catherine Keener), yells at him for acting out during dinner with her boyfriend, Max runs away in the middle of the night and stumbles into an island inhabited by six large monster-like creatures. When the giant creatures are about to eat him, Max tells them he is actually a king with magical powers and that he can unite their group. For a time, Max is able to impose his rules and bond Carol (James Gandolfini) and KW (Lauren Ambrose). However, when Alexander (Paul Dano) gets hurt during a fight between the “good guys” and the “bad guys”, as Max suggested, settling another issue among the group, his secret is exposed and he decides to come home.
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is a poignant movie about childhood and the inner struggles of a child. The director’s vision and interpretation is beautiful, stunning and painfully truthful despite the animations and puppetry. The story is symbolic but clear while Records portrays his character very well. The production has tenderly captured Max’s struggle as shown by his unruly exterior and his lonely inner self and creatively presented the conflicts a young boy undergoes. The giant creatures capture an aspect of Max’s personality and life and show how children manage to be alternately creative and destructive as the same time. The technical side of the film is outstanding, with a moving musical score, spectacular cinematography and imaginative CGI’s.
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE shows selfishness and selflessness, creativity and destruction, temper and patience, acceptance and maturity through the eyes and mind of a 9 year old. More importantly, it emphasizes the value of home and family as Max travels in his mind to his make-believe world of carefree monsters, at the end of the day, he chooses to return home to his family.
The authors of the film have emphasized that this is a movie about childhood and not necessarily for children, but with six adorable creatures interacting with a child protagonist, most children with be enticed to watch this as well. It is important that parents understand the movie and consciously decide if they can afford to allow them to watch this.
On the one hand, the movie may be too dark for some children. There is a certain melancholy in the film that might disturb very young audiences. Parents should be prepared to guide and explain the destructive behaviors expressed every now and then. On the other hand, as soon as parents are ready to deal with issues that may arise, it is a must see movie to explain friendship, inner struggles and discipline to young children.
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
The movie is an adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s 1963 award winning children’s book. It stars 9 year-old Max (Max Records), a boy with a very active imagination and bad temper. He constantly throws tantrums when things don’t go his way. When his divorced mother, Connie (Catherine Keener), yells at him for acting out during dinner with her boyfriend, Max runs away in the middle of the night and stumbles into an island inhabited by six large monster-like creatures. When the giant creatures are about to eat him, Max tells them he is actually a king with magical powers and that he can unite their group. For a time, Max is able to impose his rules and bond Carol (James Gandolfini) and KW (Lauren Ambrose). However, when Alexander (Paul Dano) gets hurt during a fight between the “good guys” and the “bad guys”, as Max suggested, settling another issue among the group, his secret is exposed and he decides to come home.
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is a poignant movie about childhood and the inner struggles of a child. The director’s vision and interpretation is beautiful, stunning and painfully truthful despite the animations and puppetry. The story is symbolic but clear while Records portrays his character very well. The production has tenderly captured Max’s struggle as shown by his unruly exterior and his lonely inner self and creatively presented the conflicts a young boy undergoes. The giant creatures capture an aspect of Max’s personality and life and show how children manage to be alternately creative and destructive as the same time. The technical side of the film is outstanding, with a moving musical score, spectacular cinematography and imaginative CGI’s.
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE shows selfishness and selflessness, creativity and destruction, temper and patience, acceptance and maturity through the eyes and mind of a 9 year old. More importantly, it emphasizes the value of home and family as Max travels in his mind to his make-believe world of carefree monsters, at the end of the day, he chooses to return home to his family.
The authors of the film have emphasized that this is a movie about childhood and not necessarily for children, but with six adorable creatures interacting with a child protagonist, most children with be enticed to watch this as well. It is important that parents understand the movie and consciously decide if they can afford to allow them to watch this.
On the one hand, the movie may be too dark for some children. There is a certain melancholy in the film that might disturb very young audiences. Parents should be prepared to guide and explain the destructive behaviors expressed every now and then. On the other hand, as soon as parents are ready to deal with issues that may arise, it is a must see movie to explain friendship, inner struggles and discipline to young children.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Princess and the Frog
Cast: Anika Noni Rose, John Goodman, Keith David, Jim Cummings; Director: John Musker, Ron Clements; Producer: Peter Del Vecho; Screenwriters: Ron Clements, John Musker; Music: Randy Newman; Editor: Jeff Draheim; Genre: Animated/Children; Distributor: Walt Disney; Location: USA; Running Time: 96 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
Walt Disney Animation Studios presents the musical THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG, an animated comedy set in the great city of New Orleans. From the creators of “the Little Mermaid” and “Aladdin” comes a modern classic tale, featuring a beautiful girl named Tiana (Anika Noni Rose), a frog prince who desperately wants to be human again, and a fateful kiss that leads them both on a hilarious adventure through the mystical bayous of Louisiana.
THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG marks the return to hand-drawn animation form the revered team of John Musker and Ron Clements, with music by Oscar-winning composer Randy Newman. (Walt Disney)
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
Walt Disney Animation Studios presents the musical THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG, an animated comedy set in the great city of New Orleans. From the creators of “the Little Mermaid” and “Aladdin” comes a modern classic tale, featuring a beautiful girl named Tiana (Anika Noni Rose), a frog prince who desperately wants to be human again, and a fateful kiss that leads them both on a hilarious adventure through the mystical bayous of Louisiana.
THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG marks the return to hand-drawn animation form the revered team of John Musker and Ron Clements, with music by Oscar-winning composer Randy Newman. (Walt Disney)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)