Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Geoffrey Arend, Chloe Moretz, Matthew Gray Gubler; Director: Marc Webb; Producers: Mason Novick, Jessica Tuchinsky, Mark Waters, Steven J. Wolfe; Screenwriters: Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber; Music: Mychael Danna, Ron Simonsen; Editor: Alan Edward Bell; Genre: Comedy/ Drama/ Romance; Cinematography: Eric Steelberg; Distributor: Fox Searchlight Pictures; Location: Los Angeles, USA; Running Time: 95 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
In 500 Days of Summer, Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is an architect too timid to pursue his career, so he’d rather be a writer of greeting cards. Summer (Zooey Deschanel) begins work as the new assistant to Tom’s boss. He is smitten the moment he spots the pert Summer walking down the office on her first day of work, unaware she’s being noticed. Tom’s chemistry doesn’t remain one-way for long, as Summer notices and likes his looks, so one day she makes her move over the copying machine. In no time at all he falls in love with her, but while she has let him deep into her world, sees no one else but him, and says she is perfectly happy with their relationship, she wants nothing permanent—only to enjoy her life and her youth. Summer’s apparently casual attitude towards love baffles and then frustrates Tom. Sometime around the middle of 500 days serious trouble begins which later on leads to a break up. But Tom wouldn’t fall out of love and is in fact determined to get her back.
500 Days of Summer opens on Day 488 and then jumps back and forth, with each episode annotated and marked as “Day…” It is an ingenuous approach to telling a story that allows an incisive look into how love relationships “go wrong”. Billed as a “romantic comedy” this one is anything but light and laughable. In fact, through the recollection of events in a non-linear fashion, the viewer is enabled to seriously analyze how a past event affects and effects a present malady—something which involves the viewer in the characters’ lives. By Day 500 it becomes clear why things turn out the way they do, and we can only hope the characters in the story see it as clearly as we do. Screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber certainly show a good grip on a love affair’s twists and turns, which good actors Deschanel and Gordon-Levitt give justice to. The combination of those factors must have delighted director Marc Webb.
500 Days of Summer is a movie that begins by telling us how the love story will end and is about how clueless the lover is till the end. MTRCB rates it PG 13—CINEMA would be inclined to label it an adult film, due to its attempt to treat the theme deeply. The presence of a pre-adolescent girl as a “love adviser” to an older man doesn’t make it innocent or acceptable. Sex is a given here (and in fact is the main factor in the attraction between the lovers)—and, like an airborne virus, is not a good thing for young people to “catch”. There is a big lesson here about the need to be attentive to signs and signals, especially where it concerns emotions. People like to see what they want to see when it comes to love, and that is what 500 Days of Summer tries to say. Things and people are not always what they seem: while some people may be easy to read, others may be the opposite of the image they project. People hide behind masks without even being aware of it. Experience tries to teach us, but does experience season us? Perhaps the hero here will know after 100 days of .. uh…autumn?
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Ang Laro ng Buhay ni Juan
Cast: Ray An Dulay, Angeli Bayani, Nico Antonio, Richard Quan, Ace Ricafort, Perry Ecano; Director: Joselito Altarejos; Producer: Beyond the Box; Screenwriters: Joselito Altarejos, Peping Salonga, Lex Bonife; Genre: Drama; Distributor: ; Location: Manila; Running Time: 100 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Nakapagdesisyon na si Juan (Ray An Dulay), na kilala rin ng karamihan bilang Erwin, na bumalik na sa kanyang probinsiya sa Masbate upang alagaan ang kanyang inang maysakit at tuluyan nang talikuran ang buhay sa Maynila. Magpapaalam siya sa kanyang mga kapitbahay at sa kanyang kinakasamang si Noel (Nico Antonio). Bagama't lantaran ang pakikipag-relasyon ni Juan sa kapwa lalaki, ay hindi naman lantaran ang kanyang trabaho bilang live sex performer sa isang tagong gay bar sa Maynila. Ang araw ng kanyang pag-alis papuntang Masbate ay ang huling araw na rin ng kanyang trabaho. Matapos ang gabi ng kanyang huling live performance at makuha ang kaukulang bayad dito, ay nakapagdesisyon na siyang talikuran ng permanente ang ganitong uri ng trabaho. Matapos niyang magbakasakali sa Maynila ng tatlong taon ay kung anu-anong trabaho na rin ang pinasok niya ngunit hindi niya nakuha ang suwerteng inaasam. Ngayong buo na ang loob niyang talikuran ang mapaglarong siyudad, manalo na kaya siya sa kanyang pagtaya sa bagong kapalaran?
Payak kung maituturing ang kuwento ng pelikula na sinundan lamang ang isang araw sa buhay ng isang taong nais magbagong-buhay. Ngunit ang kapayakang ito ang nagpahatid at naglahad ng epektibong kuwento ng mga taong ang buhay ay nakatago sa dilim. Kitang-kita ang pagkakaiba ng buhay ni Juan sa araw at gabi. Isang tipikal na kuwento ng mga taong nasadlak sa kahirapan at may hanapbuhay na hindi nila kayang ipagmalaki. Maganda at totoong-totoo ang eksenang ipinakita sa pelikula. Malinaw ang pagkakalahad ng kuwento na hitik sa simbolismo. Mahuhusay din ang mga nagsiganap na bagama't mga hindi kilala at hindi malalaking pangalan sa industriya ay nagawang magampanan ang kanilang papel nang makatotohanan. Maganda ang direksiyon ng pelikula sa kabuuan dahil na rin sa naging matapat ito sa mga katotohanan ng lipunan na bihira na lang mapansin ng karamihan.
Marami ang katulad ni Juan – mga nagbakasakali sa Maynila ngunit hindi nagtagumpay. Dalisay kung titingnan sa kabuuan ang pagkatao ni Juan. Bagama't nakipagrelasyon sa kapwa lalaki, ipinakita naman na tapat siya kung magmahal at mapagmalasakit sa kapwa. Sa kabila ng kanyang hanapbuhay bilang live sex performer ay mabuti pa rin siyang anak sa kanyang ina at mabait din siya sa kanyang mga kapitbahay. Yun nga lang, sadyang mapaglaro ang tadhana sa mga tulad ni Juan kung kaya't nasasadlak sila sa mga hanapbuhay na hindi nila buong-pusong ginusto. Dapat silang unawain sa halip na husgahan. Ngunit nakababahala pa rin na nagiging katanggap-tanggap na sa lipunan ang pagsasama ng dalawang lalaki na parang mag-asawa. Hindi kailanman magiging panghabang-buhay ang ganitong relasyon at makasisira ito sa pagbuo ng pamilya. Hindi rin dapat gawing dahilan ang kahirapan upang masadlak sa prostitusyon at gawaing nakasentro sa tawag ng laman. Pero kung tutuusin ay biktima lamang ang mga katulad ni Juan ng sitwasyon. Katulad ng ipinakita sa pelikula, hindi ang mga gaya niya ang tunay na masasama kundi iyong mga taong pinagsasamantalahan ang kasawian ng iba. Labis na nakakababaha rin ang ilang ipinakitang eksena ng hubaran sa pelikula lalo na ang pagtatalik ng lalaki sa kapwa lalaki. Bagama't malinaw sa konteksto ng pelikula na ito'y isang naiiba at madilim na mundo, maari pa rin itong magpadumi sa utak ng manonood at makaimpluwensiya ng pag-iisip ng mga kabataan. Kaya't nararapat lamang ang pelikula sa mga manonood na may gulang na 18 pataas.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Nakapagdesisyon na si Juan (Ray An Dulay), na kilala rin ng karamihan bilang Erwin, na bumalik na sa kanyang probinsiya sa Masbate upang alagaan ang kanyang inang maysakit at tuluyan nang talikuran ang buhay sa Maynila. Magpapaalam siya sa kanyang mga kapitbahay at sa kanyang kinakasamang si Noel (Nico Antonio). Bagama't lantaran ang pakikipag-relasyon ni Juan sa kapwa lalaki, ay hindi naman lantaran ang kanyang trabaho bilang live sex performer sa isang tagong gay bar sa Maynila. Ang araw ng kanyang pag-alis papuntang Masbate ay ang huling araw na rin ng kanyang trabaho. Matapos ang gabi ng kanyang huling live performance at makuha ang kaukulang bayad dito, ay nakapagdesisyon na siyang talikuran ng permanente ang ganitong uri ng trabaho. Matapos niyang magbakasakali sa Maynila ng tatlong taon ay kung anu-anong trabaho na rin ang pinasok niya ngunit hindi niya nakuha ang suwerteng inaasam. Ngayong buo na ang loob niyang talikuran ang mapaglarong siyudad, manalo na kaya siya sa kanyang pagtaya sa bagong kapalaran?
Payak kung maituturing ang kuwento ng pelikula na sinundan lamang ang isang araw sa buhay ng isang taong nais magbagong-buhay. Ngunit ang kapayakang ito ang nagpahatid at naglahad ng epektibong kuwento ng mga taong ang buhay ay nakatago sa dilim. Kitang-kita ang pagkakaiba ng buhay ni Juan sa araw at gabi. Isang tipikal na kuwento ng mga taong nasadlak sa kahirapan at may hanapbuhay na hindi nila kayang ipagmalaki. Maganda at totoong-totoo ang eksenang ipinakita sa pelikula. Malinaw ang pagkakalahad ng kuwento na hitik sa simbolismo. Mahuhusay din ang mga nagsiganap na bagama't mga hindi kilala at hindi malalaking pangalan sa industriya ay nagawang magampanan ang kanilang papel nang makatotohanan. Maganda ang direksiyon ng pelikula sa kabuuan dahil na rin sa naging matapat ito sa mga katotohanan ng lipunan na bihira na lang mapansin ng karamihan.
Marami ang katulad ni Juan – mga nagbakasakali sa Maynila ngunit hindi nagtagumpay. Dalisay kung titingnan sa kabuuan ang pagkatao ni Juan. Bagama't nakipagrelasyon sa kapwa lalaki, ipinakita naman na tapat siya kung magmahal at mapagmalasakit sa kapwa. Sa kabila ng kanyang hanapbuhay bilang live sex performer ay mabuti pa rin siyang anak sa kanyang ina at mabait din siya sa kanyang mga kapitbahay. Yun nga lang, sadyang mapaglaro ang tadhana sa mga tulad ni Juan kung kaya't nasasadlak sila sa mga hanapbuhay na hindi nila buong-pusong ginusto. Dapat silang unawain sa halip na husgahan. Ngunit nakababahala pa rin na nagiging katanggap-tanggap na sa lipunan ang pagsasama ng dalawang lalaki na parang mag-asawa. Hindi kailanman magiging panghabang-buhay ang ganitong relasyon at makasisira ito sa pagbuo ng pamilya. Hindi rin dapat gawing dahilan ang kahirapan upang masadlak sa prostitusyon at gawaing nakasentro sa tawag ng laman. Pero kung tutuusin ay biktima lamang ang mga katulad ni Juan ng sitwasyon. Katulad ng ipinakita sa pelikula, hindi ang mga gaya niya ang tunay na masasama kundi iyong mga taong pinagsasamantalahan ang kasawian ng iba. Labis na nakakababaha rin ang ilang ipinakitang eksena ng hubaran sa pelikula lalo na ang pagtatalik ng lalaki sa kapwa lalaki. Bagama't malinaw sa konteksto ng pelikula na ito'y isang naiiba at madilim na mundo, maari pa rin itong magpadumi sa utak ng manonood at makaimpluwensiya ng pag-iisip ng mga kabataan. Kaya't nararapat lamang ang pelikula sa mga manonood na may gulang na 18 pataas.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Sanglaan
Cast: Joem Bascon, Jess Evardone, Ina Feleo, Flor Salanga, Neil Ryan Sese, Tessie Tomas; Director: Milo Sogueco; Producers: Gay Ace Domingo, Milo Sogueco; Screenwriters: Gay Ace Domingo, Audie Gonzales; Music: Darryl Shy; Editor: J. M. Basa; Genre: Drama; Cinematography: Alma dela Peña; Distributor: Cinemalaya Foundation; Location: Manila; Running Time: 110 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Si Amy (Ina Feleo) ay nagtatrabaho sa isang sanglaan na pagmamay-ari ng kanyang tiyahin na si Olivia (Tessie Tomas), ang nagpalaki sa kanya matapos sumakibalang-buhay ang kanyang mga magulang noong bata pa siya. Bagama’t nalulugi na ang sanglaan ay hindi ito magawang ipasara ng kanyang Tiya Olivia bilang paggalang sa alaala ng yumao nitong asawa kahit pa ang mga anak nito ay nais na siyang ipetisyon sa Amerika. Sa sanglaan at sa kanyang Tiya Olivia umiikot ang buhay ni Amy at kahit siya’y halos tatlumpung-taon gulang na’y hindi siya halos nakakapamasyal mag-isa at hindi pa rin nagkakaron ng nobyo. Hanggang sa makilala at mabibighani siya sa bagong boarder sa itaas ng sanglaan na si David (Joem Bascon), isang seaman na nag-aabang ng magandang kapalaran patungong ibang bayan. Dito magsisimulang magsubok si Amy na buksan ang sarili sa maraming posibilidad ng buhay sa labas ng apat na sulok ng sanglaan.
Malalim ang pinaghuhugutan ng kuwento ng Sanglaan na ginamit ang katahimikan upang maiparating ito. Naging epektibo naman ito sa kabuuan dahil sa magagandang kuha ng kamera at mahuhusay na pagganap ng lahat ng tauhan. Hindi karaniwang pelikula ang Sanglaan sapagkat di tulad ng karaniwang kuwento, walang masyadong aksyon sa pelikula. Walang hagulgulan, walang histerya at walang gaanong gulatan. Ang lahat ng ito’y pawang sinadya ng mga kuwentista ng pelikula: ang ipakita ang pang-araw-araw na buhay ng mga taong nakakahon sa kani-kanilang mundong ginagalawan. Ngunit tila hindi gaanong naging kaaya-aya sa mga manonood. Marahil ay nasobrahan ng katahimikan ang pelikula at hindi nito lahat naiparating ang tunay na mensaheng nais sabihin. Marahil, nagpadala pa rin ang pelikula sa agos ng kombensiyon at hindi pa rin naiwasan ang paminsan-minsang melodramatikong paglalahad. Sa bandang huli’y mas maraming tanong kaysa sagot na maiiwan sa manonood at naroon ang pakiramdam ng pagkabitin hindi lamang sa kuwento ng pelikula kundi pati na rin sa kung ano ang nais nitong sabihin.
Sa kabila ng maraming iniwang tanong ng pelikula, may mangilan-ngilang malinaw na mensahe itong nais iparating. Nariyan ang pagpapahalaga sa mga magagandang ala-ala at sentimyento. Ito ang dahilan kung bakit ayaw ipasara ni Olivia ang kanyang sanglaan. Ito rin ang dahilan kung bakit pilit na sinasalba ng ilan sa mga tauhan ang ilang kagamitang puno ng ala-ala ng kanilang mahal sa buhay. Sa panahon ng kagipitan, nariyan ang sanglaan na siyang magbibigay ng panandaliang solusyon sa pangangailangan ng mga tao. Ngunit ito nga ay panandalian lamang at walang kasiguruhan. Inihantulad ang buhay ng tao sa isang sanglaan kung saan nakasangla ang buhay nating lahat sa isang kapalarang hindi natin nalalaman. Gaano man kahalaga ang ginto, alahas at ilang materiyal na bagay, may ala-ala man itong iniwan o wala, isa ang tunay na mahalaga at dapat pahalagahan ng tao ayon sa pelikula – pagmamahal at makahulugang relasyon. Magagawang isangla ng isang tao maging ang kanyang buhay alang-alang sa taong minamahal.
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Si Amy (Ina Feleo) ay nagtatrabaho sa isang sanglaan na pagmamay-ari ng kanyang tiyahin na si Olivia (Tessie Tomas), ang nagpalaki sa kanya matapos sumakibalang-buhay ang kanyang mga magulang noong bata pa siya. Bagama’t nalulugi na ang sanglaan ay hindi ito magawang ipasara ng kanyang Tiya Olivia bilang paggalang sa alaala ng yumao nitong asawa kahit pa ang mga anak nito ay nais na siyang ipetisyon sa Amerika. Sa sanglaan at sa kanyang Tiya Olivia umiikot ang buhay ni Amy at kahit siya’y halos tatlumpung-taon gulang na’y hindi siya halos nakakapamasyal mag-isa at hindi pa rin nagkakaron ng nobyo. Hanggang sa makilala at mabibighani siya sa bagong boarder sa itaas ng sanglaan na si David (Joem Bascon), isang seaman na nag-aabang ng magandang kapalaran patungong ibang bayan. Dito magsisimulang magsubok si Amy na buksan ang sarili sa maraming posibilidad ng buhay sa labas ng apat na sulok ng sanglaan.
Malalim ang pinaghuhugutan ng kuwento ng Sanglaan na ginamit ang katahimikan upang maiparating ito. Naging epektibo naman ito sa kabuuan dahil sa magagandang kuha ng kamera at mahuhusay na pagganap ng lahat ng tauhan. Hindi karaniwang pelikula ang Sanglaan sapagkat di tulad ng karaniwang kuwento, walang masyadong aksyon sa pelikula. Walang hagulgulan, walang histerya at walang gaanong gulatan. Ang lahat ng ito’y pawang sinadya ng mga kuwentista ng pelikula: ang ipakita ang pang-araw-araw na buhay ng mga taong nakakahon sa kani-kanilang mundong ginagalawan. Ngunit tila hindi gaanong naging kaaya-aya sa mga manonood. Marahil ay nasobrahan ng katahimikan ang pelikula at hindi nito lahat naiparating ang tunay na mensaheng nais sabihin. Marahil, nagpadala pa rin ang pelikula sa agos ng kombensiyon at hindi pa rin naiwasan ang paminsan-minsang melodramatikong paglalahad. Sa bandang huli’y mas maraming tanong kaysa sagot na maiiwan sa manonood at naroon ang pakiramdam ng pagkabitin hindi lamang sa kuwento ng pelikula kundi pati na rin sa kung ano ang nais nitong sabihin.
Sa kabila ng maraming iniwang tanong ng pelikula, may mangilan-ngilang malinaw na mensahe itong nais iparating. Nariyan ang pagpapahalaga sa mga magagandang ala-ala at sentimyento. Ito ang dahilan kung bakit ayaw ipasara ni Olivia ang kanyang sanglaan. Ito rin ang dahilan kung bakit pilit na sinasalba ng ilan sa mga tauhan ang ilang kagamitang puno ng ala-ala ng kanilang mahal sa buhay. Sa panahon ng kagipitan, nariyan ang sanglaan na siyang magbibigay ng panandaliang solusyon sa pangangailangan ng mga tao. Ngunit ito nga ay panandalian lamang at walang kasiguruhan. Inihantulad ang buhay ng tao sa isang sanglaan kung saan nakasangla ang buhay nating lahat sa isang kapalarang hindi natin nalalaman. Gaano man kahalaga ang ginto, alahas at ilang materiyal na bagay, may ala-ala man itong iniwan o wala, isa ang tunay na mahalaga at dapat pahalagahan ng tao ayon sa pelikula – pagmamahal at makahulugang relasyon. Magagawang isangla ng isang tao maging ang kanyang buhay alang-alang sa taong minamahal.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Julie and Julia
Cast: Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina, Linda Emond, Helen Carey, Mary Lynn Rajskub; Director: Nora Ephron; Producers: Nora Ephron, Laurence Mark, Amy Robinson, Eric Steel; Screenwriters: Nora Ephron, Julie Powell; Music: Alexandre Desplat; Editor: Richard Marks; Genre: Comedy; Cinematography: Stephen Goldblatt; Distributor: Sony Pictures Entertainment; Location: New York, USA; Running Time: 123 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
The movie is based on two novels Julie Powell’s “Julie and Julia” and Julia Child’s “My Life in France”. It follows the struggles and triumphs of two women from two different eras. Both women are lost and searching to fill up the void in their lives. Julia Child (Meryl Streep) is a 1940s housewife to a sophisticated diplomat, Paul (Stanley Tucci). She is sweet and loving and very bored with her humdrum life. Eventually she finds her fulfillment after taking French cooking lessons in Cordon Bleu and proceeding to write the very first French cookbook in English. Meanwhile, 50years later, Julie Powell (Amy Adam) is about to turn 30 and feels she has done nothing significant in her life, save for working in an agency talking calls to comfort 9-11 survivors. With the encouragement of her husband Eric (Chris Messina), she decides to cook all of Julia Child’s 524 recipes in 365 days.
The movie is a sumptuous visual and emotional feast. Streep delivers a powerful and endearing portrayal of a 1940’s housewife struggling to make sense of her life. Nora Ephron perfectly combines two different lives at the crossroad of an emotional dilemma. The parallelism created is brilliant as two simple plots with two real characters digging deep within themselves to find the courage to transform and become the persons they were meant to be within the context of a successful marital relationship. The production design succeeds in shuttling the audience from the 1940s to 1990s seamlessly.
Julie and Julia pays tribute to marriage and the role of spouses. It presents a very positive view of marriage and value’s the support of the partner in one’s endeavors. The movie also talks about determination and self-reliance amidst the struggle, not only to be successful, but also to be useful and fulfilled. In times, when woman are working and deep into the corporate rat race, it is refreshing to see a movie where the husband does not criticize, compete or forbids the wife. Instead, the husbands in the movie are very supportive and encouraging. Since the subject matter of the movie discusses mature issues, it might not be suitable for very young children. There are some sexual reference and inappropriate language. Teenagers should be accompanied and guided by an adult when watching the film.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
The movie is based on two novels Julie Powell’s “Julie and Julia” and Julia Child’s “My Life in France”. It follows the struggles and triumphs of two women from two different eras. Both women are lost and searching to fill up the void in their lives. Julia Child (Meryl Streep) is a 1940s housewife to a sophisticated diplomat, Paul (Stanley Tucci). She is sweet and loving and very bored with her humdrum life. Eventually she finds her fulfillment after taking French cooking lessons in Cordon Bleu and proceeding to write the very first French cookbook in English. Meanwhile, 50years later, Julie Powell (Amy Adam) is about to turn 30 and feels she has done nothing significant in her life, save for working in an agency talking calls to comfort 9-11 survivors. With the encouragement of her husband Eric (Chris Messina), she decides to cook all of Julia Child’s 524 recipes in 365 days.
The movie is a sumptuous visual and emotional feast. Streep delivers a powerful and endearing portrayal of a 1940’s housewife struggling to make sense of her life. Nora Ephron perfectly combines two different lives at the crossroad of an emotional dilemma. The parallelism created is brilliant as two simple plots with two real characters digging deep within themselves to find the courage to transform and become the persons they were meant to be within the context of a successful marital relationship. The production design succeeds in shuttling the audience from the 1940s to 1990s seamlessly.
Julie and Julia pays tribute to marriage and the role of spouses. It presents a very positive view of marriage and value’s the support of the partner in one’s endeavors. The movie also talks about determination and self-reliance amidst the struggle, not only to be successful, but also to be useful and fulfilled. In times, when woman are working and deep into the corporate rat race, it is refreshing to see a movie where the husband does not criticize, compete or forbids the wife. Instead, the husbands in the movie are very supportive and encouraging. Since the subject matter of the movie discusses mature issues, it might not be suitable for very young children. There are some sexual reference and inappropriate language. Teenagers should be accompanied and guided by an adult when watching the film.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
G-Force
Cast (Voice): Sam Rockwell, Jon Favreau, Nicolas Cage, Penelope Cruz, Steve Buscemi, Tracy Morgan; Director: Hoyt Yeatman; Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer; Screenwriters: Cormac Wibberley, Marianne Wibberley; Music: Trevor Rabin; Editor: Mark Goldblatt, Jason Hellman; Genre: Action. Adventure, Family, Fantasy; Cinematography: Bojan Bazelli; Distributor: Walt Disney Studious Motion Pictures; Location: Los Angeles, USA; Running Time: 88 min;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers of all ages
Veterinarians Ben (Zach Galifianakis) and Marcie (Kelli Garner) have in their laboratory a quartet of “genetically engineered” rodents—guinea pigs Darwin (voice of Sam Rockwell), Juarez (Penelope Cruz), and Blaster (Tracy Morgan); and a mole named Speckles (Nicolas Cage). They’re supposed to be an “elite” FBI team, the “G-Force”—and together with a fly with no speaking parts they are expected to bust the machinations of electronic magnate Saber (Bill Nighy). Saber is a power-tripping billionaire who wants to control the world through home appliances that transform into deadly computerized killers that when clumped together can further transmogrify into high-tech giants stomping on everything and everyone in sight. The G-Force team’s assignment is to squash this megalomaniac’s plot by getting into the heart of his computer network that controls the appliances.
The plot looks promising enough: guinea pigs versus coffeemakers, blenders, refrigerators, etc. Picture that: if all the gadgets you can plug into your home’s electrical circuit are programmed to attack you, what are your chances of being saved from doom by guinea pigs? Although they are “genetically engineered” to outsmart computer wizards, don’t we either just welcome rodents as mere caged pets or eradicate them as pests in our homes? For all its CGI sophistication G-Force comes across as a bland dish which needs much more chili and garlic than its spunkiest voice-performers Penelope Cruz and Nicolas Cage can provide. Lovers of furry little things that we are, we sort of expected some real original stuff that would finally win the world’s respect for these humble creatures—after all, rodents make up more than one-third of all living mammal species on earth. We hoped G-Force would make us ooh and aah, like Up, or Wall-E, but instead, we came out of the theatre thinking, “Yeah, they’re cute.” Period. And the human characters (Galifianakis, Gerner, Nighy) served as mere props—they might have appeared more alive had they been animated.
There is one important message that is in danger of being buried under all that madcap action, and that is: the value of believing in yourself. It’s articulated towards the end of the story, as something is revealed to the rodents that threatens to dampen their enthusiasm for their world-saving mission. Notice also that the mice outsmart men here, but not because they’re smarter than humans per se, but because this being a good-vs-evil story, the fight is between those who destroy and those who save others from destruction. Of course, those who save, win. Visually, young children will enjoy G-Force; thinking adults will benefit from it.
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers of all ages
Veterinarians Ben (Zach Galifianakis) and Marcie (Kelli Garner) have in their laboratory a quartet of “genetically engineered” rodents—guinea pigs Darwin (voice of Sam Rockwell), Juarez (Penelope Cruz), and Blaster (Tracy Morgan); and a mole named Speckles (Nicolas Cage). They’re supposed to be an “elite” FBI team, the “G-Force”—and together with a fly with no speaking parts they are expected to bust the machinations of electronic magnate Saber (Bill Nighy). Saber is a power-tripping billionaire who wants to control the world through home appliances that transform into deadly computerized killers that when clumped together can further transmogrify into high-tech giants stomping on everything and everyone in sight. The G-Force team’s assignment is to squash this megalomaniac’s plot by getting into the heart of his computer network that controls the appliances.
The plot looks promising enough: guinea pigs versus coffeemakers, blenders, refrigerators, etc. Picture that: if all the gadgets you can plug into your home’s electrical circuit are programmed to attack you, what are your chances of being saved from doom by guinea pigs? Although they are “genetically engineered” to outsmart computer wizards, don’t we either just welcome rodents as mere caged pets or eradicate them as pests in our homes? For all its CGI sophistication G-Force comes across as a bland dish which needs much more chili and garlic than its spunkiest voice-performers Penelope Cruz and Nicolas Cage can provide. Lovers of furry little things that we are, we sort of expected some real original stuff that would finally win the world’s respect for these humble creatures—after all, rodents make up more than one-third of all living mammal species on earth. We hoped G-Force would make us ooh and aah, like Up, or Wall-E, but instead, we came out of the theatre thinking, “Yeah, they’re cute.” Period. And the human characters (Galifianakis, Gerner, Nighy) served as mere props—they might have appeared more alive had they been animated.
There is one important message that is in danger of being buried under all that madcap action, and that is: the value of believing in yourself. It’s articulated towards the end of the story, as something is revealed to the rodents that threatens to dampen their enthusiasm for their world-saving mission. Notice also that the mice outsmart men here, but not because they’re smarter than humans per se, but because this being a good-vs-evil story, the fight is between those who destroy and those who save others from destruction. Of course, those who save, win. Visually, young children will enjoy G-Force; thinking adults will benefit from it.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Fame
Cast: Naturi Naughton, Kay Panabaker, Megan Mullaly, Charles S. Dutton, Kelsey Grammer, Bebe Neuwirth and Debbie Allen ; Director: Kevin Tancharoen; Producers: Mark Canton, Gary Lucchesi, Tom Rosenberg, Richard S. Wright; Screenwriters: Allison Burnett, Christopher Gore; Music: Mark Isham; Editor: Myron L. Kerstein; Genre: Romance, Comedy, Musical; Cinematography: Scott Kevan; Distributor: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM); Location: Los Angeles, USA; Running Time: 107 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Fame is a remake of a 1980’s film of the same title. In is set in a New York performing arts school named Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts where we see aspiring actors, singers and dancers from their auditions until their graduation four years later. Jenny (Kay Panabaker) wants to be an actress but is too uptight and shy to let go. Marco (Asher Book) is a carefree singer who falls in love with Jenny. Meanwhile Denise (Naturi Naughton) studies classical piano at her parents insistence when she longs to be a pop singer and Malik (Collins Pennie) hides from his mom that he is enrolled as an actor-rapper. Making sure that the students are well rounded is Principal Angela Simms (Debby Allen) and several other performing arts teacher who show the students how life and drama are intertwined.
There is no reason to produce a Fame remake other than to ride on the success of other musical films. The angst and struggle that made the 1980 version successful is no longer present in the 2009 version. While the characters and their issues are cleaner, the passion and brilliance are disappointing. A main problem is that it tries to present 10 different stories spanning four years in 107 minutes. So no one goes beyond being sketchy caricature stereotypes. The production design’s shoddiness is emphasized over time as none of the characters change appearance even though the plot spans four years. The musical numbers, though, are entertainingly good, showcasing the talents of the casts. Director Kevin Tachareon manages to bring energy to the scenes.
Fame challenges parental authority especially when what they want contradicts what their children feel should be done. No matter if parents only have their child’s welfare in mind. Although being assertive and determined to achieve something important and fulfilling is a laudable virtue, it should not be made at the expense of a strict or uncompromising parent who wishes only to ensure that their children are always on the right path. Fame questions fame itself. It presents success and popularity secondary to having Christ at the center and being fulfilled personally. Fame is not the product of discipline, perseverance and talent but a bonus to being accomplished as a person, as a member of society and as a child of God. Fame emphasizes being true to oneself and using this honesty to harness and unleash one’s creativity and talent. However, the movie contains scenes involving suicide, a sexual situation, underage drinking, bad language and compromising scenes and situations--definitely not suitable for very young audiences.
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Fame is a remake of a 1980’s film of the same title. In is set in a New York performing arts school named Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts where we see aspiring actors, singers and dancers from their auditions until their graduation four years later. Jenny (Kay Panabaker) wants to be an actress but is too uptight and shy to let go. Marco (Asher Book) is a carefree singer who falls in love with Jenny. Meanwhile Denise (Naturi Naughton) studies classical piano at her parents insistence when she longs to be a pop singer and Malik (Collins Pennie) hides from his mom that he is enrolled as an actor-rapper. Making sure that the students are well rounded is Principal Angela Simms (Debby Allen) and several other performing arts teacher who show the students how life and drama are intertwined.
There is no reason to produce a Fame remake other than to ride on the success of other musical films. The angst and struggle that made the 1980 version successful is no longer present in the 2009 version. While the characters and their issues are cleaner, the passion and brilliance are disappointing. A main problem is that it tries to present 10 different stories spanning four years in 107 minutes. So no one goes beyond being sketchy caricature stereotypes. The production design’s shoddiness is emphasized over time as none of the characters change appearance even though the plot spans four years. The musical numbers, though, are entertainingly good, showcasing the talents of the casts. Director Kevin Tachareon manages to bring energy to the scenes.
Fame challenges parental authority especially when what they want contradicts what their children feel should be done. No matter if parents only have their child’s welfare in mind. Although being assertive and determined to achieve something important and fulfilling is a laudable virtue, it should not be made at the expense of a strict or uncompromising parent who wishes only to ensure that their children are always on the right path. Fame questions fame itself. It presents success and popularity secondary to having Christ at the center and being fulfilled personally. Fame is not the product of discipline, perseverance and talent but a bonus to being accomplished as a person, as a member of society and as a child of God. Fame emphasizes being true to oneself and using this honesty to harness and unleash one’s creativity and talent. However, the movie contains scenes involving suicide, a sexual situation, underage drinking, bad language and compromising scenes and situations--definitely not suitable for very young audiences.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Cast: Michael Douglas, Jesse Metcalfe; Director: Peter Hyams; Producers: Mark Damon, Limor Diamant, Mosche Diamant, Michael P. Flannigan, Ted Hartly, Peter Hyams; Screenwriters: Peter Hyams, Douglas Morrow; Music: David Shire; Editor: Jeff Gullo; Genre: Action, Drama; Cinematography: Peter Hyams; Distributor: Anchor Bay Entertainment; Location: USA; Running Time: 105 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Ambitious TV reporter and journalist C.J. Nicholas (Jesse Metcalfe) is doubtful of star district attorney Mark Hunter's way of putting criminals behind bars. C.J. is convinced that Hunter presents planted evidence through DNA results in cases reliant on circumstantial evidence in order to convict criminals and set outstanding record for his political ambitions. As C.J. aspires for a Pulitzer Prize, he frames himself for the murder of a prostitute to prove his convictions about Hunter. He records himself setting-up circumstantial evidence point to him until he is caught. He then waits for the perfect timing in court to catch Hunter in the act of presenting falsified evidence. But then Hunter turns out to be more ruthless than he thought so things do not turn out as planned.
The film is an inferior remake of a 50's film noir. The premise remains to be controversial and interesting but apparently flawed and quite stupid. Implicating one's self in a crime to prove a point is preposterous especially if what's at stake is just an ambitious and imaginary award like a Pulitzer for TV reporting. The first act is definitely dragging and boring and Tamblyn's role is nothing but functional until the end of second act. Douglas delivers well but appears over-the-top in the presence of amateurish Metcalfe. The film gets exciting though towards the climax but the display of other twists and turns is quite a disappointment and spoils the entire experience of viewers.
The film effectively portrays how one's ambitions could turn into corruption. One that is present even in the judicial system just for one’s personal interest and gain. Hunter's character is a clear manifestation of the flawed justice system. But Nicholas' selfish ambition does not make any difference. His interest is pure and noble at the onset and the journalistic method to find out the truth is commendable but it proves to be as cruel, if not more cruel than Hunter's. In the end, the audience is left with more questions and a stronger dismay of truth's relativity and elusiveness. Farrel's character, although functional, has remained consistently pure and loyal to truth and justice which eventually prevailed in the story. One very disturbing message though is the casual sexual intercourse between her and Nicholas which is obviously outside the confines of marriage. This and the film's entire theme and premise are fit only for audiences 18 years old and above.
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Ambitious TV reporter and journalist C.J. Nicholas (Jesse Metcalfe) is doubtful of star district attorney Mark Hunter's way of putting criminals behind bars. C.J. is convinced that Hunter presents planted evidence through DNA results in cases reliant on circumstantial evidence in order to convict criminals and set outstanding record for his political ambitions. As C.J. aspires for a Pulitzer Prize, he frames himself for the murder of a prostitute to prove his convictions about Hunter. He records himself setting-up circumstantial evidence point to him until he is caught. He then waits for the perfect timing in court to catch Hunter in the act of presenting falsified evidence. But then Hunter turns out to be more ruthless than he thought so things do not turn out as planned.
The film is an inferior remake of a 50's film noir. The premise remains to be controversial and interesting but apparently flawed and quite stupid. Implicating one's self in a crime to prove a point is preposterous especially if what's at stake is just an ambitious and imaginary award like a Pulitzer for TV reporting. The first act is definitely dragging and boring and Tamblyn's role is nothing but functional until the end of second act. Douglas delivers well but appears over-the-top in the presence of amateurish Metcalfe. The film gets exciting though towards the climax but the display of other twists and turns is quite a disappointment and spoils the entire experience of viewers.
The film effectively portrays how one's ambitions could turn into corruption. One that is present even in the judicial system just for one’s personal interest and gain. Hunter's character is a clear manifestation of the flawed justice system. But Nicholas' selfish ambition does not make any difference. His interest is pure and noble at the onset and the journalistic method to find out the truth is commendable but it proves to be as cruel, if not more cruel than Hunter's. In the end, the audience is left with more questions and a stronger dismay of truth's relativity and elusiveness. Farrel's character, although functional, has remained consistently pure and loyal to truth and justice which eventually prevailed in the story. One very disturbing message though is the casual sexual intercourse between her and Nicholas which is obviously outside the confines of marriage. This and the film's entire theme and premise are fit only for audiences 18 years old and above.
Monday, October 5, 2009
The Ugly Truth
Cast: Katherine Heigl, Gerard Butler, ; Director: Robert Luketic; Producers: Kimberly di Bonaventura, Gary Lucchesi, Deborah Jelin Newmyer, Steven Reuther, Tom Rosenbeg, Kirsten Smith; Screenwriters: Nicole Eastman, Karen McCullah Lutz; Music: Aaron Zigman; Editor: Lisa Zeno Churgin; Genre: Romantic Comedy; Cinematography: Russell Carpenter; Distributor: Columbia Pictures; Location: Los Angeles, California; Running Time: 95 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 1.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Abby Ritcher (Katherine Heigl) is an award-winning producer of a morning show whose ratings are slowly dropping. Mike Chadway (Gerard Butler) is crude host of a late night talk show entitle the Ugly Truth. Abbey is a conservative control freak who can’t get a man to date her after their first dinner. Mike is a cynical chauvinist who thinks women try to hard when men are only after sex. After a heated argument on-air, Abbey and Mike are forcibly teamed up when he is hired by her boss to spice up the ratings of her program. As expected, the two clash at every occasion as Abby finds Mike vulgar and disgusting while Mike thinks Abby is uptight and domineering. However, Mike does spruce up the ratings, salvages the relationship of his married anchors and proves to make the right decision so Abby can get her neighbour Colin (Eric Winter) interested in her. Thing take another twist when both realize they have feelings for each other and share a passionate kiss. But the ugly truth is the relationship cannot work.
The ugly truth about The Ugly Truth is that is tries so hard to be original and funny but ends up being a poor deconstruction of When Harry Met Sally. The scenes rely on crude sex jokes for laughs and fail to elicit genuine tickles and brilliant comedy. The story is predictable and offers nothing new to keep the audience watching after the first 30 minutes. Romance does not surface with Heigl and Butler’s non-existent chemistry and their flat and unsympathetic performances. Even the hot air balloon chroma looks crude and old. The only thing memorable about the movie is the choices of contemporary music.
The movie tries to intellectualize men-women differences and relationships. It has hoped to say two important things. One, that no matter how cruel fate has been, there is always a window for happiness if one dares to jump into the moment. Two that a relationship can never be based on concepts and theories and that true love begins when one accepts the other for who she really is. However, all it achieves is to be a collection of offensive uncensored sex jokes and bad language. Not only has the movie trivialized man-women interaction and reduced relationship as an excused to be licentious, it also portrays men as shallow and insensitive primates. The movie is not suitable for young impressionable teenagers and a waste of time for the adults.
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 1.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Abby Ritcher (Katherine Heigl) is an award-winning producer of a morning show whose ratings are slowly dropping. Mike Chadway (Gerard Butler) is crude host of a late night talk show entitle the Ugly Truth. Abbey is a conservative control freak who can’t get a man to date her after their first dinner. Mike is a cynical chauvinist who thinks women try to hard when men are only after sex. After a heated argument on-air, Abbey and Mike are forcibly teamed up when he is hired by her boss to spice up the ratings of her program. As expected, the two clash at every occasion as Abby finds Mike vulgar and disgusting while Mike thinks Abby is uptight and domineering. However, Mike does spruce up the ratings, salvages the relationship of his married anchors and proves to make the right decision so Abby can get her neighbour Colin (Eric Winter) interested in her. Thing take another twist when both realize they have feelings for each other and share a passionate kiss. But the ugly truth is the relationship cannot work.
The ugly truth about The Ugly Truth is that is tries so hard to be original and funny but ends up being a poor deconstruction of When Harry Met Sally. The scenes rely on crude sex jokes for laughs and fail to elicit genuine tickles and brilliant comedy. The story is predictable and offers nothing new to keep the audience watching after the first 30 minutes. Romance does not surface with Heigl and Butler’s non-existent chemistry and their flat and unsympathetic performances. Even the hot air balloon chroma looks crude and old. The only thing memorable about the movie is the choices of contemporary music.
The movie tries to intellectualize men-women differences and relationships. It has hoped to say two important things. One, that no matter how cruel fate has been, there is always a window for happiness if one dares to jump into the moment. Two that a relationship can never be based on concepts and theories and that true love begins when one accepts the other for who she really is. However, all it achieves is to be a collection of offensive uncensored sex jokes and bad language. Not only has the movie trivialized man-women interaction and reduced relationship as an excused to be licentious, it also portrays men as shallow and insensitive primates. The movie is not suitable for young impressionable teenagers and a waste of time for the adults.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Nandito Ako..... Nagmamahal Sa'yo
Cast: Kris Bernal, Aljur Abrenica, Baron Geisler, Ana Capri, Julio Diaz, Lloyd Samartino, Valeen Montenegro; Director: Maryo J. delos Reyes; Screenwriter: Jake Tordesillas; Genre: Drama; Distributor: Regal Films; Location: Manila and Bohol; Running Time: 105 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Si Tata (Aljur Abrenica) ay mag-isang pinalaki ng kanyang ina (Ana Capri) sa Quiapo. Dahil sa hirap ng kanilang buhay ay mapipilitan ang ina ni Tata na kumapit sa patalim nang lingid sa kanyang kaalaman. Masasangkot ito sa ilegal na bentahan ng droga at mapipilitan itakas ang pera bunsod ng malubhang karamdaman. Ang lahat ng ito ay hindi malalaman ni Tata hanggang marating nilang mag-ina ang Bohol, ang lugar ng kanyang hindi nakilalang ama. Ipapakilala si Tata sa kanyang ama (Lloyd Samartino) ngunit hindi siya nito agad na matatanggap lalo pa't mayroon na itong pamilya at ang nag-iisa niyang anak na si Prince (Baron Geisler) ay abala sa kanyang kasal. Nang malaman ni Prince ang tungkol kay Tata ay tatanggapin niya ito sa kundisyong magpapa-DNA test muna. Gayunpaman, magiging maayos naman ang pakitungo nila kay Tata. Ngunit makikilala ni Tata ang pakakasalan ni Prince na si Steph (Kris Bernal) at siya'y mabibighani dito. Sapagkat abala sa maraming bagay si Prince, maiiwan madalas si Steph kay Tata at silang dalawa'y magkakalapit. Dahil dito'y magsisimulang malito si Steph sa kanyang nararamdaman kay Prince at hindi nito malaman kung itutuloy pa niya ang pagpapakasal.
Bagama't kung tutuusin ay gasgas na ang kuwentong inihain ng pelikula, nagawa pa rin nitong bigyan ng bagong bihis ang lumang istorya sa pamamagitan ng paglalagay nito sa dalawang magkaibang lugar – ang magulo't masalimuot na Quiapo at ang matulain at payapang Bohol. Ito rin ang dalawang lugar na nag-uugnay sa dalawang pangunahing tauhan. Maganda ang mga kuha sa Bohol at talaga namang nakabibighani at mapapaibig ang sinumang makakapunta rito. Sayang nga lang at hindi gaanong napagyabong sa kuwento ang pag-iibigan ng dalawang pangunahing tauhan at hindi rin gaanong naging napakabigat ang tatsulok na pag-ibig dahil halata at pilit na ginawang bagay sina Tata at Steph at si Prince ay naging pawang panggulo lamang. Samakatuwid ay pawang wala naman talagang dapat pagpilian si Steph sa simulang-simula pa. Labas tuloy ay sadyang mahina ang kanyang karakter pagdating sa pamimili at pagdedesisyon. Kakatwa rin ang ilang mga linya na sa halip na lumabas na madrama ay nagiging katawa-tawa. Isang malaking kahinaan ng pelikula ang kalamlaman ng pag-arte ng dalawang panghunahing tauhan. Wala tuloy epekto ang daloy ng emosyon dahil hindi nila ito naipakita at naipadama ng maayos.
Dalisay ang kuwentong pag-ibig na ipinakita sa pelikula. Kitang pinahahalagahan nito ang pagkakabuklod ng pamilyang Pilipino, lehitimo man o hindi ang anak ay dapat bigyang ng pantay na suporta at pagmamahal. Nakatutuwang makita na bagama't lumaki sa isang magulong lugar na tulad ng Quaipo ay nagawang palakihin ng kanyang ina si Tata na may pananampalataya at takot sa Diyos. Si Steph naman na lumaki sa karangyaan ay pinalaking nanalig sa Diyos at mapagpakumbaba. Nakababahala nga lang ang ginawang pagkapit sa patalim ng ina ni Tata upang makapunta lamang sila ng Bohol at masiguro ang pagsuporta ng ama nito sa kanyang pag-aaral. Maaari naman itong unawin sa kadahilanang nauubusan na rin siya ng panahon dahil siya ay may karamdaman na. Yun nga lang, bakit sa bandang huli'y mas nagtagumpay pa rin ang masasamang loob sa halip na sila ay maparusahan? Bagama't kita sa mga mata ni Tata ang pagnanasa kay Steph sa unang araw pa lamang ng kanilang pagkikita ay pilit niyang pinigilan ito at hindi siya gumawa ng anumang hakbang na ikasisira ng kanilang pagkakaibigan at pati na rin sa relasyon niya sa kanyang kapatid sa ama. Marahil ay kapalaran na ang sadyang nagtutulak sa dalawa kung kaya't sila'y naging magkalapit at tunay nga namang mas karapat-dapat sila sa isa't-isa. Pinakita rin ang kabanalan ng sakramento ng kasal na hindi dapat ipinipilit ayon lamang sa kagustuhan ng ibang tao. Ang sakramentong ito ay iginagalang at dapat na pinagbubuhusan ng malalim na pagpapasya hanggang sa pinakahuling sandali.
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Si Tata (Aljur Abrenica) ay mag-isang pinalaki ng kanyang ina (Ana Capri) sa Quiapo. Dahil sa hirap ng kanilang buhay ay mapipilitan ang ina ni Tata na kumapit sa patalim nang lingid sa kanyang kaalaman. Masasangkot ito sa ilegal na bentahan ng droga at mapipilitan itakas ang pera bunsod ng malubhang karamdaman. Ang lahat ng ito ay hindi malalaman ni Tata hanggang marating nilang mag-ina ang Bohol, ang lugar ng kanyang hindi nakilalang ama. Ipapakilala si Tata sa kanyang ama (Lloyd Samartino) ngunit hindi siya nito agad na matatanggap lalo pa't mayroon na itong pamilya at ang nag-iisa niyang anak na si Prince (Baron Geisler) ay abala sa kanyang kasal. Nang malaman ni Prince ang tungkol kay Tata ay tatanggapin niya ito sa kundisyong magpapa-DNA test muna. Gayunpaman, magiging maayos naman ang pakitungo nila kay Tata. Ngunit makikilala ni Tata ang pakakasalan ni Prince na si Steph (Kris Bernal) at siya'y mabibighani dito. Sapagkat abala sa maraming bagay si Prince, maiiwan madalas si Steph kay Tata at silang dalawa'y magkakalapit. Dahil dito'y magsisimulang malito si Steph sa kanyang nararamdaman kay Prince at hindi nito malaman kung itutuloy pa niya ang pagpapakasal.
Bagama't kung tutuusin ay gasgas na ang kuwentong inihain ng pelikula, nagawa pa rin nitong bigyan ng bagong bihis ang lumang istorya sa pamamagitan ng paglalagay nito sa dalawang magkaibang lugar – ang magulo't masalimuot na Quiapo at ang matulain at payapang Bohol. Ito rin ang dalawang lugar na nag-uugnay sa dalawang pangunahing tauhan. Maganda ang mga kuha sa Bohol at talaga namang nakabibighani at mapapaibig ang sinumang makakapunta rito. Sayang nga lang at hindi gaanong napagyabong sa kuwento ang pag-iibigan ng dalawang pangunahing tauhan at hindi rin gaanong naging napakabigat ang tatsulok na pag-ibig dahil halata at pilit na ginawang bagay sina Tata at Steph at si Prince ay naging pawang panggulo lamang. Samakatuwid ay pawang wala naman talagang dapat pagpilian si Steph sa simulang-simula pa. Labas tuloy ay sadyang mahina ang kanyang karakter pagdating sa pamimili at pagdedesisyon. Kakatwa rin ang ilang mga linya na sa halip na lumabas na madrama ay nagiging katawa-tawa. Isang malaking kahinaan ng pelikula ang kalamlaman ng pag-arte ng dalawang panghunahing tauhan. Wala tuloy epekto ang daloy ng emosyon dahil hindi nila ito naipakita at naipadama ng maayos.
Dalisay ang kuwentong pag-ibig na ipinakita sa pelikula. Kitang pinahahalagahan nito ang pagkakabuklod ng pamilyang Pilipino, lehitimo man o hindi ang anak ay dapat bigyang ng pantay na suporta at pagmamahal. Nakatutuwang makita na bagama't lumaki sa isang magulong lugar na tulad ng Quaipo ay nagawang palakihin ng kanyang ina si Tata na may pananampalataya at takot sa Diyos. Si Steph naman na lumaki sa karangyaan ay pinalaking nanalig sa Diyos at mapagpakumbaba. Nakababahala nga lang ang ginawang pagkapit sa patalim ng ina ni Tata upang makapunta lamang sila ng Bohol at masiguro ang pagsuporta ng ama nito sa kanyang pag-aaral. Maaari naman itong unawin sa kadahilanang nauubusan na rin siya ng panahon dahil siya ay may karamdaman na. Yun nga lang, bakit sa bandang huli'y mas nagtagumpay pa rin ang masasamang loob sa halip na sila ay maparusahan? Bagama't kita sa mga mata ni Tata ang pagnanasa kay Steph sa unang araw pa lamang ng kanilang pagkikita ay pilit niyang pinigilan ito at hindi siya gumawa ng anumang hakbang na ikasisira ng kanilang pagkakaibigan at pati na rin sa relasyon niya sa kanyang kapatid sa ama. Marahil ay kapalaran na ang sadyang nagtutulak sa dalawa kung kaya't sila'y naging magkalapit at tunay nga namang mas karapat-dapat sila sa isa't-isa. Pinakita rin ang kabanalan ng sakramento ng kasal na hindi dapat ipinipilit ayon lamang sa kagustuhan ng ibang tao. Ang sakramentong ito ay iginagalang at dapat na pinagbubuhusan ng malalim na pagpapasya hanggang sa pinakahuling sandali.
Pandorum
ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Dennis Quaid, Ben Foster, Cam Gigandet, Antje Traue; Director: Christrian Alvart; Producers: ; Screenwriter: Travis MIlloy; Music: Michl Britsch; Editor: Philipp Stahl, Yvonne VAldez; Genre: Science Fiction/Fantasy; Cinematography: Wedigo von Schultzendorff ; Distributor: Cinestar; Location: Berlin, Germany; Running Time: 110 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
It tells the terrifying story of two crew members stranded on a spacecraft who quickly realize they are not alone. Two astronauts awaken in a hyper-sleep chamber aboard a seemingly abandoned spacecraft. Its pitch black, they are disoriented, and the only sound is a low rumble and creak from the belly of the spacecraft. They can't remember anything – who are they, what is their mission? The only way out of the chamber is a dark and narrow airshaft. Corporal Bower (Foster), the younger of the two, crawls inside, while the other, Lt. Payton (Quaid), stays behind for guidance on a radio transmitter. As Bower ventures deeper and deeper into the ship, he begins to uncover a terrifying reality. Slowly the spacecraft's shocking and deadly secrets come unraveled, and the astronauts realize that the survival of mankind hinges on their actions.
Cast: Dennis Quaid, Ben Foster, Cam Gigandet, Antje Traue; Director: Christrian Alvart; Producers: ; Screenwriter: Travis MIlloy; Music: Michl Britsch; Editor: Philipp Stahl, Yvonne VAldez; Genre: Science Fiction/Fantasy; Cinematography: Wedigo von Schultzendorff ; Distributor: Cinestar; Location: Berlin, Germany; Running Time: 110 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
It tells the terrifying story of two crew members stranded on a spacecraft who quickly realize they are not alone. Two astronauts awaken in a hyper-sleep chamber aboard a seemingly abandoned spacecraft. Its pitch black, they are disoriented, and the only sound is a low rumble and creak from the belly of the spacecraft. They can't remember anything – who are they, what is their mission? The only way out of the chamber is a dark and narrow airshaft. Corporal Bower (Foster), the younger of the two, crawls inside, while the other, Lt. Payton (Quaid), stays behind for guidance on a radio transmitter. As Bower ventures deeper and deeper into the ship, he begins to uncover a terrifying reality. Slowly the spacecraft's shocking and deadly secrets come unraveled, and the astronauts realize that the survival of mankind hinges on their actions.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Horsemen
Cast: Dennis Quaid, Ziyi Zhang, Lou Taylor Pucci, Clifton Collins, Patrick Fugit; Director: ; Producers: Michael Bay, Brad Fuller, Andrew Form; Screenwriter: Dave Callaham; Music: Jan A.P. Kaczmarek; Editor: Jim May, Todd E. Miller; Genre: Crime, Drama, Horror, Mystery, Thriller; Cinematography: Eric Broms; Distributor: Lions Gate Films; Location: USA; Running Time: 110 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Aiden Breslin (Dennis Quaid) is a workaholic detective who specializes in forensic dentistry. He buries himself in his work in order to fill in the void left by the death of his wife after she lost her battle with cancer. In the process, Breslin has become an uncaring and detached father to his two sons and is more concerned with the mystery behind a series of killings rooted in the Biblical Prophesy of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. As he is lead from one murder to another and draws closer to solving the puzzle, he realizes the shocking connection between himself, the four cases and the family he has abandoned.
HORSEMEN begins with a story about four psychologically imbalanced people impersonating the symbols of death and destruction in Revelations and ends to become a frustrating mellow drama about the victims of social indifference and parental desertion. The director’s attempt to force feed the message to his audience turns to be a muddled series of carnage scenes and lecture about not neglecting our loved ones. The camerawork is not tight enough to deliver effective tension filled moments. The post production works are decent but not outstanding. And for a mystery-thriller, it fails to achieve that “edge of your seat” experience for the audience.
Is work priority over family? The obvious and expected answer is “no”, however, there are instances when this is easier said than done. In these times, when most families have both parents working to support the needs of their children, it is almost easy to rationalize that the time spend away from the home is actually time sacrifice to build the home. But is it really worth it? The movie reminds us that parents need to care for their children physically and emotionally. Nothing can ever replace the time one spends with them to share memories, lessons and experiences. However, this message is drown in the series of senseless killings, gruesome violence, offensive scenes and language.
Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Aiden Breslin (Dennis Quaid) is a workaholic detective who specializes in forensic dentistry. He buries himself in his work in order to fill in the void left by the death of his wife after she lost her battle with cancer. In the process, Breslin has become an uncaring and detached father to his two sons and is more concerned with the mystery behind a series of killings rooted in the Biblical Prophesy of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. As he is lead from one murder to another and draws closer to solving the puzzle, he realizes the shocking connection between himself, the four cases and the family he has abandoned.
HORSEMEN begins with a story about four psychologically imbalanced people impersonating the symbols of death and destruction in Revelations and ends to become a frustrating mellow drama about the victims of social indifference and parental desertion. The director’s attempt to force feed the message to his audience turns to be a muddled series of carnage scenes and lecture about not neglecting our loved ones. The camerawork is not tight enough to deliver effective tension filled moments. The post production works are decent but not outstanding. And for a mystery-thriller, it fails to achieve that “edge of your seat” experience for the audience.
Is work priority over family? The obvious and expected answer is “no”, however, there are instances when this is easier said than done. In these times, when most families have both parents working to support the needs of their children, it is almost easy to rationalize that the time spend away from the home is actually time sacrifice to build the home. But is it really worth it? The movie reminds us that parents need to care for their children physically and emotionally. Nothing can ever replace the time one spends with them to share memories, lessons and experiences. However, this message is drown in the series of senseless killings, gruesome violence, offensive scenes and language.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Yaya & Angelina; The Spoiled Brat Movie
Cast: Ogie Alcasid, Michael V., Iza Calzado, Aiko Melendez, Jomari Yllana, Leo Martinez, Roxanne Guinoo, Sheena Halili, Victor Aliwalas; Director: Mike Tuviera; Producers: Jose Mari Abacan, Ogie Alcasid, Mike Tuviera, Michael V.; Screenwriters: Ogie Alcasid, Michael V., Uro Q. dela Cruz; Genre: Comedy; Distributor: GMA Films; Location: Manila; Running Time: 100 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Bagama't may angking talino ay labis naman ang kapilyahan ni Angelina (Ogie Alcacid) kung kaya't walang tumatagal ditong yaya. Matapos ang pagkuha ng ilang mga yaya para kay Angelina, tanging si Yaya Rosalinda (Michael V.) lamang ang makakatagal sa kakulitan ng alaga. Sa umpisa'y maayos ang pakikisama ni Angelina kay Yaya Rosalinda, ngunit hindi magtatagal ay magiging sunod-sunod na rin ang kapilyahang gagawin nito sa yaya hanggang sa dumating ang araw na mapilitan rin ang mga magulang ni Angelina na palayasin si Yaya Rosalinda. Ngunit isang araw ay kakailanganin ni Angelina ang tulong ng yaya nang ito ay makidnap ng mga teroristang gustong patayin ang bibisitang Dukesa ng Wellington. Makaligtas kaya sila at magkaayos pa kaya silang dalawa?
Kahanga-hanga ang talino ng dalawang pangunahing tauhan na sina Michael V. at Ogie Alcacid na mga mismong nakaisip ng karakter ni Yaya at Angelina. Mula sa mumunting mga kuwentong mag-yaya na sumikat sa telebisyon ay nagawang pelikula na ang kanilang mga likhang tauhan. Nakakaaliw silang makita sa sinehan lalo pa't kilala na ang kanilang tambalan. Maayos at manlinaw ang kuha ng kamera at mahusay maging ang pagkakaganap ng mga pangalawang tauhan. May mga mangilan-ngilan ding nakakatawang eksena. Ngunit pawang nasayang ang pelikula dahil hindi nito napalawig ang kuwento at relasyon ng mag-yaya. Tulad sa palabas sa telebisyon, nanatili itong mababaw na walang hinangad kundi ang magpatawa. Hindi naghangad man lang ang pelikula na maglahad ng mas malalim at mas makabuluhang kuwento maliban sa pagpapatawa. Marami pa sanang pwedeng gawin sa kuwento ngunit nakuntento na lamang silang manatili sa manipis na hibla ng kwentong mag-yaya.
Bagama't lumaking spoiled brat at may kapilyahan, kitang dalisay naman ang puso ni Angelina. May taglay man siyang kakulitan, hindi naman niya sinasadya ang mga nagagawang pananakit. May ilang eksena nga lang na nakakababahala tulad ng mga pagsabog at pananadyang pananakot at pagpapahiya sa kanyang mga yaya. Hindi ito dapat tularan ng mga bata at dapat silang magabayan sa panonood. Higit na kahanga-hanga si Yaya Rosalinda na nanatili ang malasakit sa- alaga sa kabila ng kakulitan at kapilyahan nito. Hindi sumusuko si Yaya Rosalinda sa alaga kahit pa hindi niya ito kadugo. Bagay na mahirap hanapin sa mga kasambahay at yaya sa kasalukuyang panahon. Ang nabuong relasyon sa mag-yaya ay dapat magsilbing halimbawa na wala sa dugo ang pagmamahal at pagmamalasakit, bagkus ito ay kusang tumutubo basta't mayroon pagmamahal at mahabang pang-unawa ang mga higit na nakakatanda. Hindi rin magtatagumpay kailanman ang kasamaan sa kabutihan. Kahit pa walang armas, ay nagawa nila Yaya at Angelina na labanan ang mga armadong terorista sa masama nitong binabalak.
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Bagama't may angking talino ay labis naman ang kapilyahan ni Angelina (Ogie Alcacid) kung kaya't walang tumatagal ditong yaya. Matapos ang pagkuha ng ilang mga yaya para kay Angelina, tanging si Yaya Rosalinda (Michael V.) lamang ang makakatagal sa kakulitan ng alaga. Sa umpisa'y maayos ang pakikisama ni Angelina kay Yaya Rosalinda, ngunit hindi magtatagal ay magiging sunod-sunod na rin ang kapilyahang gagawin nito sa yaya hanggang sa dumating ang araw na mapilitan rin ang mga magulang ni Angelina na palayasin si Yaya Rosalinda. Ngunit isang araw ay kakailanganin ni Angelina ang tulong ng yaya nang ito ay makidnap ng mga teroristang gustong patayin ang bibisitang Dukesa ng Wellington. Makaligtas kaya sila at magkaayos pa kaya silang dalawa?
Kahanga-hanga ang talino ng dalawang pangunahing tauhan na sina Michael V. at Ogie Alcacid na mga mismong nakaisip ng karakter ni Yaya at Angelina. Mula sa mumunting mga kuwentong mag-yaya na sumikat sa telebisyon ay nagawang pelikula na ang kanilang mga likhang tauhan. Nakakaaliw silang makita sa sinehan lalo pa't kilala na ang kanilang tambalan. Maayos at manlinaw ang kuha ng kamera at mahusay maging ang pagkakaganap ng mga pangalawang tauhan. May mga mangilan-ngilan ding nakakatawang eksena. Ngunit pawang nasayang ang pelikula dahil hindi nito napalawig ang kuwento at relasyon ng mag-yaya. Tulad sa palabas sa telebisyon, nanatili itong mababaw na walang hinangad kundi ang magpatawa. Hindi naghangad man lang ang pelikula na maglahad ng mas malalim at mas makabuluhang kuwento maliban sa pagpapatawa. Marami pa sanang pwedeng gawin sa kuwento ngunit nakuntento na lamang silang manatili sa manipis na hibla ng kwentong mag-yaya.
Bagama't lumaking spoiled brat at may kapilyahan, kitang dalisay naman ang puso ni Angelina. May taglay man siyang kakulitan, hindi naman niya sinasadya ang mga nagagawang pananakit. May ilang eksena nga lang na nakakababahala tulad ng mga pagsabog at pananadyang pananakot at pagpapahiya sa kanyang mga yaya. Hindi ito dapat tularan ng mga bata at dapat silang magabayan sa panonood. Higit na kahanga-hanga si Yaya Rosalinda na nanatili ang malasakit sa- alaga sa kabila ng kakulitan at kapilyahan nito. Hindi sumusuko si Yaya Rosalinda sa alaga kahit pa hindi niya ito kadugo. Bagay na mahirap hanapin sa mga kasambahay at yaya sa kasalukuyang panahon. Ang nabuong relasyon sa mag-yaya ay dapat magsilbing halimbawa na wala sa dugo ang pagmamahal at pagmamalasakit, bagkus ito ay kusang tumutubo basta't mayroon pagmamahal at mahabang pang-unawa ang mga higit na nakakatanda. Hindi rin magtatagumpay kailanman ang kasamaan sa kabutihan. Kahit pa walang armas, ay nagawa nila Yaya at Angelina na labanan ang mga armadong terorista sa masama nitong binabalak.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Whiteout
Cast: Kate Beckinsale, Gabriel Macht, Tom Skerritt; Director: Dominic Sena; Producers: Susan ; Screenwriters: Jon Hoeber, Erich Hoeber, Chad Hayes, Carey W. Hayes; Music: John Frizzell; Genre: Horror/ Suspense; Distributor: Warner Bros.; Location: Antartica; Running Time: 100 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
US Marshall Carrie Stetco Kate Beckinsale) arrives in Antarctica for her assignment to investigate a dead body of a geologist that is found on the ice. Giving her moral support to fulfill the mission is Dr John Fury (Tom Skerritt), her friend in the area. Soon after she arrives at the conclusion on the crime of murder that causes the dead body, she realizes that the murderer is on the loose and also after her life because of her responsibility to the case. Being used to the situation as a law enforcer, Carrie is determined to pursue the investigation and to pin down the killer especially with the discovery of series of killing in Antarctica. In the course of her ordeal, she meets UN Consultant, Robert Pryce (Gabriel Macht) who is equally interested in the case of the murdered geologist. Eventually, both of them become the target of the mysterious killer.
Whiteout is a treat of scenic view of snowy Antarctica. The cinematography is so good with appropriate lighting and compliments of sounds and musical score. However, if the abovementioned aspects of the film are commendable, the overall story is a dismal. The plot is poorly developed with hardly notice of denouement. There is high frequency of unnecessary or prolonged scenes like exposure of dead bodies, intense violent killings, chasing scenes in snow storms, and even the amputation of fingers. The film was concluded with the discovery of a surprise killer and likely with the viewer's question 'how could that be?
The film shows that a responsible officer tasked to do a mission must have the focus and the commitment to fulfill her duty in all circumstances. For a film to feature a woman in her strength at par with man is a positive notion. However, density of senseless killings and casual exposures of dead bodies that is rampant during the entire run of the film have overtaken the reference to a strong woman. Instead, it shows how a doctor who is supposed to save lives can manipulate a crime, disregard trust in friendship, and make up stories in exchange of wealth. Dead human bodies are not respected rather used for crime (i.e keeper of diamonds or precious stones) if not totally ignored.
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
US Marshall Carrie Stetco Kate Beckinsale) arrives in Antarctica for her assignment to investigate a dead body of a geologist that is found on the ice. Giving her moral support to fulfill the mission is Dr John Fury (Tom Skerritt), her friend in the area. Soon after she arrives at the conclusion on the crime of murder that causes the dead body, she realizes that the murderer is on the loose and also after her life because of her responsibility to the case. Being used to the situation as a law enforcer, Carrie is determined to pursue the investigation and to pin down the killer especially with the discovery of series of killing in Antarctica. In the course of her ordeal, she meets UN Consultant, Robert Pryce (Gabriel Macht) who is equally interested in the case of the murdered geologist. Eventually, both of them become the target of the mysterious killer.
Whiteout is a treat of scenic view of snowy Antarctica. The cinematography is so good with appropriate lighting and compliments of sounds and musical score. However, if the abovementioned aspects of the film are commendable, the overall story is a dismal. The plot is poorly developed with hardly notice of denouement. There is high frequency of unnecessary or prolonged scenes like exposure of dead bodies, intense violent killings, chasing scenes in snow storms, and even the amputation of fingers. The film was concluded with the discovery of a surprise killer and likely with the viewer's question 'how could that be?
The film shows that a responsible officer tasked to do a mission must have the focus and the commitment to fulfill her duty in all circumstances. For a film to feature a woman in her strength at par with man is a positive notion. However, density of senseless killings and casual exposures of dead bodies that is rampant during the entire run of the film have overtaken the reference to a strong woman. Instead, it shows how a doctor who is supposed to save lives can manipulate a crime, disregard trust in friendship, and make up stories in exchange of wealth. Dead human bodies are not respected rather used for crime (i.e keeper of diamonds or precious stones) if not totally ignored.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Sorority Row
Cast: Briana Evigan, Leah Pipes, Rumer Willis, Jamie Chung, Margo Harshman, Audrina Patridge, Caroline D’Amore, Carrie Fisher; Director: Stewart Hendler; Producers: Darrin Holender, Mike Karz; Screenwriters: Josh Stolberg, Pete Goldfinger; Music: Lucian Piane; Editor: Elliot Greenberg; Genre: Horror/ Thriller; Cinematography: Ken Seng; Distributor: Summit Enter; Location: USA; Running Time: 100 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Theta Pi is a sorority house run by Mrs. Crenshaw (Carrie Fisher) where the girls led by Jessica (Leah Pipes) often hold wild parties. When Megan (Audrina Patridge) discovers her boyfriend Garret (Matt O”leary) cheating on her, she decides break off and exact revenge with the help of her sisters. So during their sorority’s Pledge Week, Megan connives with her sisters to pull a prank on Garret. They convince him to drug Megan so he can freely bed her and later on Megan would pretend die from overdose. Unfortunately, Garret believes he has really killed Megan and proceeds to impale her with a tire iron. The shocked and panicked sisters are convinced by Jessica to pretend Megan went missing at the party and lead the girls to dump the body and swear them to secrecy. Eight months later during their graduation party, the sisters receive text messages from Megan’s cell phone. Soon after, a hooded tire-iron-wielding slasher in graduation gown brutally kills all those involved in the cover up one after the other.
As in any slasher film, Sorority Row, a bad remake of House on Sorority Row, features semi-clad big-chested girls engaged in wild parties and bad company running stupidly from an amazingly clever killer who can single handedly slaughter dozens of people one after the other. There are bright moments when the film tries to break of from its formula, particularly the witty one-liners and sense of humor, making the viewers sympathize with the characters and actually care for their safety. Other than this, the movie is nothing more than a bloody body count and how many creative scenes the director can use for each murder. The plot development and the revelation of the killer is disappointingly brainless, the performances are shallow and the creative direction is mediocre.
Ironically, SORORITY ROW’s Theta Pi emphasizes trust, respect, honor, secrecy and solidarity as its core values. Values which in reality are merely lip service to protect themselves. The characters do not even care to look after a friend - so much so for sisterhood. At the end, secrecy is the only value that counts to cover up for a crime. The characters are ill-mannered, promiscuous and rude.
The movie contains gratuitous nudity, gore and violence, rough and vulgar language and absolutely no redeeming quality to be worth anyone’s time and money.
Friday, September 18, 2009
In My Life
Cast: Vilma Santos, Luis Manzano, John Lloyd Cruz, Dimples Romana, Paw Diaz; Director: Olivia M. Lamasan; Producer: Charo Santos; Screenwriters: Olive Lamasan, Raymond Lee, Senedy Que; Genre: Drama; Distributor: Star Cine Production; Location: Manila/ New York; Running Time: 120 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Si Shirley (Vilma Santos) ay isang tumatandang public school librarian na matagal nang hiwalay sa asawa at mag-isang itinaguyod ang tatlong anak. Nang pinipilit siya ng kanyang anak na si Dang (Dimples Romana) na ibenta ang compound dahil balak nitong mag-migrate sa ibang bansa kasama ang buong pamilya, labis siyang nagdamdam. Kaya't nagdesisyon si Shirley na puntahan ang anak niyang si Mark (Luis Manzano) na nasa New York para magbakasyon. Sa pag-aakalang wala nang babalikan sa Pilipinas, susubukan ni Shirley na magsimula ng panibagong buhay doon. Dahil dito'y mapipilitan si Shirley na makipisan sa anak na may kinakasamang boyfriend na si Noel (John Lloyd Cruz). Bagama't pawang tanggap ni Shirley ang pagiging bakla ng anak, hindi niya gaanong matanggap si Noel. Subalit dahil parating abala sa trabaho si Mark, si Noel ang parating maiiwang tumingin at mag-asikaso kay Shirley. Magkaayos kaya silang dalawa at mahanap kaya ni Shirley ang panibagong buhay sa New York sa gitna ng lumalala niyang relasyon sa mga anak?
Matino ang produksiyon ng In My Life at naging mas makinang dahil karamihan sa mga eksena ay kinunan pa sa New York. Halatang pinagbuhusan ng talino't galing ang kabuuan ng pelikula. Hindi matatawaran ang husay ni Vilma Santos sa pagganap at hindi rin nagpahuli dito si John Lloyd Cruz. Si Luis Manzano na bagama't hindi pa kasinghusay ay nagawa naman nang maayos ang kanyang karakter. Nakababahala lang na pawang hindi gaanong nagamit ang kalugaran ng kuwento na halos naging palamuti lang. Ang mga kuwentong nakakabit sa New York ay hindi naman talaga nagpaiting sa tunay na kuwento ng pelikula. Sa madaling salita, kahit ilipat ang kuwento sa ibang kalugaran ay hindi pa rin magbabago ang takbo nito. Ang naging resulta tuloy ay napakaraming maliliit na kuwentong nakasanga sa pinakapuso ng pelikula na sa halip na makatulong sa pagpapayabong ng istorya ay nagpapaligaw sa nais nitong patunguhan. Naging pilit tuloy ang ilang eksena kung ikukumpara sa kabuuan. Salamat na lamang sa napakahusay na pagganap ng mga tauhan, sa malinis na sinematograpiya, sa magandang komposisyon ng mga eksena kaya't maituturing pa ring kaaya-aya ang In My Life.
Kahanga-hanga ang tauhan na si Shirley. Bagama't marami siyang pagkukulang at talaga namang hindi perpekto, nagawa naman niyang isakripisyo ang sariling kaligayahan alang-alang sa kinabukasan ng mga anak. Naging mahigpit at malupit man siya paminsan-minsan, ang mga ito'y hindi naman niya sinasadya. At sa bandang huli'y natuto siyang umamin sa mga pagkakamali at namayani pa rin ang pagmamahal at pagpapatawad. Marami nga lang nakakabahalang moral sa pelikula tulad ng relasyong homosekswal na nagsasama ang dalawang lalaki na pawang mag-asawa. Ipinakitang ito'y katanggap-tanggap at wala ni ano mang sinabi sa kuwento na ang ganitong relasyon ay hindi tama. Halatang nag-ingat din ang pelikula na huwag gawing sobrang lantaran ang mga eksena ng lambingan sa pagitan ng dalawang lalaki na naging maganda naman ang kinalabasan. Talamak din sa Amerika ang pagkapit sa patalim ng ating mga kababayan na nagpapakasal para lamang maging US citizen at makapagtrabaho doon ng legal. Hindi naman sinasabi ng pelikula na ito ay tama, ngunit sadyang ito ang natatanging paraan upang maging maayos ang kalagayan ng ilang Pilipinong naninirahan doon ng walang papel o illegal. Sa kuwento ng pelikula, nagamit ang aspetong ito upang makatulong kay Noel at upang gumaan din ang pakiramdam ni Shirley. Lalo tuloy naging nakababahala na naging katanggap-tanggap na talaga ang “marriage for convenience” sa ating mga kababayan. Higit pa rito'y kung paanong nagkakawatak-watak ang isang pamilya sa pagnanais ng mas malaking kita sa pangingibang-bayan. Dahil sa mga aspetong ito ay nararapat lamang ang pelikula sa mga manonood na may edad 14 pataas.
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Si Shirley (Vilma Santos) ay isang tumatandang public school librarian na matagal nang hiwalay sa asawa at mag-isang itinaguyod ang tatlong anak. Nang pinipilit siya ng kanyang anak na si Dang (Dimples Romana) na ibenta ang compound dahil balak nitong mag-migrate sa ibang bansa kasama ang buong pamilya, labis siyang nagdamdam. Kaya't nagdesisyon si Shirley na puntahan ang anak niyang si Mark (Luis Manzano) na nasa New York para magbakasyon. Sa pag-aakalang wala nang babalikan sa Pilipinas, susubukan ni Shirley na magsimula ng panibagong buhay doon. Dahil dito'y mapipilitan si Shirley na makipisan sa anak na may kinakasamang boyfriend na si Noel (John Lloyd Cruz). Bagama't pawang tanggap ni Shirley ang pagiging bakla ng anak, hindi niya gaanong matanggap si Noel. Subalit dahil parating abala sa trabaho si Mark, si Noel ang parating maiiwang tumingin at mag-asikaso kay Shirley. Magkaayos kaya silang dalawa at mahanap kaya ni Shirley ang panibagong buhay sa New York sa gitna ng lumalala niyang relasyon sa mga anak?
Matino ang produksiyon ng In My Life at naging mas makinang dahil karamihan sa mga eksena ay kinunan pa sa New York. Halatang pinagbuhusan ng talino't galing ang kabuuan ng pelikula. Hindi matatawaran ang husay ni Vilma Santos sa pagganap at hindi rin nagpahuli dito si John Lloyd Cruz. Si Luis Manzano na bagama't hindi pa kasinghusay ay nagawa naman nang maayos ang kanyang karakter. Nakababahala lang na pawang hindi gaanong nagamit ang kalugaran ng kuwento na halos naging palamuti lang. Ang mga kuwentong nakakabit sa New York ay hindi naman talaga nagpaiting sa tunay na kuwento ng pelikula. Sa madaling salita, kahit ilipat ang kuwento sa ibang kalugaran ay hindi pa rin magbabago ang takbo nito. Ang naging resulta tuloy ay napakaraming maliliit na kuwentong nakasanga sa pinakapuso ng pelikula na sa halip na makatulong sa pagpapayabong ng istorya ay nagpapaligaw sa nais nitong patunguhan. Naging pilit tuloy ang ilang eksena kung ikukumpara sa kabuuan. Salamat na lamang sa napakahusay na pagganap ng mga tauhan, sa malinis na sinematograpiya, sa magandang komposisyon ng mga eksena kaya't maituturing pa ring kaaya-aya ang In My Life.
Kahanga-hanga ang tauhan na si Shirley. Bagama't marami siyang pagkukulang at talaga namang hindi perpekto, nagawa naman niyang isakripisyo ang sariling kaligayahan alang-alang sa kinabukasan ng mga anak. Naging mahigpit at malupit man siya paminsan-minsan, ang mga ito'y hindi naman niya sinasadya. At sa bandang huli'y natuto siyang umamin sa mga pagkakamali at namayani pa rin ang pagmamahal at pagpapatawad. Marami nga lang nakakabahalang moral sa pelikula tulad ng relasyong homosekswal na nagsasama ang dalawang lalaki na pawang mag-asawa. Ipinakitang ito'y katanggap-tanggap at wala ni ano mang sinabi sa kuwento na ang ganitong relasyon ay hindi tama. Halatang nag-ingat din ang pelikula na huwag gawing sobrang lantaran ang mga eksena ng lambingan sa pagitan ng dalawang lalaki na naging maganda naman ang kinalabasan. Talamak din sa Amerika ang pagkapit sa patalim ng ating mga kababayan na nagpapakasal para lamang maging US citizen at makapagtrabaho doon ng legal. Hindi naman sinasabi ng pelikula na ito ay tama, ngunit sadyang ito ang natatanging paraan upang maging maayos ang kalagayan ng ilang Pilipinong naninirahan doon ng walang papel o illegal. Sa kuwento ng pelikula, nagamit ang aspetong ito upang makatulong kay Noel at upang gumaan din ang pakiramdam ni Shirley. Lalo tuloy naging nakababahala na naging katanggap-tanggap na talaga ang “marriage for convenience” sa ating mga kababayan. Higit pa rito'y kung paanong nagkakawatak-watak ang isang pamilya sa pagnanais ng mas malaking kita sa pangingibang-bayan. Dahil sa mga aspetong ito ay nararapat lamang ang pelikula sa mga manonood na may edad 14 pataas.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Manghuhula
Cast: Eula Valdez, Glaiza de Castro, Emilio Garcia, Chanda Romero, Pinky Amador, Bella Flores, Adreinne Babiera; Director: Paolo Herras; Producers: Marc Licaros, Joseph David Santos; Screenwriters: Paolo Herras, Marlon Rivera; Music: Isha; Editor: Dempster Samarista; Genre: Drama; Cinematography: Rodolfo Aves, Jr., Marissa Floirendo Distributor: Alessandro Productions; Location: Manila; Running Time: 105 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Si Messina (Eula Valdez) ay nagmula sa pamilya ng manghuhula. Kilalang manghuhula ang kanyang ina (Chanda Romero) sa kanilang lugar na kung saan panghuhula ang pangunahing ikinabubuhay ng mga tao. Tinakasan ni Messina ang kanilang lugar dahil binansagan siyang salot nang minsang mahulaan niya ang isang kamatayan at ito ay nagkatotoo. Iniwan niya ang kanyang anak na si Claire (Glaiza de Castro) dahil hindi niya ito maisama. Magbabalik si Messina sa kanilang lugar nang malaman niya na namatay ang kanyang ina sa hindi pa alam na kadahilanan. Kasabay ng pag-aalam ni Messina ng dahilan ng kamatayan ng kanyang ina ay pilit naman niyang itatakas si Claire sa mundo ng panghuhula na kanilang kinagisnan. Ngunit hindi sila papayagan ng sindikato ni Jacob (Emilio Garcia) na siyang nagpapatakbo sa negosyo ng panghuhula. Marami raw iniwang utang ang ina ni Messina at dapat itong pagbayaran ni Claire sa pamamagitan rin ng panghuhula. Magawa pa kayang itakas ni Messina si Claire gayong nahumaling na rin ito sa mundo ng panghuhula?
Isang naiibang kuwento ang pelikula na tumatalakay sa isang mundong bihira o hindi pa masyadong alam ng nakararami. Hindi pangkaraniwan ang paksang nais talakayin ng Ang Manghuhula kung kaya't sa kabuuan ng pelikula'y mas maraming tanong kaysa sagot ang mananatili sa isip ng manonood. Palaisipan kung paanong naging isang sindikato ang dapat sana'y di pangkaraniwang kakayahan ng panghuhula na hindi pa rin batid kung biyaya o sumpa. Hindi gaanong malinaw ang takbo ng kuwento at hindi rin malinaw kung saan ito patutungo. Hanggang sa huli'y hindi masabi kung narating ba ng pelikula ang nais nitong marating. Mahusay naman ang mga nagsiganap sa pangunguna ni Valdez ngunit pawang maraming butas at kulang sa pelikula na hindi napunan ng husay ng mga tauhan. Bagama't maliwanag ang nais makuha ng pangunahing tauhan, hindi naman malinaw kung ano ba talaga ang problema at ang ugat na pinanggagalingan nito. Sayang at pawang maraming nais sabihin ang pelikula ngunit nanatili ang lahat sa isipan ng may likha nito at hindi nagamit ang biswal na midyum ng pelikula.
Maituturing nga bang biyaya o sumpa ang kakayahang malaman ang hinaharap? Maliwanag ang turo ng simbahan ukol dito na bagama't sa simula pa lamang ng kasaysayan ay may mga propeta nang nagpapahayag ng hinaharap, hindi pa rin nararapat isa-alang-alang ng tao ang kanyang buhay sa manghuhula. Ang gawin itong isang negosyo ay mas higit na masama lalo pa't nauuwi ito sa panloloko. Ito naman ay naipakita ng pelikula at hindi nito kinukunsinte ang mga maling gawa. Nakakabahala nga lang kung paanong ituring ng anak na si Claire ang kanyang ina na halos pawang wala na siyang paggalang dito. Nakakalito rin kung paano at bakit pilit na inaako ni Claire ang papel ng isang manghuhula gayong alam naman niya ang kapahamakang idudulot nito sa kanya. Ang pinakanakakabahala sa lahat ay kung paanong binigyang kapangyarihan ng pelikula ang mga barahang gamit sa panghuhula na halos maging instrumento ito ng kaguluhan at patayan sa kanilang lugar. Nakakabahala rin ang madalas na pagpapakita ng mga imahe at santo na simbolo ng pananampalatayang katoliko na pawang nais ipahiwatig ang pagiging paganong Katoliko ng mga Plilipino. Dahil sa mabigat nitong tema, nararapat lamang ang pelikula sa mga manonood na may edad 14 pataas.
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Si Messina (Eula Valdez) ay nagmula sa pamilya ng manghuhula. Kilalang manghuhula ang kanyang ina (Chanda Romero) sa kanilang lugar na kung saan panghuhula ang pangunahing ikinabubuhay ng mga tao. Tinakasan ni Messina ang kanilang lugar dahil binansagan siyang salot nang minsang mahulaan niya ang isang kamatayan at ito ay nagkatotoo. Iniwan niya ang kanyang anak na si Claire (Glaiza de Castro) dahil hindi niya ito maisama. Magbabalik si Messina sa kanilang lugar nang malaman niya na namatay ang kanyang ina sa hindi pa alam na kadahilanan. Kasabay ng pag-aalam ni Messina ng dahilan ng kamatayan ng kanyang ina ay pilit naman niyang itatakas si Claire sa mundo ng panghuhula na kanilang kinagisnan. Ngunit hindi sila papayagan ng sindikato ni Jacob (Emilio Garcia) na siyang nagpapatakbo sa negosyo ng panghuhula. Marami raw iniwang utang ang ina ni Messina at dapat itong pagbayaran ni Claire sa pamamagitan rin ng panghuhula. Magawa pa kayang itakas ni Messina si Claire gayong nahumaling na rin ito sa mundo ng panghuhula?
Isang naiibang kuwento ang pelikula na tumatalakay sa isang mundong bihira o hindi pa masyadong alam ng nakararami. Hindi pangkaraniwan ang paksang nais talakayin ng Ang Manghuhula kung kaya't sa kabuuan ng pelikula'y mas maraming tanong kaysa sagot ang mananatili sa isip ng manonood. Palaisipan kung paanong naging isang sindikato ang dapat sana'y di pangkaraniwang kakayahan ng panghuhula na hindi pa rin batid kung biyaya o sumpa. Hindi gaanong malinaw ang takbo ng kuwento at hindi rin malinaw kung saan ito patutungo. Hanggang sa huli'y hindi masabi kung narating ba ng pelikula ang nais nitong marating. Mahusay naman ang mga nagsiganap sa pangunguna ni Valdez ngunit pawang maraming butas at kulang sa pelikula na hindi napunan ng husay ng mga tauhan. Bagama't maliwanag ang nais makuha ng pangunahing tauhan, hindi naman malinaw kung ano ba talaga ang problema at ang ugat na pinanggagalingan nito. Sayang at pawang maraming nais sabihin ang pelikula ngunit nanatili ang lahat sa isipan ng may likha nito at hindi nagamit ang biswal na midyum ng pelikula.
Maituturing nga bang biyaya o sumpa ang kakayahang malaman ang hinaharap? Maliwanag ang turo ng simbahan ukol dito na bagama't sa simula pa lamang ng kasaysayan ay may mga propeta nang nagpapahayag ng hinaharap, hindi pa rin nararapat isa-alang-alang ng tao ang kanyang buhay sa manghuhula. Ang gawin itong isang negosyo ay mas higit na masama lalo pa't nauuwi ito sa panloloko. Ito naman ay naipakita ng pelikula at hindi nito kinukunsinte ang mga maling gawa. Nakakabahala nga lang kung paanong ituring ng anak na si Claire ang kanyang ina na halos pawang wala na siyang paggalang dito. Nakakalito rin kung paano at bakit pilit na inaako ni Claire ang papel ng isang manghuhula gayong alam naman niya ang kapahamakang idudulot nito sa kanya. Ang pinakanakakabahala sa lahat ay kung paanong binigyang kapangyarihan ng pelikula ang mga barahang gamit sa panghuhula na halos maging instrumento ito ng kaguluhan at patayan sa kanilang lugar. Nakakabahala rin ang madalas na pagpapakita ng mga imahe at santo na simbolo ng pananampalatayang katoliko na pawang nais ipahiwatig ang pagiging paganong Katoliko ng mga Plilipino. Dahil sa mabigat nitong tema, nararapat lamang ang pelikula sa mga manonood na may edad 14 pataas.
Friday, September 11, 2009
I Love You Beth Cooper
Cast: Hayden Panettiere, Paul Rust, Jack T. Carpenter, Lauren London, Alan Ruck, Cynthia Stevenson; Director: Chris Columbus; Producers: Chris Columbus, Mark Radcliffe, Michael Barnathan; Screenwriter: Larry Doyle; Music: Christophe Beck; Editor: Peter Honess; Genre: Romantic Comedy; Cinematography: Phil Abraham; Distributor: 20th Century Fox; Location: USA; Running Time: 102 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Denis Cooverman (Paul Rust) is graduating from high school and he delivers his valedictory speech. Unfortunately, he uses this oration to profess his secret love for head cheerleader Beth Cooper (Hayden Panettiere). His confession as well as other things he says does not sit well with Beth’s cocaine-sniffing ROTC boyfriend Kevin (Shawn Roberts). Meanwhile, charmed and flattered Beth decides to attend Denis’ party, together with friends Cammy and Treece, and gives him the night of his life. Denis and Rich, the only other guest of the party, try hard to entertain the girls but end up running away from a vindictive Kevin. On the run, Denis discovers that Beth isn’t the girl he thought she was.
On the one hand, I Love You Beth Cooper includes a strong and charming cast who embodies high school’s hormones quite well. There is some believable chemistry between he leads and support that you can almost sympathize with their sentiments and motives. Almost... because it gets there but never moves any further. On the other hand, the movie is flat and tedious. The script is senseless and fails to get the right tone and struggles between being gross comedy and sugary sweet teen romance. The scenes are tedious and boring and develops poorly.
I Love You Beth Cooper starts off as another teen-inspired romance but dangerously moves to show freewheeling sexual attitudes and choices that even adults will be repulsed. The line of morality seems to have shifted too far as characters ignore values and engage in offensive behaviours, willingly, Even parents of the characters cannot be role models. The heroes of the movie get drunk, trivialize drug addiction, engage in pre-marital sex, “threesomes”, nudity (though shot off screen), homosexuality, violence and bad behaviours. The theme of teen romance is overshadowed by toilet humor and sex jokes. Language is vulgar and crass. The movie is not worth one’s hard earned money and time.
Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Denis Cooverman (Paul Rust) is graduating from high school and he delivers his valedictory speech. Unfortunately, he uses this oration to profess his secret love for head cheerleader Beth Cooper (Hayden Panettiere). His confession as well as other things he says does not sit well with Beth’s cocaine-sniffing ROTC boyfriend Kevin (Shawn Roberts). Meanwhile, charmed and flattered Beth decides to attend Denis’ party, together with friends Cammy and Treece, and gives him the night of his life. Denis and Rich, the only other guest of the party, try hard to entertain the girls but end up running away from a vindictive Kevin. On the run, Denis discovers that Beth isn’t the girl he thought she was.
On the one hand, I Love You Beth Cooper includes a strong and charming cast who embodies high school’s hormones quite well. There is some believable chemistry between he leads and support that you can almost sympathize with their sentiments and motives. Almost... because it gets there but never moves any further. On the other hand, the movie is flat and tedious. The script is senseless and fails to get the right tone and struggles between being gross comedy and sugary sweet teen romance. The scenes are tedious and boring and develops poorly.
I Love You Beth Cooper starts off as another teen-inspired romance but dangerously moves to show freewheeling sexual attitudes and choices that even adults will be repulsed. The line of morality seems to have shifted too far as characters ignore values and engage in offensive behaviours, willingly, Even parents of the characters cannot be role models. The heroes of the movie get drunk, trivialize drug addiction, engage in pre-marital sex, “threesomes”, nudity (though shot off screen), homosexuality, violence and bad behaviours. The theme of teen romance is overshadowed by toilet humor and sex jokes. Language is vulgar and crass. The movie is not worth one’s hard earned money and time.
Management
ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Jennifer Aniston, Steve Zahn, Woody Harrelson, Fred Ward,Margo Martindale; Director: Stephen Belber; Producers: Sidney Kimmel, Wyck Godfrey, Marty Bowen; Screenwriter: Stephen Belber; Music: Michael Dana, Rob Simonsen; Editor: Kate Sanford; Genre: Romantic Comedy; Cinematography: Eric Allan Edwards; Distributor: Samuel Goldwyn Company, The; Location: USA; Running Time: 94 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
The often silly, always likable actor plays Mike Cranshaw (Steve Zahn), a man with little ambition but lots of heart who works at his parents' motel in small-town Arizona. When paint-saleswoman Sue Claussen (Jennifer Aniston) stops at the inn, Mike immediately plots an awkward plan to seduce her. Things go better than either of them would have guessed, but Sue still leaves for her home in Maryland. Mike impulsively follows her east, beginning an uncomfortable but heartfelt courtship that takes the road less traveled. Sue's move from Maryland to Washington does little to deter Mike, but the reappearance of her ex-boyfriend, ex-punk Jango (Woody Harrelson), could throw him off course. Mike commits acts bordering on criminal in his cross-country pursuit of Sue, but thanks to Zahn's 'performance, it's hard not to feel devoted to his character and to understand Sue’s (reluctant) attraction.
Cast: Jennifer Aniston, Steve Zahn, Woody Harrelson, Fred Ward,Margo Martindale; Director: Stephen Belber; Producers: Sidney Kimmel, Wyck Godfrey, Marty Bowen; Screenwriter: Stephen Belber; Music: Michael Dana, Rob Simonsen; Editor: Kate Sanford; Genre: Romantic Comedy; Cinematography: Eric Allan Edwards; Distributor: Samuel Goldwyn Company, The; Location: USA; Running Time: 94 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
The often silly, always likable actor plays Mike Cranshaw (Steve Zahn), a man with little ambition but lots of heart who works at his parents' motel in small-town Arizona. When paint-saleswoman Sue Claussen (Jennifer Aniston) stops at the inn, Mike immediately plots an awkward plan to seduce her. Things go better than either of them would have guessed, but Sue still leaves for her home in Maryland. Mike impulsively follows her east, beginning an uncomfortable but heartfelt courtship that takes the road less traveled. Sue's move from Maryland to Washington does little to deter Mike, but the reappearance of her ex-boyfriend, ex-punk Jango (Woody Harrelson), could throw him off course. Mike commits acts bordering on criminal in his cross-country pursuit of Sue, but thanks to Zahn's 'performance, it's hard not to feel devoted to his character and to understand Sue’s (reluctant) attraction.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Final Destination 4
Cast: Bobby Campo, Shantel VanSanten, Nick Zano, Mykelti Williamson, Krista Allen; Director: David R. Ellis; Producers: Craig Perry, Warren Zide; Screenwriters: Eric Bress, Jeffrey Reddick; Music: Brian Tyler; Editor: Mark Stevens; Genre: Suspense/ Thriller; Cinematography: Glen MacPherson; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 90 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 1.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Friends Nick (Bobby), Lori (Shantel), Hunt (Nick), and Janet (Haley) are part of the audience having fun watching the car race when Nick suddenly has a detailed premonition of car crashes causing impact to collapse the stadium and killed many people including them. Not soon after he convinces his friends to leave the place, the fatal accident happens as Nick sees it. This incident is followed by more premonitions of gruesome deaths that eventually happens and kills people one after another including those known to him. Having the opportunity to foresee these unlikely events, Nick tries his best effort with the help of his friends and feels the responsibility to prevent and save the lives of the people concern and even himself.
Final Destination 4 has a straight forward plot that has arranged sequence of deaths by familiarity to the one having the premonitions. The viewers keep up to the end of the film to get an answer to questions on their minds whether the lead character will also die and how. The special effects, sounds, make-up and production design are main ingredients that are successfully put together to provide the details of the gruesome death circumstances. However, the film has the tendency to exaggerate and overdo with many blasting scenes. Lead and supporting actors gave their good portrayals and gave justice to their roles.
Death is definite but as to when and how is not known until it happens. The film, however says whilst it is indeed the final destination, circumstances of death can be known through a premonition and a person concern can try to prevent. Unfortunately, the premonition in this film only foresees gruesome and violent ones which give liberty to the wild idea of a filmmaker to project senseless killings of people in dehumanizing manner and devaluing life. Whilst there was effort to protect life, but this was outdone by details of brutal killings shown in the entire run of the film. Overall, the movie promotes a culture of death rather than nurturing life as a primary value that will be a key to a so-called peaceful and happy death especially to Christian believers.
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 1.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Friends Nick (Bobby), Lori (Shantel), Hunt (Nick), and Janet (Haley) are part of the audience having fun watching the car race when Nick suddenly has a detailed premonition of car crashes causing impact to collapse the stadium and killed many people including them. Not soon after he convinces his friends to leave the place, the fatal accident happens as Nick sees it. This incident is followed by more premonitions of gruesome deaths that eventually happens and kills people one after another including those known to him. Having the opportunity to foresee these unlikely events, Nick tries his best effort with the help of his friends and feels the responsibility to prevent and save the lives of the people concern and even himself.
Final Destination 4 has a straight forward plot that has arranged sequence of deaths by familiarity to the one having the premonitions. The viewers keep up to the end of the film to get an answer to questions on their minds whether the lead character will also die and how. The special effects, sounds, make-up and production design are main ingredients that are successfully put together to provide the details of the gruesome death circumstances. However, the film has the tendency to exaggerate and overdo with many blasting scenes. Lead and supporting actors gave their good portrayals and gave justice to their roles.
Death is definite but as to when and how is not known until it happens. The film, however says whilst it is indeed the final destination, circumstances of death can be known through a premonition and a person concern can try to prevent. Unfortunately, the premonition in this film only foresees gruesome and violent ones which give liberty to the wild idea of a filmmaker to project senseless killings of people in dehumanizing manner and devaluing life. Whilst there was effort to protect life, but this was outdone by details of brutal killings shown in the entire run of the film. Overall, the movie promotes a culture of death rather than nurturing life as a primary value that will be a key to a so-called peaceful and happy death especially to Christian believers.
Year One
Cast: Jack Black, Michael Cera, David Cross, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Olivia Wilde; Director: Harold Ramis; Producers: Judd Apatow, Clayton Townsend; Screenwriters: Harold Ramis, Gene Stupnitsky; Music: Theodore Shapiro; Editor: Craig Herring, Steve Welch; Genre: Comedy; Cinematography: Alar Kivilo; Distributor: Sony Pictures Entertainment; Location: USA; Running Time: 100 min.;
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 1
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Caveman Zed (Jack Black) is his tribe’s greatest liability. He is banished from his community when he decides to prove his love for Maya and eat the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. As he leaves his tribe, he is joined by the effeminate fruit gatherer Oh (Michael Cera) who secretly hates his role and wishes to start a new life with Eema (Juno Temple).They trek to the mountains and intertwine their presence with Biblical stories of Genesis amidst a more advance and progressive society. Zed and Oh meet the squabbling Cain (David Cross) and Abel (Paul Rudd) and witness the murder of the latter. They discover the girls they wanted to sleep with have been sold to slavery and devised a plan to save them. However, they end up being sold by Cain into slavery and are force to march across the desert with the Roman soldiers with funny accents. They escape the Roman soldiers and end up a few seconds before Abraham (Hank Azaria) sacrifices Isaac (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). After they successfully stop Abraham from killing his own son, they are taken with him and introduced to the Hebrew culture of circumcision. Naturally, several scenes are devoted to build on jokes and poke fun at the tradition. Zed, now believing that God has chosen him for a special task, travel to the City of Sodom where they meet Cain once more and a Sodomite priest has taken a liking to Oh. Is Zed really the chosen one and will they be able to save Maya and Eema from slavery?
Year One is an attempt to spoof the stories of Genesis without the historical accuracy or the literary aptitude. Why a cave-dwelling society will coexist with the Roman Empire is completely ridiculous. The writers seem to just have leafed through Genesis with a lot of crude jokes and language in mind for a movie. Black is as annoying as he is in every other one of his movies and fails to immerse himself into the supposed character. Cera is as bland as he is in every other one of his movies and fails to be more than a guy in costume. Because this is a comedy, we can overlook the inaccuracies of the plot. But the confusion and weakness of its development is unforgivable. On the other hand, the technical aspect is satisfactory and the production almost impressive. However, these cannot make up for the shortcomings of the narrative.
It is very uncomfortable to watch a spoof of the Bible; worse that the spoof is laden with crude language, sexual references and toilet humor. Not that Christians are prude cannot take a joke but there are certain things that deserve reverence even if one wishes to poke fun at it. Year One could have chosen a different treatment and achieved a better product instead of taking the shortcut with its low-brow comedy. The ending of the movie tries to argue about one’s destiny and role in God’s master plan. It emphasizes that each one, at the end of the day, is the captains of their own lives because God has given them freewill to decide and choose. However, devoting a few last scenes to suddenly moralize several insensitive and repulsive scenes will not be enough for a movie to deserve an audience. At least an audience with enough decency to choose what is good for their children and even their own entertainment.
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 1
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Caveman Zed (Jack Black) is his tribe’s greatest liability. He is banished from his community when he decides to prove his love for Maya and eat the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. As he leaves his tribe, he is joined by the effeminate fruit gatherer Oh (Michael Cera) who secretly hates his role and wishes to start a new life with Eema (Juno Temple).They trek to the mountains and intertwine their presence with Biblical stories of Genesis amidst a more advance and progressive society. Zed and Oh meet the squabbling Cain (David Cross) and Abel (Paul Rudd) and witness the murder of the latter. They discover the girls they wanted to sleep with have been sold to slavery and devised a plan to save them. However, they end up being sold by Cain into slavery and are force to march across the desert with the Roman soldiers with funny accents. They escape the Roman soldiers and end up a few seconds before Abraham (Hank Azaria) sacrifices Isaac (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). After they successfully stop Abraham from killing his own son, they are taken with him and introduced to the Hebrew culture of circumcision. Naturally, several scenes are devoted to build on jokes and poke fun at the tradition. Zed, now believing that God has chosen him for a special task, travel to the City of Sodom where they meet Cain once more and a Sodomite priest has taken a liking to Oh. Is Zed really the chosen one and will they be able to save Maya and Eema from slavery?
Year One is an attempt to spoof the stories of Genesis without the historical accuracy or the literary aptitude. Why a cave-dwelling society will coexist with the Roman Empire is completely ridiculous. The writers seem to just have leafed through Genesis with a lot of crude jokes and language in mind for a movie. Black is as annoying as he is in every other one of his movies and fails to immerse himself into the supposed character. Cera is as bland as he is in every other one of his movies and fails to be more than a guy in costume. Because this is a comedy, we can overlook the inaccuracies of the plot. But the confusion and weakness of its development is unforgivable. On the other hand, the technical aspect is satisfactory and the production almost impressive. However, these cannot make up for the shortcomings of the narrative.
It is very uncomfortable to watch a spoof of the Bible; worse that the spoof is laden with crude language, sexual references and toilet humor. Not that Christians are prude cannot take a joke but there are certain things that deserve reverence even if one wishes to poke fun at it. Year One could have chosen a different treatment and achieved a better product instead of taking the shortcut with its low-brow comedy. The ending of the movie tries to argue about one’s destiny and role in God’s master plan. It emphasizes that each one, at the end of the day, is the captains of their own lives because God has given them freewill to decide and choose. However, devoting a few last scenes to suddenly moralize several insensitive and repulsive scenes will not be enough for a movie to deserve an audience. At least an audience with enough decency to choose what is good for their children and even their own entertainment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)