Cast: Miley Cyrus, Greg Kinnear, Kelly Preston, Bobby Coleman; Director: Julie Anne Robinson; Producers: Jennifer Gibgot, Adam Shankman; Screenwriters; Nicholas Sparks, Jeff Van Wie; Music: Aaron Zigman; Editor: Nancy Richardson; Genre: Drama/ Romance: Cinematography: John Lindley; Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures; Location: Georgia, USA; Running Time: 110 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Ronnie (Miley Cyrus) blames her dad for her parents’ divorce. When her mother Kim (Kelly Preston) takes her and her kid brother Jonah (Bobby Coleman) for a summer with their father Steve (Greg Kinnear) in his beach town home on Tybee Island, Georgia, Ronnie doesn’t hide her disgust for her father. She snaps at her father at every turn, spurning his hospitality and kindness, while Jonah, who enjoys a loving relationship with his dad, pleads with her to at least be civil to the estranged father. In spite of his daughter’s boorish ways, Steve—a retired concert pianist who’s now busy making a work of art for the local church—keeps his calm and perseveres as a compassionate father. Ronnie avoids her dad by escaping to the beach, and here’s where she meets hunky Will (Liam Hemsworth), who’s tall, blonde and blue-eyed but fails to attract Ronnie.
If there’s one outstanding feature in this movie, it is the remarkable sincerity in the lead characters’ acting. It is both demanded and generated by the solid story which may be cutesy t first glance but is, on second thought, substantial. Cyrus is in her element playing the alienated daughter, refusing a Juilliard scholarship, remaining hostile to men, raring to be friendless for life. But she’s equally convincing after her character’s conversion—tending a sick parent and unaffectedly sparkling with all the goodness a 17-year-old can muster. Coleman stands toe to toe with the other lead actors, while Hemsworth emotes especially in the intimate close shots as though there were no cameras around him. Lastly, Kinnear’s portrayal of the anguished father would have you believe he has in real life been through such an ordeal. Last Song has strong characters done justice by soulful performances. It is this synergy among Last Song’s lead players that makes the movie memorable.
There are scenes in Last Song that clearly show how far a father’s love can go to protect his daughter from harm: one of them is when Ronnie and Will are keeping vigil over the turtle eggs. A discovery late in the movie showing the reason the reclusive father passionately devotes himself to creating a centerpiece for the church also perfects his persona as a just man.
Last Song is a graphic demonstration of the damage divorce can do to children, and of the triumph of the human spirit in healing the wounds it inflicts upon the soul. It is not just about a pair of intelligent young persons falling in love, although it is an important ingredient in the story; Last Song is really about a father and a daughter split apart by divorce but gradually drawn back to each other through pain, repentance and forgiveness.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
The Bounty Hunter
Cast: Jennifer Aniston, Gerard Butler, Gio Perez, Joel Garland; Director: Andy Tennant; Producer: Neal H. Moritz; Screenwriter: Sarah Thorp; Music: George Fenton; Editor: Troy Takaki; Genre: Romance: Cinematography: Oliver Bokelberg; Distributor: Columbia Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 106 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Milo (Gerard Butler) is an ex-cop turned bounty hunter who spends his days chasing losers who skip bail and nights being a loser who gets too drunk to wake up the next day. Nicole (Jennifer Aniston) is a dedicated reporter chasing a high profile murder story. They have been married once and divorced after 9 months of irreconcilable differences and now passionately hate each other. Their paths cross when Milo is assigned to arrest his ex-wife after she fails to appear in court in order to pursue her story. Unfortunately, Nicole treads dangerous waters as she uncovers corruption and deception within the police and Milo gets into trouble with his gambling and creditors. The story moves on amidst the couple’s hatred, the bad guys chasing them, Nicole’s determination to get her story and Milo’s desire to get even with his wife for breaking his heart.
One word comes to mind after the first quarter of the movie ... predictable. Audience already know by that time that Milo and Nicole will try to outwit each other until they get back together, that the bad guys will be able to corner them but end up in jail and that the movie will try its best to be funny and memorable but fail to do so. The scoring is cute and choices of songs appropriately capture that comedy of each scene. The pacing is enhanced by vibrant camera works and quick editing. The performances are respectable with a good chemistry between Aniston and Butler. However, all these do not make up for the weak storyline and even weaker development. This might not be the best choice for a feel good romantic movie.
Marriages work only when couple are willing to accept each other’s weaknesses and shortcomings on the one hand, and are ready to admit their own faults and mistakes on the other. Walking out of the marriage is not the solution. Instead, couple should always have the desire and exert effort to work around the differences and focus on the love. Amidst, the chasing and the bickering, the movie wants the audience to realize that when love is real and true, it cannot be easily extinguished by personality clashes or distance. And if only husbands and wives become less self-absorbed and more humble, their love for each other will always prevail. The movie is better suited for older audiences because of its theme, language and some sexual innuendos. (PMF)
You To Me Are Everything
Cast: Marian Rivera, Dingdong Dantes, Jacklyn Jose, Isabel Oli; Director: Mark Reyes; Genre: Romance/ Comedy: Distributor: GMA Films; Location: Manila/ Benguet; Running Time: 100 mins;
Technical Assessment: 1.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Si Francisca o Iska (Marian Rivera) ay isang Igorota na nagbebenta ng strawberry jam. Magbabago ang takbo ng kanyang buhay nang malaman niyang siya’y pinamanahan ng malaking yaman, mga negosyo at ari-arian ng nasirang ama na hindi niya nakilala. Si Raphael (Dingdong Dantes) naman ay kabaligtaran ang kapalaran. Ang dati niyang yaman ay nawala lahat sa kanya nang makulong sa salang pangdarambong ang kanyang pulitikong ama. Sa isang kakatwang sitwasyon ay magtatagpo ang landas nila Iska at Raphael. Dahil baguhan sa kanyang mundo, maiisipan ni Iska na kunin ang serbisyo ni Raphael upang matulungan siya sa kanyang mga transaksiyon at mga magiging desisyon. Papayag naman si Raphael at maiisip niyang si Iska ang paraan upang maibalik sa dati ang marangya niyang buhay. Ngunit unti-unti ay mahuhulog ang loob nila sa isa’t-isa. Paano kung malaman ni Iska na ginagamit lamang siya ni Raphael?
Isang malaking pag-aaksaya ng panahon ang panonood ng pelikulang ito. Walang bago sa kuwento. Gasgas na at pawang makaluma lahat ng sitwasyon pati na ang dayalogo. Walang anumang aabangan sa kuwento sapagkat walang mabigat na problema ang mga pangunahing tauhan. Walang lalim at walang kurot sa puso. Ninanis man nitong mang-aliw at magpatawa, hindi pa rin naging epektibo dahil pawang pilit ang lahat ng ito. Maging ang pag-arte ng mga tauhan ay malamlam at walang bigat. Nasayang ang magandang chemistry nila Rivera at Dantes na nakapag-bigay naman ng mangilan-ngilang kilig. Sa kabuuan, walang anumang aspeto ang nagsalba sa pelikula. Maging ang magagandang tanawin ay hindi rin gaanong nabigyang halaga. Sayang at nakaka-angat na sana ang pelikulang Pilipino lalo na pagdating sa drama at komedya ngunit pawang nag-aksaya lamang ng pagod ang mga may-gawa ng You To Me Are Everything at wala silang nasa isip kundi ang kumita ng pera sa pelikulang ito. Maging yan, marahil ay nabigo sila dahil kuwento na ang hinahanap ng manonood at hindi lang basta mababaw na kilig.
Sinasadya man o hindi, naging mapanlait ang pelikula sa kabuuan. Mapanlait sa kultura at kalinangang Igorot na wala naman silang malinaw at malalim na basehan. Ipinakita nilang pawang mga mangmang at taga-bundok lamang ang mga kapatid nating ito. Hindi nabigyan ng katarungan hanggang sa katapusan ng kuwento ang paksang ito dahil ang karakter ni Iska ay sumuko at nagpaubaya na lamang. Nakakabahala ang kahinaang ito na ipinakita sa pelikula. Sa kabilang banda, nais namang sabihin ng pelikula na hindi ang yaman ang mahalaga sa buhay kundi pag-ibig. Maganda ang pagpapahalagang ito sapagkat sa mundo ngayon na naging malabis nang materyoso, nararapat pa ring ipaalala sa mga kabataan ang higit na mahahalaga sa buhay – ang pamilya at pag-ibig. Dalisay ang karakter ni Iska na hindi nasilaw at hindi binago ng salapi. Isang magandang halimbawa. Nanatili ring konserbatibo at positibo ang kanyang pananaw sa buhay sa kabila ng maraming tukso sa kanyang paligid.
Technical Assessment: 1.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Si Francisca o Iska (Marian Rivera) ay isang Igorota na nagbebenta ng strawberry jam. Magbabago ang takbo ng kanyang buhay nang malaman niyang siya’y pinamanahan ng malaking yaman, mga negosyo at ari-arian ng nasirang ama na hindi niya nakilala. Si Raphael (Dingdong Dantes) naman ay kabaligtaran ang kapalaran. Ang dati niyang yaman ay nawala lahat sa kanya nang makulong sa salang pangdarambong ang kanyang pulitikong ama. Sa isang kakatwang sitwasyon ay magtatagpo ang landas nila Iska at Raphael. Dahil baguhan sa kanyang mundo, maiisipan ni Iska na kunin ang serbisyo ni Raphael upang matulungan siya sa kanyang mga transaksiyon at mga magiging desisyon. Papayag naman si Raphael at maiisip niyang si Iska ang paraan upang maibalik sa dati ang marangya niyang buhay. Ngunit unti-unti ay mahuhulog ang loob nila sa isa’t-isa. Paano kung malaman ni Iska na ginagamit lamang siya ni Raphael?
Isang malaking pag-aaksaya ng panahon ang panonood ng pelikulang ito. Walang bago sa kuwento. Gasgas na at pawang makaluma lahat ng sitwasyon pati na ang dayalogo. Walang anumang aabangan sa kuwento sapagkat walang mabigat na problema ang mga pangunahing tauhan. Walang lalim at walang kurot sa puso. Ninanis man nitong mang-aliw at magpatawa, hindi pa rin naging epektibo dahil pawang pilit ang lahat ng ito. Maging ang pag-arte ng mga tauhan ay malamlam at walang bigat. Nasayang ang magandang chemistry nila Rivera at Dantes na nakapag-bigay naman ng mangilan-ngilang kilig. Sa kabuuan, walang anumang aspeto ang nagsalba sa pelikula. Maging ang magagandang tanawin ay hindi rin gaanong nabigyang halaga. Sayang at nakaka-angat na sana ang pelikulang Pilipino lalo na pagdating sa drama at komedya ngunit pawang nag-aksaya lamang ng pagod ang mga may-gawa ng You To Me Are Everything at wala silang nasa isip kundi ang kumita ng pera sa pelikulang ito. Maging yan, marahil ay nabigo sila dahil kuwento na ang hinahanap ng manonood at hindi lang basta mababaw na kilig.
Sinasadya man o hindi, naging mapanlait ang pelikula sa kabuuan. Mapanlait sa kultura at kalinangang Igorot na wala naman silang malinaw at malalim na basehan. Ipinakita nilang pawang mga mangmang at taga-bundok lamang ang mga kapatid nating ito. Hindi nabigyan ng katarungan hanggang sa katapusan ng kuwento ang paksang ito dahil ang karakter ni Iska ay sumuko at nagpaubaya na lamang. Nakakabahala ang kahinaang ito na ipinakita sa pelikula. Sa kabilang banda, nais namang sabihin ng pelikula na hindi ang yaman ang mahalaga sa buhay kundi pag-ibig. Maganda ang pagpapahalagang ito sapagkat sa mundo ngayon na naging malabis nang materyoso, nararapat pa ring ipaalala sa mga kabataan ang higit na mahahalaga sa buhay – ang pamilya at pag-ibig. Dalisay ang karakter ni Iska na hindi nasilaw at hindi binago ng salapi. Isang magandang halimbawa. Nanatili ring konserbatibo at positibo ang kanyang pananaw sa buhay sa kabila ng maraming tukso sa kanyang paligid.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Iron Man 2
Cast: Robert Downey, Jr., Sam Rockwell, Gwyneth Paltrow, Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johanson, Samuel Jackson; Director: Jon Favreau; Producer: Kevin Feige; Screenwriter: Justin Theroux; Music: John Debney; Editor: Dan Lebental, Richard Pearson; Genre: Action: Cinematography: Matthew Libatique; Distributor: Paramount Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 120 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr) is having the time of his life. Six months after he revealed himself as Iron Man, this billionaire industrialist credits himself for what is known to be an era of world peace. Stark is focused on rebuilding his father's version of the World's Fair, the Stark Expo and everything seems to be going for him. However, the government pressures him to turn-over his Iron Man technology, and Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), a rival weapons venture capitalist, poses a big threat. Meanwhile, unknown to Stark, a Russian scientist, Ivan Vanko a.k.a. Whiplash (Mickey Rourke) is about to destroy him to avenge for an old family grudge. Hammer eventually collaborates with Vanko and finances his technology to further put down both Stark's business empire and Iron Man. Worse of all, Stark discovers the very technology that powers his heart and his Iron Man suit (the palladium, the substance inside the Ark Reactor) is slowly killing him.
This second franchise of a mega-blockbuster could be the most anticipated film of the year. Iron Man 2 has maintained its charm with Robert Downey, Jr. still in the lead. Downey delivers the Iron Man combination of wit and mischief. Audiences may have flocked the theaters for the film's special effects and fight scenes but the real treasure of the movie lies on the simple, talking scenes with the actors solidly interacting with crisp dialogue. Rockwell delivers a solid performance that almost overshadowed Downey's and Rourke's super villain's role comes out strong and believable. On one hand, some would find Iron Man 2 as a bit talky than the original but then, this sets the film apart from the other movies of the same genre. Although the plot of this second franchise is a lot busier and could be considered convoluted, the genius of the story about a mortal super hero is still there.
Iron Man 2 is about a super hero who has to deal with his own mortality. Unlike other super heroes whose power comes from supernatural forces, Iron Man relies on a man-made technology that celebrates the intelligence of humanity. Iron Man is the epitome of modern-day superhero that epitomizes a combination of super strength and human weakness. The irony of it all is that the very technology that made him super human is the same technology that confirms he is only human. Stark's self-destructive reaction to this realization could be a bit disturbing but the intention, which is to show his human side, is clear. It is also understandable that he questions his worth for he felt unloved and unappreciated by his father. Until he rediscovers how much his father actually loved and appreciated him, he is able to redeem himself once again. Thus, saving the entire world from the evil threats of greed and vengeance in the process. There may be some level of violence in the movie, although without blood and gore, so parents are advised to guide their children while watching.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr) is having the time of his life. Six months after he revealed himself as Iron Man, this billionaire industrialist credits himself for what is known to be an era of world peace. Stark is focused on rebuilding his father's version of the World's Fair, the Stark Expo and everything seems to be going for him. However, the government pressures him to turn-over his Iron Man technology, and Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), a rival weapons venture capitalist, poses a big threat. Meanwhile, unknown to Stark, a Russian scientist, Ivan Vanko a.k.a. Whiplash (Mickey Rourke) is about to destroy him to avenge for an old family grudge. Hammer eventually collaborates with Vanko and finances his technology to further put down both Stark's business empire and Iron Man. Worse of all, Stark discovers the very technology that powers his heart and his Iron Man suit (the palladium, the substance inside the Ark Reactor) is slowly killing him.
This second franchise of a mega-blockbuster could be the most anticipated film of the year. Iron Man 2 has maintained its charm with Robert Downey, Jr. still in the lead. Downey delivers the Iron Man combination of wit and mischief. Audiences may have flocked the theaters for the film's special effects and fight scenes but the real treasure of the movie lies on the simple, talking scenes with the actors solidly interacting with crisp dialogue. Rockwell delivers a solid performance that almost overshadowed Downey's and Rourke's super villain's role comes out strong and believable. On one hand, some would find Iron Man 2 as a bit talky than the original but then, this sets the film apart from the other movies of the same genre. Although the plot of this second franchise is a lot busier and could be considered convoluted, the genius of the story about a mortal super hero is still there.
Iron Man 2 is about a super hero who has to deal with his own mortality. Unlike other super heroes whose power comes from supernatural forces, Iron Man relies on a man-made technology that celebrates the intelligence of humanity. Iron Man is the epitome of modern-day superhero that epitomizes a combination of super strength and human weakness. The irony of it all is that the very technology that made him super human is the same technology that confirms he is only human. Stark's self-destructive reaction to this realization could be a bit disturbing but the intention, which is to show his human side, is clear. It is also understandable that he questions his worth for he felt unloved and unappreciated by his father. Until he rediscovers how much his father actually loved and appreciated him, he is able to redeem himself once again. Thus, saving the entire world from the evil threats of greed and vengeance in the process. There may be some level of violence in the movie, although without blood and gore, so parents are advised to guide their children while watching.
Friday, April 30, 2010
The Back-Up Plan
Cast: Jennifer Lopez, Alex O’Loughlin, Michaela Watkins, Eric Christian Olsen; Director: Alan Poul; Producers: Jason Blumenthal, Steve Tisch; Screenwriter: Kate Angelo; Music: Stephen Trask; Editor: Priscilla Nedd-Friendly; Genre: Comedy/ Romance: Cinematography: Xavier Perez Grobet; Distributor: CBS Films; Location: New York, USA; Running Time; 106 mins;
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
In romantic comedy The Back-up Plan, pet shop owner Zoe (Jennifer Lopez) is getting on in years and getting tired of waiting for Mr. Right but wants motherhood now. So she gets herself pregnant in vitro although she is not interested in the identity of the sperm donor, a redhead according to her doctor (Robert Klein). Just minutes after she gets artificially inseminated, Zoe meets Stan (Alex O’Loughlin) inside a cab. They bicker over whose cab it is and eventually part ways. Days later Zoe spots the guy at a high end street market, selling cheese. Stan starts pursuit; Zoe, though attracted to Stan, holds back especially when she learns she is pregnant. A couple of dates later, Stan invites Zoe to a weekend in the farm. As it turns out, Stan owns the farm—The Little Goat Farm where he makes the cheeses he sells—and it is not little at all. After a roll in the hay, Zoe confesses to her condition, and a disappointed Stan turns away.
Despite its great-looking lead actors and a story that might appeal to so-called “liberated” women, this romantic comedy wants in romance. No chemistry whatsoever between Lopez and O’Loughlin. Their interaction is so mechanical that the viewer—instead of getting carried away by a supposedly searing and endearing love story—remains unmoved as he quips, “Is that it?” And as far as comedy goes, call this predictable, relying on poop and genital humor and pathetically spoofing childbirth. That particularly dreadful scene where a single mother raises hell through a water birth is not only not funny, it is even vulgar.
While on the surface The Back-up Plan may elicit laughter from indiscriminating viewers, the movie actually reflects a dangerously distorted view of parenthood, undermining the Church’s teachings on the need to maintain the link between the unitive and procreative aspects of married love. It says that a woman can choose to be a mother without benefit of coitus with a man she is married to. While science has so advanced as to make such a situation possible, viewers must be spurred to examine the morality of such a decision. Must a woman be so impatient for motherhood that it’s all right to buy sperms to get pregnant? A woman can be impregnated, in exactly the same way as a cow, but what are its implications on the future relationship between her and her child? Why want a baby and then deprive it of its natural father’s presence, nurture and affection? By presenting childbirth as a grossly laughable experience, and then giving the movie a happy ending, The Back-up Plan just might succeed in making teen girls dread childbirth while deluding them into thinking they can go ahead and get impregnated like a cow and hope to find a rich gentleman farmer with soulful eyes who’ll love them forever and ever no matter what.
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
In romantic comedy The Back-up Plan, pet shop owner Zoe (Jennifer Lopez) is getting on in years and getting tired of waiting for Mr. Right but wants motherhood now. So she gets herself pregnant in vitro although she is not interested in the identity of the sperm donor, a redhead according to her doctor (Robert Klein). Just minutes after she gets artificially inseminated, Zoe meets Stan (Alex O’Loughlin) inside a cab. They bicker over whose cab it is and eventually part ways. Days later Zoe spots the guy at a high end street market, selling cheese. Stan starts pursuit; Zoe, though attracted to Stan, holds back especially when she learns she is pregnant. A couple of dates later, Stan invites Zoe to a weekend in the farm. As it turns out, Stan owns the farm—The Little Goat Farm where he makes the cheeses he sells—and it is not little at all. After a roll in the hay, Zoe confesses to her condition, and a disappointed Stan turns away.
Despite its great-looking lead actors and a story that might appeal to so-called “liberated” women, this romantic comedy wants in romance. No chemistry whatsoever between Lopez and O’Loughlin. Their interaction is so mechanical that the viewer—instead of getting carried away by a supposedly searing and endearing love story—remains unmoved as he quips, “Is that it?” And as far as comedy goes, call this predictable, relying on poop and genital humor and pathetically spoofing childbirth. That particularly dreadful scene where a single mother raises hell through a water birth is not only not funny, it is even vulgar.
While on the surface The Back-up Plan may elicit laughter from indiscriminating viewers, the movie actually reflects a dangerously distorted view of parenthood, undermining the Church’s teachings on the need to maintain the link between the unitive and procreative aspects of married love. It says that a woman can choose to be a mother without benefit of coitus with a man she is married to. While science has so advanced as to make such a situation possible, viewers must be spurred to examine the morality of such a decision. Must a woman be so impatient for motherhood that it’s all right to buy sperms to get pregnant? A woman can be impregnated, in exactly the same way as a cow, but what are its implications on the future relationship between her and her child? Why want a baby and then deprive it of its natural father’s presence, nurture and affection? By presenting childbirth as a grossly laughable experience, and then giving the movie a happy ending, The Back-up Plan just might succeed in making teen girls dread childbirth while deluding them into thinking they can go ahead and get impregnated like a cow and hope to find a rich gentleman farmer with soulful eyes who’ll love them forever and ever no matter what.
Losers
"ASSESSMENT ONLY"
Cast: Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Chris Evans, Idris Elba; Director: Sylvain White; Producers: Kerry Foster, Akiva Goldsman, Joel Silver; Screenwriters: Peter Berg, James Vanderbilt; Music: John Ottman; Editor: David Checel; Genre: Detective/ Action: Cinematography: Scott Kevan; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: South America/ USA/ India; Running Time: 95 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
BRIEF SYPNOSIS
The government is able to catch an evil wealthy person with the help of a woman
Cast: Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Chris Evans, Idris Elba; Director: Sylvain White; Producers: Kerry Foster, Akiva Goldsman, Joel Silver; Screenwriters: Peter Berg, James Vanderbilt; Music: John Ottman; Editor: David Checel; Genre: Detective/ Action: Cinematography: Scott Kevan; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: South America/ USA/ India; Running Time: 95 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
BRIEF SYPNOSIS
The government is able to catch an evil wealthy person with the help of a woman
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Kick-Ass
Cast: Aaron Johnson, Nicolas Cage, Chloe Moretz, Christopher Mintz Plasse, Mark Strong, Michael Rispoli; Director: Matthew Vaughn; Producers: Adam Bohling, Tarquin Pack, Brad Pitt, David Reid, Kris Thykier, Matthew Vaughn; Screenwriters: Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughn; Music: Marius De Vries, Ilan Eshkeri, Henry Jackman, John Murphy; Editor: Eddie Hamilton, Jon Harris, Pietro Scalia; Genre: Action/ Crime Sotory: Cinematography: Ben Davis; Distributor: Lionsgate; Location: USA; Running Time: 117 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is an unnoticed lackluster high school student much addicted to comics. He dreams of becoming a superhero and calls himself “Kick- Ass”, though he has no superpowers, no special training or skills. He dons a superhero costume and patrols some seedy neighbourhoods where he prevents thieves from plying their trade and gets beaten and stabbed instead. Meanwhile Damon (Nicolas Cage), a cop who was framed and imprisoned through the machinations of Frank d’ Amico (Mark Strong), the crime czar, has been released from prison and has been preparing to eliminate organized crime and evil. After building an arms arsenal and training his eleven-year old daughter Mindy in martial arts and the use of weapons, Damon now assumes the identity of the superhero “Big Daddy” and Mindy is called “Hit Girl”. The duo become a deadly fighting machine hitting the crime empire of Frank d’ Amico. To catch the superheroes, including “Kick-Ass”, who has earned some fame through the help of “Big Daddy” and “Hit Girl”, Frank’s young son Chris (Christopher Mintz Plasse) takes on the identity of ‘Red Mist”, a self proclaimed superhero. “Red Mist” sees “Kick-Ass” in costume and befriends him, being a fellow superhero. How will the “superheroes” and anti-hero fare in the end?
Kick-Ass is the latest screen adaption of a comic book written by Mark Millar and John S. Ramita, Jr. Said to be a faithful reproduction of the comic book, the movie is fully packed with action and brutal violence to the nth degree. As in most action pictures, there is not much of a story or plot. The narrative line is there to hang the actions on. The photography captures efficiently the guts and gore in the well orchestrated fight scenes. At the start, when ‘Kick-Ass” begins narrating the story of his life, everything seems quiet and uneventful. But soon the tension mounts with the introduction of Big Daddy’s training of Hit Girl where the latter has to overcome her fear even when shot at point blank range with live bullets (she wears a bullet proof vest). “Hit Girl” becomes a formidable one-girl killing machine near the end when she massacres scores of well armed gangsters with precision and finesse, without feeling or compunction, like she were targeting figures in a TV games. Unbelievable one may say but she succeeds in holding the viewers attention and not because of her appealing presence as eleven year old ordinary girl Mindy. In spite of his fighting prowess, Nicolas Cage comes across as a poignant character after his sad past. Christopher Mintz Plasse as the affected, smug, self- satisfied son of his gangster father delivers on his role. Languagr is frequently vulgar and the depiction of sex scenes is in bad taste, to say the least.
Kick-Ass may be considered exciting entertainment especially by action film aficionados but that does not make it good entertainment for all, especially the impressionable young movie audience. It is true that the theme is laudable, the desire of even ordinary citizens to try to eliminate crime and evil, even in the face of much danger and formidable forces of the enemy. Also, the depiction of relationship like that between father and daughter (Cage and Chloe Moretz) is tender and affectionate though one would wonder if a father who so loves his daughter would expose her to so much danger in that early age and train her in the lethal “art” of killing instead of sending her to school and letting her enjoy her childhood. The relationship also of the crime czar and his son looks fine and here no one notices the efforts of the father not to let his son know of his immoral business though at the end, he uses him for his ends. The film may have some positive values but these cannot overturn the pervading objectionable features of the film. Kick-Ass goes overboard in its violence, so brutal, gory and ruthless. One may have been entertained by the expertise of the gifted Chloe Moretz in fighting the evil elements but on reflection, one is disturbed that a child can be so used and trained to kill without any emotion, qualms or regret. The film will desensitize the young to brutality and cruelty and, who knows might encourage other children to follow the footsteps of “Hit Girl”. The film is awash with gross language. Sex which should be considered a beautiful thing, something to bond people in love, is here degraded. The depiction of the sex scenes with the frontal baring and mashing of breasts is not only in had taste but also they are immoral. Drug use especially by children is objectionable. This film should be seen only by mature audiences, at least 18 years of age.
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is an unnoticed lackluster high school student much addicted to comics. He dreams of becoming a superhero and calls himself “Kick- Ass”, though he has no superpowers, no special training or skills. He dons a superhero costume and patrols some seedy neighbourhoods where he prevents thieves from plying their trade and gets beaten and stabbed instead. Meanwhile Damon (Nicolas Cage), a cop who was framed and imprisoned through the machinations of Frank d’ Amico (Mark Strong), the crime czar, has been released from prison and has been preparing to eliminate organized crime and evil. After building an arms arsenal and training his eleven-year old daughter Mindy in martial arts and the use of weapons, Damon now assumes the identity of the superhero “Big Daddy” and Mindy is called “Hit Girl”. The duo become a deadly fighting machine hitting the crime empire of Frank d’ Amico. To catch the superheroes, including “Kick-Ass”, who has earned some fame through the help of “Big Daddy” and “Hit Girl”, Frank’s young son Chris (Christopher Mintz Plasse) takes on the identity of ‘Red Mist”, a self proclaimed superhero. “Red Mist” sees “Kick-Ass” in costume and befriends him, being a fellow superhero. How will the “superheroes” and anti-hero fare in the end?
Kick-Ass is the latest screen adaption of a comic book written by Mark Millar and John S. Ramita, Jr. Said to be a faithful reproduction of the comic book, the movie is fully packed with action and brutal violence to the nth degree. As in most action pictures, there is not much of a story or plot. The narrative line is there to hang the actions on. The photography captures efficiently the guts and gore in the well orchestrated fight scenes. At the start, when ‘Kick-Ass” begins narrating the story of his life, everything seems quiet and uneventful. But soon the tension mounts with the introduction of Big Daddy’s training of Hit Girl where the latter has to overcome her fear even when shot at point blank range with live bullets (she wears a bullet proof vest). “Hit Girl” becomes a formidable one-girl killing machine near the end when she massacres scores of well armed gangsters with precision and finesse, without feeling or compunction, like she were targeting figures in a TV games. Unbelievable one may say but she succeeds in holding the viewers attention and not because of her appealing presence as eleven year old ordinary girl Mindy. In spite of his fighting prowess, Nicolas Cage comes across as a poignant character after his sad past. Christopher Mintz Plasse as the affected, smug, self- satisfied son of his gangster father delivers on his role. Languagr is frequently vulgar and the depiction of sex scenes is in bad taste, to say the least.
Kick-Ass may be considered exciting entertainment especially by action film aficionados but that does not make it good entertainment for all, especially the impressionable young movie audience. It is true that the theme is laudable, the desire of even ordinary citizens to try to eliminate crime and evil, even in the face of much danger and formidable forces of the enemy. Also, the depiction of relationship like that between father and daughter (Cage and Chloe Moretz) is tender and affectionate though one would wonder if a father who so loves his daughter would expose her to so much danger in that early age and train her in the lethal “art” of killing instead of sending her to school and letting her enjoy her childhood. The relationship also of the crime czar and his son looks fine and here no one notices the efforts of the father not to let his son know of his immoral business though at the end, he uses him for his ends. The film may have some positive values but these cannot overturn the pervading objectionable features of the film. Kick-Ass goes overboard in its violence, so brutal, gory and ruthless. One may have been entertained by the expertise of the gifted Chloe Moretz in fighting the evil elements but on reflection, one is disturbed that a child can be so used and trained to kill without any emotion, qualms or regret. The film will desensitize the young to brutality and cruelty and, who knows might encourage other children to follow the footsteps of “Hit Girl”. The film is awash with gross language. Sex which should be considered a beautiful thing, something to bond people in love, is here degraded. The depiction of the sex scenes with the frontal baring and mashing of breasts is not only in had taste but also they are immoral. Drug use especially by children is objectionable. This film should be seen only by mature audiences, at least 18 years of age.
Working Girls
Cast: Eugene Domingo, Eula Valdes, Jennylyn Mercado, Iza Calzado, Cristine Reyes, Bianca King, Ruffa Gutierrez; Director: Jose Javier Reyes; Producers: Tony Gloria, Annete Gozon-Abrogar; Screenwriter: Jose Javier Reyes; Genre: Comedy/ Drama; Distributor: Unitel and GMA Films; Location: Manila; Running Time: 110 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Isang sanga-sangang kuwento ng iba’t-ibang kabababaihan ng makabagong panahon. Si Paula (Eugene Domingo) ay itinataguyod ang kanyang pamilya sa pagbebenta ng mga pekeng bag at kung anu-ano pa dahil ang kanyang asawa ay isang batugan. Si Cleo (Eula Valdes) naman ay isang sikat na doctor ng pagreretoke na kinakalaban ng mga grupong feminista. Si Marilou (Ruffa Gutierrez) naman ay isang dating beauty queen na mabibiyuda ng kanyang mayamang asawa ngunit malalaman niyang walang yaman na iniwan sa kanya. Si Teresa (Iza Calzado) naman ay isang nurse na mapipilitang alagaan ang asawa ng lalaking nang-iwan sa kanya noon. Si Ada (Jennylyn Mercado) ay isang single mother na nawawalan na ng panahon sa kanyang anak dahil sa kanyang trabaho bilang call center agent. Habang ang promo girl na si Wendy (Cristine Reyes) ay pilit na hinahanap ang lalaking mag-aahon sa kanya sa kahirapan, si Dara (Bianca King) nama’y piniling maging isang mamamahayag sa kabila ng kanyang mayamang pamilyang pinagmulan.
Isang nasayang na kuwento ang pelikula na dapat sana’y karugtong ng orihinal na Working Girls na ipinalabas noong dekada 80. Hindi gaanong naka-sentro sa buhay-trabaho ng mga kababaihan ang pelikula kundi natuon lamang ang karamihan ng kanilang kuwento sa kanilang buhay pamilya at buhay pag-ibig. Malayo sa orihinal na kuwento na naka-sentro sa buhay ng mga kababaihan sa kanilang trabaho at ang hirap na kanilang dinaranas dahil sa sila ay mga babae. Nalihis ang bagong Working Girls sa sanga-sangang kuwento ng kababaihan na may iba’t-ibang problema ngunit nawala ang dapat sana’y pinaka-kaluluwa ng pelikula. Lumalabas tuloy na isang karaniwang kuwento ng mga kababaihan lang ang napanood at hindi patungkol sa iba’t-ibang klase ng hanap-buhay ng mga babae. Sayang ang lahat ng magagandang intensiyon ng pelikula dahil sumabog ang konsepto nito sa kabuuan. Higit na sayang din ang mga talino ng mga nagsiganap lalo na si Domingo na siyang nagbigay-buhay sa pelikula. Sa kabila ng mga kakulangang ito’y marami pa rin namang magaganda at nakakaaliw na eksena sa pelikula kung kaya’t hindi rin naman gaanong sayang ang panonood nito.
Dahil sa dami ng pinagsiksikang kuwento, hindi naging malinaw ang kabuuang mensahe ng pelikula ukol sa mga kababaihan. Sa isang banda, sinasabi nitong malaki at mahalaga ang ginagampanang papel ng mga kababaihan sa lipunan lalo na sa mga industriya dahil karamihan sa mga ito ay babae na ang nagpapatakbo at babae ang mangagawa. Sa kabilang banda naman ay nariyan ang lantarang paggamit sa panlabas na kagandahan ng kababaihan upang ibenta ang isang produkto. Sa pagbebentang ito ay lumalabas na halos ibenta na rin ng babae ang kanyang sarili at pawang walang moralidad ang nasa ganitong uri ng trabaho. Isa itong masamang imahe para sa maraming kababaihan na nasa ganitong propesyon. Nariyan din ang isang babaeng natuksong pumatol sa iba sa kabila ng pagkakaroon niya ng asawa’t anak. Ang kaniyang pagtataksil ay nasaksihan pa ng mga bata pa niyang anak. Nakababahala ang mga ganitong uri ng eksena. Ipinakita naman sa pelikula kung gaanong katindi ang sakrispisyo ng isang babae ng kumita ng pera para kanyang pamilya habang pinagsasabay-sabay niya ng iba pa niyang papel bilang asawa at ina.
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Isang sanga-sangang kuwento ng iba’t-ibang kabababaihan ng makabagong panahon. Si Paula (Eugene Domingo) ay itinataguyod ang kanyang pamilya sa pagbebenta ng mga pekeng bag at kung anu-ano pa dahil ang kanyang asawa ay isang batugan. Si Cleo (Eula Valdes) naman ay isang sikat na doctor ng pagreretoke na kinakalaban ng mga grupong feminista. Si Marilou (Ruffa Gutierrez) naman ay isang dating beauty queen na mabibiyuda ng kanyang mayamang asawa ngunit malalaman niyang walang yaman na iniwan sa kanya. Si Teresa (Iza Calzado) naman ay isang nurse na mapipilitang alagaan ang asawa ng lalaking nang-iwan sa kanya noon. Si Ada (Jennylyn Mercado) ay isang single mother na nawawalan na ng panahon sa kanyang anak dahil sa kanyang trabaho bilang call center agent. Habang ang promo girl na si Wendy (Cristine Reyes) ay pilit na hinahanap ang lalaking mag-aahon sa kanya sa kahirapan, si Dara (Bianca King) nama’y piniling maging isang mamamahayag sa kabila ng kanyang mayamang pamilyang pinagmulan.
Isang nasayang na kuwento ang pelikula na dapat sana’y karugtong ng orihinal na Working Girls na ipinalabas noong dekada 80. Hindi gaanong naka-sentro sa buhay-trabaho ng mga kababaihan ang pelikula kundi natuon lamang ang karamihan ng kanilang kuwento sa kanilang buhay pamilya at buhay pag-ibig. Malayo sa orihinal na kuwento na naka-sentro sa buhay ng mga kababaihan sa kanilang trabaho at ang hirap na kanilang dinaranas dahil sa sila ay mga babae. Nalihis ang bagong Working Girls sa sanga-sangang kuwento ng kababaihan na may iba’t-ibang problema ngunit nawala ang dapat sana’y pinaka-kaluluwa ng pelikula. Lumalabas tuloy na isang karaniwang kuwento ng mga kababaihan lang ang napanood at hindi patungkol sa iba’t-ibang klase ng hanap-buhay ng mga babae. Sayang ang lahat ng magagandang intensiyon ng pelikula dahil sumabog ang konsepto nito sa kabuuan. Higit na sayang din ang mga talino ng mga nagsiganap lalo na si Domingo na siyang nagbigay-buhay sa pelikula. Sa kabila ng mga kakulangang ito’y marami pa rin namang magaganda at nakakaaliw na eksena sa pelikula kung kaya’t hindi rin naman gaanong sayang ang panonood nito.
Dahil sa dami ng pinagsiksikang kuwento, hindi naging malinaw ang kabuuang mensahe ng pelikula ukol sa mga kababaihan. Sa isang banda, sinasabi nitong malaki at mahalaga ang ginagampanang papel ng mga kababaihan sa lipunan lalo na sa mga industriya dahil karamihan sa mga ito ay babae na ang nagpapatakbo at babae ang mangagawa. Sa kabilang banda naman ay nariyan ang lantarang paggamit sa panlabas na kagandahan ng kababaihan upang ibenta ang isang produkto. Sa pagbebentang ito ay lumalabas na halos ibenta na rin ng babae ang kanyang sarili at pawang walang moralidad ang nasa ganitong uri ng trabaho. Isa itong masamang imahe para sa maraming kababaihan na nasa ganitong propesyon. Nariyan din ang isang babaeng natuksong pumatol sa iba sa kabila ng pagkakaroon niya ng asawa’t anak. Ang kaniyang pagtataksil ay nasaksihan pa ng mga bata pa niyang anak. Nakababahala ang mga ganitong uri ng eksena. Ipinakita naman sa pelikula kung gaanong katindi ang sakrispisyo ng isang babae ng kumita ng pera para kanyang pamilya habang pinagsasabay-sabay niya ng iba pa niyang papel bilang asawa at ina.
Date Night
Cast: Steve Carell, Tina Fey, Mark Wahlberg, Taraji P. Henson; Director: Shawn Levy; Producers: Shawn Levy, Tom McNulty; Screenwriter: Josh McLaglen; Music: Christophe Beck; Editor: Dean Zimmerman; Genre: Comedy/ Romance: Cinematography: Dean Semler: Distributor: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Location: USA; Running Time: 88 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Clair and Phil Foster (Tina Fey and Steve Carrell) are an ordinary though likable suburban New Jersey couple whose idea of married bliss is hiring a baby sitter once a week so they could enjoy their “date night” on the town. And their weekly date night—far from being a moment of exotic erotica to revive romance in midlife—simply means dining out and privately making fun of unsuspecting diners who stimulate their imagination. On this particular date night, Steve takes Clair to a new fancy restaurant in New York. Skipping the long queue to be seated, they grab a reservation for two for “the Tripplehorns”, pretending to be the absent couple. Then two gun-toting hit men pop into the scene, demanding that the Tripplehorns surrender a sensitive computer gadget or else… They cannot argue at gunpoint that they are not the real Tripplehorns, thus they are tossed into a crazy chase involving two crooked cops (Jimmi Simpson and Common) and their mob boss (Ray Liotta), the real “Tripplehorns” Taste (James Franco) and Whippit (Mila Kunis), and a security expert who’s an untypical combination of muscles and sympathy, Grant Holbrook (Mark Wahlberg).
Fey and Carell wouldn’t have been better cast as the Foster couple in Date Night. They—or their performance—are what makes the movie really funny. They can make us believe they’re a real couple from suburbia who are….well, who are who the Fosters are! And they involve the viewer in the whole 88-minute film run! When actors in a comedy don’t seem aware that they’re acting out a comedy, they become really funny. The plot is, of course, as bizarre and implausible as all comedy-action plots go, but the dialogue is smart, the characterization precise, and the direction by Shawn Levy flawless. Few cinematic couples exhibit this high degree of chemistry as Fey and Carell do in their roles here. If Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt sizzle in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and Kate Winslett and Leonardo DiCaprio smolder in The Titanic, Tina Fey and Steve Carell bubble over in Date Night.
Date Night is a perfect movie for a date night, especially when your date is the person you’re married to. There are no “moral lessons” to speak of in Date Night, but it offers a sensible tip for fine-diners: when at a chi-chi restaurant in, wait for your turn and suffer the gay receptionist because, as the Tripplehorns show, impatience is a punishable crime. Date Night also affirms the reality of mob-employed cops, and proves that even tattooed toughies can kiss and make up like ordinary suburban couples. Date Night also makes you realize that not all ex-spies are dehumanized by their careers and die biting a dagger—some retire while they’re still human and become compassionate “security experts” with state-of-the-art espionage gadgets and state-of-the-heart sex appeal.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Clair and Phil Foster (Tina Fey and Steve Carrell) are an ordinary though likable suburban New Jersey couple whose idea of married bliss is hiring a baby sitter once a week so they could enjoy their “date night” on the town. And their weekly date night—far from being a moment of exotic erotica to revive romance in midlife—simply means dining out and privately making fun of unsuspecting diners who stimulate their imagination. On this particular date night, Steve takes Clair to a new fancy restaurant in New York. Skipping the long queue to be seated, they grab a reservation for two for “the Tripplehorns”, pretending to be the absent couple. Then two gun-toting hit men pop into the scene, demanding that the Tripplehorns surrender a sensitive computer gadget or else… They cannot argue at gunpoint that they are not the real Tripplehorns, thus they are tossed into a crazy chase involving two crooked cops (Jimmi Simpson and Common) and their mob boss (Ray Liotta), the real “Tripplehorns” Taste (James Franco) and Whippit (Mila Kunis), and a security expert who’s an untypical combination of muscles and sympathy, Grant Holbrook (Mark Wahlberg).
Fey and Carell wouldn’t have been better cast as the Foster couple in Date Night. They—or their performance—are what makes the movie really funny. They can make us believe they’re a real couple from suburbia who are….well, who are who the Fosters are! And they involve the viewer in the whole 88-minute film run! When actors in a comedy don’t seem aware that they’re acting out a comedy, they become really funny. The plot is, of course, as bizarre and implausible as all comedy-action plots go, but the dialogue is smart, the characterization precise, and the direction by Shawn Levy flawless. Few cinematic couples exhibit this high degree of chemistry as Fey and Carell do in their roles here. If Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt sizzle in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and Kate Winslett and Leonardo DiCaprio smolder in The Titanic, Tina Fey and Steve Carell bubble over in Date Night.
Date Night is a perfect movie for a date night, especially when your date is the person you’re married to. There are no “moral lessons” to speak of in Date Night, but it offers a sensible tip for fine-diners: when at a chi-chi restaurant in, wait for your turn and suffer the gay receptionist because, as the Tripplehorns show, impatience is a punishable crime. Date Night also affirms the reality of mob-employed cops, and proves that even tattooed toughies can kiss and make up like ordinary suburban couples. Date Night also makes you realize that not all ex-spies are dehumanized by their careers and die biting a dagger—some retire while they’re still human and become compassionate “security experts” with state-of-the-art espionage gadgets and state-of-the-heart sex appeal.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Shutter Island
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Max von Sydow; Director: Martin Scorsese; Producers: Brad Fischer, Mike Medavoy, Arnold Messer, Martin Scorsese; Screenwriters: Laeta Kalogridis; Dennis Lehane; Editor: Thelma Schoonmaker; Genre: Suspense/ Thriller; Cinematography: Robert Richardson; Distributor: Paramount Pictures: Location: USA: Running Time: 138 min.;
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Shutter Island is adapted from Dennis Lahene’s book published in 2003. It centers on Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio), a US Marshall sent to Ashcliffe Psychiatric Correctional Facility in Shutter Island to investigate the mysterious disappearance of Rachel (Emily Mortimer). Since the security in Shutter Island is tightly controlled, Teddy suspects foul play in the case. Meanwhile, Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley), the hospital’s administrator, is pushing for a new method in treating his patients. As the movie progresses, one will realize that things are not what they seem. Apparently, Rachel, her killer, and Teddy’s wife are all interconnected. Teddy has visions of his wife and children who died in a fire caused by Andrew Leaddis. As he investigates further into the disappearance of Rachel, he comes closer to the past he has been trying to run away from and the tragedy in his life.
Amidst the psychopaths and Teddy’s past, the lines are blurred between reality and absurdity. The film brilliantly plays with the audiences’ minds as it is creatively interpreted by Robert Richardson’s cinematography within the perfect 1950’s setting adding to the creepiness. Martin Scorsese leads the audience into a thrilling maze of anxiety and uncertainty as they start feeling trap in a world they cannot understand. The artistic elements are outstanding and DiCaprio and Kingsley’s performances memorable. Surely, this is a film that will be remembered for long because of the powerful images that leaves an aftertaste of fear mixed with depression.
There are several positive aspects in Shutter Island. One, we see the efforts of Teddy to make good of his life despite all the tragedies he has been through. His desire to meet his wife’s killer does not stem from revenge but from justice. And even if he had a primary agenda in coming to Shutter Island, Teddy is still willing to sacrifice himself for the safety of his partner.
However, the movie is definitely not for children. The movie is too dark, violent and seemingly hopeless if one would look at the outcome of main characters lives. The scenes feel heavy and a lot of sensitivities will be crossed. Although teenagers ages 14 and above will be able to understand the movie, it is preferred that it be restricted to adults because of some concerns in language and content, extreme violence, some nudity and obscenity.
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Shutter Island is adapted from Dennis Lahene’s book published in 2003. It centers on Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio), a US Marshall sent to Ashcliffe Psychiatric Correctional Facility in Shutter Island to investigate the mysterious disappearance of Rachel (Emily Mortimer). Since the security in Shutter Island is tightly controlled, Teddy suspects foul play in the case. Meanwhile, Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley), the hospital’s administrator, is pushing for a new method in treating his patients. As the movie progresses, one will realize that things are not what they seem. Apparently, Rachel, her killer, and Teddy’s wife are all interconnected. Teddy has visions of his wife and children who died in a fire caused by Andrew Leaddis. As he investigates further into the disappearance of Rachel, he comes closer to the past he has been trying to run away from and the tragedy in his life.
Amidst the psychopaths and Teddy’s past, the lines are blurred between reality and absurdity. The film brilliantly plays with the audiences’ minds as it is creatively interpreted by Robert Richardson’s cinematography within the perfect 1950’s setting adding to the creepiness. Martin Scorsese leads the audience into a thrilling maze of anxiety and uncertainty as they start feeling trap in a world they cannot understand. The artistic elements are outstanding and DiCaprio and Kingsley’s performances memorable. Surely, this is a film that will be remembered for long because of the powerful images that leaves an aftertaste of fear mixed with depression.
There are several positive aspects in Shutter Island. One, we see the efforts of Teddy to make good of his life despite all the tragedies he has been through. His desire to meet his wife’s killer does not stem from revenge but from justice. And even if he had a primary agenda in coming to Shutter Island, Teddy is still willing to sacrifice himself for the safety of his partner.
However, the movie is definitely not for children. The movie is too dark, violent and seemingly hopeless if one would look at the outcome of main characters lives. The scenes feel heavy and a lot of sensitivities will be crossed. Although teenagers ages 14 and above will be able to understand the movie, it is preferred that it be restricted to adults because of some concerns in language and content, extreme violence, some nudity and obscenity.
Hot Tub Time Machine
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)