The Twilight Saga; New Moon

Cast: Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner; Director: Chris Weitz; Producers: Wyck Godfrey; Screenwriters: Melissa Rosenberg, Stephenie Meyer; Music: Alexandre Desplat; Editor: Peter Lambert; Genre: Drama/ Fantasy/ Romance; Cinematography: Javier Aguirresarobe; Distributor: Summit Entertainment; Location: USA; Running Time: 130 mins.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

In The Twilight Saga: New Moon, gentleman vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) breaks off with his mortal sweetheart Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) as the whole clan leaves sunless Forks, Washington, to reside in Tuscany in Italy. He makes the sacrifice in order to put her out of danger—she being so hopelessly in love with a vampire—but she clings to him. So he tells her coldly instead that he’s leaving because he doesn’t want her anymore, and that he doesn’t want her because she’s not good for him. So he disappears with the rest of the Cullens.

The depressed Bella floats through school most of the year, crushed by mixed emotions of dejection, confusion and general angst. In Edward’s absence, Bella gradually finds consolation in being with the American Indian boy Jake Black (Taylor Lautner), a solicitous friend and covert admirer but who has a dark secret of his own to keep.

Partly in desperation and partly to prove her courage to herself, she dives off a seaside cliff, something that the clairvoyant Alice Cullen in Tuscany perceives to be a suicidal act. Alice returns to Forks to support Bella who readily agrees to fly with her to Italy. Meanwhile, Edward, believing Bella to be dead, would rather be killed than join the powerful Volturi vampires trying to recruit him. As he strips to expose himself to the sunlight to invite death by murder, Bella arrives and rushes to his arms. To make a long story short, the reunion climaxes in the burning issue—Bella wants forever, so she must become a vampire herself. Edward says no because to be immortal as a vampire is to be damned, and because he truly loves her, he says no again and again. As they kiss tenderly, the question burns on: to bite or not to bite.

New Moon divides moviegoers, although it seems one goes into the theater with one’s mind already made up to be turned either on or off by the Gothic romance. Playing to full houses, New Moon will satisfy its target audience—the cooing, sighing and gasping tween-agers and believers in romance of all ages, but the movie will be impaled over the barbecue pit by those predisposed to find the ridiculous in Stephanie Meyer’s brand of vampirism.

Prejudices among the audience run high. The con-camp says Pattinson with his paler-than-pale skin, lipstick-red lips and dead-pan acting is too wooden to be real; voices from the pro-side claim that’s to be expected of a century-old vampire raised at a time when good manners were in. One side cringes with disappointment at the lack of fantabulous CGI (as may be found in good disaster movies or any Harry Potter sequel); the other side goes gaga over the cool werewolves. Cynics think New Moon is corny and boring; fans think it’s the ultimate high.

But that’s the hidden attraction in New Moon—audiences are hardly aware that they are strongly emotionally involved, whether they are for or against the fiction they’re watching on the screen. The fact is, both are buying tickets to see it, so who’s the real winner here? On its opening day, it already whets the audience’s appetite for its sequel: Will Bella finally become a vampire? Will they marry? Will they have children? Will the children also be vampires? Or are vampires allowed to have sex at all? Who’ll finally emerge as winner in the end—the Cullens, the Volturi, or the werewolves who eat vampires? Reality check: Hey, guys, it’s only a movie—and the real winner is the one who has the formula to provoke or to stroke you, the paying public.

Meanwhile, where does CINEMA stand? What does it say to benefit its own audience who look to it for guidance in film appreciation? CINEMA has received nudges from devout Christians who frown upon New Moon in the same way they censure Da Vinci Code or Harry Potter, crying out, “Why promote vampirism? The bible says yadda-yadda-yadda…”

While acknowledging such protests as valid in their own right, CINEMA also goes steps further to examine the Twilight series’ phenomenal lure and sees it as a writing on the wall. What sets this romance apart from the rest? When you watch it in a theater, be sensitive to reactions around you: when do the females squeal, when do they hold their breath? Are the males quiet because they’re bored or because they’re too embarrassed to admit they are getting carried away just like the females?

The Edward character looks like a Vogue fashion model walking off the ramp but behaves like a desirable but unattainable vestal virgin. If she wanted to, the Bella persona could very well be a sought-after queen among mortals but instead she is willing to give up her very soul to be with her beloved forever and ever. What is this saying to moviegoers grown inured to movies where explicit and illicit sex has become de rigueur? What is its message to a society where wife-swapping or so-called sexually liberated celebrities blatantly change bedmates as often as they change bedsheets?

Outstanding in the Edward-Bella love story is the innocent interaction between the lovers. Lust is not the overpowering force that draws the lovers to each other—it is the tension that arises between self-satisfaction and self-denial. Love here is not an overnight affair—it is genuine caring for the loved one and the desire to give oneself to the other completely at all cost. Might it not be that deep down inside people are really longing for chastity and commitment in love relationships?

2012

Cast: John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Danny Glover; Director: Ronald Emmerich; Producers: Harald KLoser, Larry Franco; Screenwriters: Harald Kloser, Ronald Emmerich; Music: Harald Kloser, Thomas Wander, James Seymour Breet; Editor: David Brenner, Peter S. Elliott; Genre: Sci-fi – Disaster Suspense; Cinematography: Dean Semler; Distributor: Sony Pictures / Columbia Pictures; Location: Los Angeles – Himalayas; Running Time: 153 mins.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

In 2009, Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) travels to India to meet Satnam (Jimi Mistry) and finds out what his friend has discovered about the rapidly increasing temperature of the earth’s core. He proceeds to Washington DC and submits a report to the Chief of Staff, Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) and to the President (Danny Glover). The succeeding years see the world preparing for the inevitable end while billionaires start buying tickets for a guaranteed slot in a ship for the selected few who will be saved. The story jumps to 2012 where Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a divorced father working as a limousine driver and writer takes his two children on a camping trip to Yellowstone National Park. He meets Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), a local radio announcer who talks about the Mayan doomsday prediction. By the time Jackson returns his children to his ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) the earth has began to crack and crumble. Jackson races back and saves his children, Kate and her boyfriend Gordon with the plane he has hired. But they discover that the ships that were built to save humanity are in China and fly on board the plane of Russian billionaire Yuri (Zlatco Buric) and his family. They crash land in the Himalayas and are abandoned by Yuri as he presents the ticket he has bought for himself and his twin sons two years ago. Jackson’s group is rescued by Buddhist Monk Nima (Osric Chau) and his family. Meanwhile, Adrian convinces the world leaders to allow more people to board the ship. As the gates are lowered, Jackson’s group are pinned to the bottom of the ship and the device they used to enter gets stuck between the gears. The ship, unable to start its engines, is swept by the strong current towards Mt. Everest. With a time ticking fast, will they be able to save themselves and assure the continuation of humanity?

2012 promises spectacular effects and heart-stopping suspense and successfully delivers just that. The two and half hours pass almost unnoticeably as viewers are engrossed with the massive destruction on screen. Other than that, the movie is just another hi-tech end-of-the-world /disaster flick— entertainingly empty, with the plot being a little more than a framing device for the movie. Jackson Curtis is just too heroic, and the Curtis family just too darned lucky escaping gaping earth and lava missiles. The side stories that should have provided the drama and highlighted humanity are trite and predictable. (Imagine having a literal deus ex machina take care of a boyfriend so that protagonist and leading lady could get back together!) The attempt to inject humor is not enough to salvage a badly written script. Overall, the movie is a visual treat with astounding CGIs and effects, but lacks the creative prowess to be memorable.

If the movie becomes “memorable” at all, it would be for the distasteful way Emmerich kills six billion earthlings as though the end of the world were just another computer game. The only one moral function of a disaster movie is to focus on man’s altruism in times of crisis. We see how people begin to work together despite previous differences. We witness how a stranger is suddenly willing to sacrifice his safety or at times his life to save another. And almost, always, we hear a grandstanding from one of the characters about unity, humanity and sacrifice. 2012 has all these and delivers the same message: humanity ends when we stop fighting for each other. Unfortunately, Emmerich portrays disaster and destruction in such a brutal and unsettling manner that it creates a discord between the movie’s message and its presentation. Good disaster movies leave the audience teary-eyed with hope and triumphant compassion for the survivors, but with 2012, you are just glad no one else has to die again. (On another note, one will observe why mostly Catholic icons were destroyed. In Rome, the Sistine Chapel ceiling splits open right where the fingertips of God and Adam meet; the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica topples over and crushes the praying masses at the Square. In Rio de Janeiro, the Christ the Redeemer statue on Corcovado Mountain in Rio de Janeiro tumbles ingloriously to the ground. A venerable Buddhist monastery is washed away, but not one minaret is shown destroyed. The sharp-eyed might also notice images in the chapel where the black US president prays—one wonder if that is intended to endear Obama to the Catholics). The movie is not suitable for very young and sensitive audiences.

All About Steve

Cast: Sandra Bullock, Thomas, Haden Church, Bradley Cooper; Director: Phil Traill; Producers: Sandra Bullock, Mary Mclaglen; Screenwriter: Kim Barker; Music: Christophe Beck; Editor: Rod Dean, Virginia Katz; Genre: Comedy; Cinematography: Tim Suhrstedt; Distributor: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation; Location: California, USA; Running Time: 100 mins;

Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Mary Horowitz (Sandra Bullock) is a “cruciverbalist”, one who constructs crossword puzzles for a living, an occupation so consuming for her that she neglects every other aspect of her life. Fortyish, she has no social life, much less a boyfriend—and it’s a cause for concern for her parents who eventually set her up on a blind date. The guy, Steve (Bradley Cooper) turns out to be a charming television cameraman for a cable news network. The hyperactive, hyper-articulate Mary programs herself to hook Steve, showing cleavage and climbing all over him in the car—even before they could motor off the driveway. Steve’s phone rings—it’s an urgent call, the kind TV crews get when something newsworthy erupts, and it means Steve must run off, now, to cover a picket outside a hospital over a remedial surgery of a three-legged infant. Torn between lust and relief, he tries to be nice and tells Mary it would have been more fun if he could take her along. Man-hungry and gullible, Mary swallows the white lie and starts dogging Steve wherever his work takes him. He dreads seeing her stalking him from one news site to the next, but she hardly knows she’s making a fool of herself, being egged on by Steve’s colleague, the TV reporter Hartman Hughes (Thomas Hayden Church), who plays the practical joke to get even with Steve.

Sandra Bullock’s agent must be properly guided—or fired. Choosing a role that projects Bullock as a virtual member of the Three Stooges is sealing her fate as a serious actress. Maybe the problem is with Mary the character, or with director Phil Traill’s handling of character and actress. We give the benefit of the doubt to Trailler’s intention to celebrate Mary’s supposedly delightful eccentricity and encourage the audience to be emotionally sensitive to such a person, but the resultant picture of the bungling, sex-starved Mary is more grating than funny. Other actors could act silly and still be funny, like Mr. Bean, but to say that the overacting Bullock here could be Mrs. Bean would be a great insult to Mr. Bean. If Bullock wants to redeem herself in moviedom, her next role should bring to the fore her innate gifts as an actor—that is, if she’s getting any next offer at all.

All About Steve takes digs at media that the viewer ought to consider more seriously. What kind of news do media go crazy about? Controversies over “freaks of nature” like three-legged babies? Unfortunate accidents like that with deaf children falling into a well? Why use deaf children? The character Mary here is a caricature that stereotypes women—it implies that brains automatically exclude common sense. As her work with crossword puzzles shows, Mary knows many more words than the average person but she cannot utilize this knowledge to guide her actions. There is an attempt at a win-win situation in the end, but it comes too late. Whatever traces of sympathy, whatever hope for transformation the audience might have had for Mary earlier, is overpowered by the annoying stupidity she has displayed all that time.

Ang Tanging Pamilya; A Marry-Go-Round

Cast; Ai Ai Delas Alas, Joseph Estrada, Sam Milby, Toni Gonzaga, Aling Dionisia Pacquiao: Director: Wenn Deramas; Genre: Comedy; Distributor: Star Cinema: Location: Philippines ; Running Time: 100 mins.;

Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Makikilala ni Charlie (Toni Gonzaga) si Prince (Sam Milby) sa kanyang panaginip at sa halos pareho ding araw ay makikilala niya ito sa tunay na buhay. Yun nga lang, si Prince ay sa Amerika namamalagi kung kaya't nagkasya na lamang ang dalawa na payabuningin ang kanilang relasyon nang magkalayo ang lugar. Salamat sa tulong ng makabagong teknolohiyang tulad ng Internet. Makalipas ang ilang buwan ay susurpresahin ni Prince si Charlie sa kanilang bahay at agad itong yayayaing magpakasal. Ngunit agad itong tututulan ng ama ni Charlie na si Dindo (Joseph Estrada) at kanyang pahihirapan si Prince bago tuluyang mapapayag. Magkakaron din ng kaunting pagtutol ang ina ni Charlie na si Sunshine (Ai-ai delas Alas) sa takot na mangyari kay Charlie ang dinanas kay Dindo na mas inuuna ang kapakanan ng ibang tao bago ang asawa at pamilya. Mas lalong lalala ang sitwasyon sa pagdating ng mga magulang ni Prince dahil hindi nila makakasundo ang ina nito (Dionisia Pacquiao).

Palasak na ang uri ng komedyang ginamit sa pelikula kung kaya't hindi ito naging matagumpay sa paghahatid ng akmang aliw at katatawanan sa mga manonood. Bagama't mahuhusay naman ang mga nagsiganap, hindi pa rin kinayang salbahin ang kabuuan sa sobrang daming butas ng kuwento na halatang hindi na pinagbuhusan ng pansin. Sabog ang daloy ng kuwento at hindi malaman ang nais nilang palabasin. Kulang na kulang ito sa nararapat na karakterisasyon kaya't pawang pilit ang mga sitwasyon at halos walang mararamdamang simpatya sa mga tauhan. Wala tuloy epekto ang mga eksenang dapat sana ay nakakaiyak o nakakatawa dahil sa walang pinatutunguhang daloy ng damdamin. Maraming tauhan ang naging pawang palamuti lamang sa kuwento at walang anumang iniambag tulad ni Dionisia Pacquiao na pawang pinagkatuwaan lamang sa pelikula. Si Estrada naman ay pawang nangangampaniya lamang sa pagsisingit ng mga konsepto ng maka-mahirap at maka-pamilya. Ang dating tuloy ay kulang na kulang sa sinseridad ang pelikula sa kabuuan.

Bagama't Ang Tanging Pamilya ang pamagat ng pelikula, pawang hindi naman nito gaanong pinahahalagahan ang pamilya bilang isang sagradong sangay ng simbahan at lipunan. Kitang-kita ang pagbabalewala ng padre de pamilya sa saktramento ng kasal alang-alang sa kapakanan ng ibang tao. Oo nga't mahalagang bigyang-pansin ang nangangailangan ngunit marami pa namang paraan ng pagtulong na hindi kinakailangang isakripisyo ang mahahalagang panahon para sa pamilya. O baka rin isa lamang itong pangangampanya ni Estrada? Hindi rin katanggap-tanggap na ituring na isang katatawanan lamang ang isang napakahalagang sakramento na tulad ng kasal. Marami ring maling halimbawa ang ipinakita sa pelikula tulad ng biglaan na lamang na pagpapakasal na hindi dumaraan sa tamang proseso. Nakakabahala rin ang kawalang-galang na pagturing ni Prince sa ina ni Charlie na umabot pa sa pananakit na pisikal at pinalabas pa itong katawa-tawa. Maging ang iringan ng magkabilang pamilya ay hindi rin magandang halimbawa lalo pa't nakabase lamang ang lahat sa panlabas na anyo ng isang tao. Ang higit pang nakakabahala dito ay ang gawing katawa-tawa ang itsura ng isang tao. Ito'y isang malaking pag-insulto at maling panukat sa pagkatao. Marahil ang maganda lamang sa pelikula ay ang maayos na paggabay ng ina sa isang anak na naguguluhan ang isip at hindi makapagdesisyon ng tama. Sa mga ganitong pagkakataon ay talagang kinakailangan ang mga magulang na gabayan ang anak.

More Than A Game

ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Lebron James, Sian Cotton, Dru Joyce III, Willie McGee, Romeo Travis, Coach Dru Joyce II; Director: Kristopher Belman; Producers: Harvey Mason Jr. Kristopher Belman, Matthew Perniciaro, Kevin Mann; Screenwriters: Kristopher Belman, Brad Hogan; Music: Harvey Mason Jr.; Editor: Scott Balcerek; Genre: Documentary; Cinematography: Kristopher Belman, Johnny Ching, Travis Cook, Dabling Harward, Chris Lytwyn, Humberto Ramirez, Jr.; Distributor: Lionsgate; Location: USA; Running Time: 105 mins.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance

BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS

Five talented young basketball players from Akron, Ohio star in this remarkable true-life coming of age story about uncommon friendship in the face all too common adversities. Coached by a charismatic but inexperienced player’s father, and led by future NBA superstar LeBron James, the “Fab Five’s” improbable seven-year journey leads them from a decrepit inner-city gym to the doorstep of a national high school championship. Along the way, the close-knit team is repeatedly tested—both on and off the court—as James’ exploding worldwide celebrity threatens to destroy everything they’ve set out to achieve together. More Than a Game combines a series of unforgettable one-on-one interviews with rare news footage, never-before-seen home videos and personal family photographs to bring this heart-warming and wholly American story to life. (Lionsgate)

OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF THE FILM: good illustration of team work to achieve one's goal

ADDITIONAL REMARKS: commendable for young people on how a group of friends can achieve their dream in life through team work with the guidance of a coach or mentor.

Estasyon

Cast: Mon Confiado, Klaudia Coronel, Christian Galindo, Diana Alferez; Director: Cesar Apolinario; Producer: Cesar Apolinario; Screenwriters: Chris Lim, Cesar Apolinario; Music: Jerrold Tarog; Editor: Miguel Araneta; Genre: Drama; Cinematography: Jay Linao; Distributor: Huge Screen Small Pictures; Location: Philippines; Running Time: 100 min.;

Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above

Sa kagustuhang makagawa ng may saysay na pelikula, susubukan ni Martin (Mon Confiado) na gawan ng dokyumentaryo ang panata ng mga deboto sa Quiapo sa pista ng Poong Nazareno. Dito niya makikilala si Christian (Christian Galindo), isang tinedyer mula sa Laguna na naglakbay mag-isa patungo sa pista upang ipahid ang dala-dalang puting panyo sa Poong Nazareno sa pag-asang ito ang magpapagaling sa maysakit na ina (Klaudia Koronel). Sasamahan at susundan ni Martin si Christian sa pagsusubok nitong makalapit sa Poon. Makakapanayam pa niya ito at dito malalaman ni Martin ang kuwentong-buhay ni Christian habang patungo sa pista ng Nazareno. Makuha kaya ni Christian ang inaasam na himala?

Nagnais ang pelikula na gumawa ng makabuluhang kuwento ukol sa isang sikat na debosyon sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng paralelismo sa daan ng krus ni Hesukristo at sa buhay ng isang deboto. Sa ganitong konsepto nais palabasin ng direktor ang paghahalo ng katotohanan sa kathang-isip. Ngunit sayang at hindi ito ang naipalabas ng pelikula. Maraming nais sabihin ang kuwento na hindi nito naipamalas sapagkat kulang sa masusing pananaliksik ang kabuuan ng istorya. Mahusay naman ang pagkakaganap ng mga pangunahing tauhan lalo na si Koronel at maganda rin ang potograpiya ngunit hindi pa rin naging epektibo ang kabuuan ng pelikula. Marahil ay talagang hindi naging sigurado ang mga nasa likod ng pelikula kung ano ba talaga ang nais nilang sabihin at kitang-kita ang pagkalitong ito sa pagkakalahad ng kuwento.

Isang matinding pagkuwestiyon sa pananampalatayang Katoliko ang Estasyon. Sa isang banda, dapat nga namang suriing maigi ang mga debosyon at panata kung ang mga ito ay sadyang nakakatulong sa pag-unlad ng buhay ispiritwal ng isang tao o nagiging instrumento lamang ba ito ng panatisismo tulad ng sa mga pagano. Ngunit napako ang pananaw ng mga gumawa ng pelikula sa negatibong aspeto lamang ng debosyon, at hindi na nila nakita ang kagandahan at maging ang pinagmulan ng isang debosyon na tulad sa Poong Nazareno. Kapwa naghahanap ang mga pangunahing tauhan ng kahulugan sa maling lugar, sa maling oras at sa maling intensiyon. Sa aspetong ito, nakababahala ang ninais iparating ng pelikula. Pawang walang silbi ang relihiyon, ang simbahan at kung ano pa mang pananampalataya sa pagpapayabong ng buhay ng sangkatauhan. Isa itong mababaw na pagtingin sa isang pananampalatayang nananatiling matatag sa loob ng mahigit 2,000 taon. Oo nga’t may kahirapan, may karahasan, may kawalang-katarungan, kawalang-pag-asa at kahalayan, ngunit hindi masisisi ang relihiyon dito kung tutuusin. Kita naman sa pelikula na walang pagkukusa ang mga tauhan na alamin at palalimin ang kani-kanilang debosyon kung kaya’t nagiging pawang mababaw ang kanilang pananampalataya. Ngunit tahasan na itong hinusgahan ang relihiyon sa kabuuan. Nariyang ipakitang suot ng isang babaeng halos walang saplot ang rosaryo at lantarang itapon ni Martin. Na sa bandang huli ay binawi naman ng paghalik niya dito. Ngunit hindi pa rin malinaw kung ito nga ay pagbabalik-loob o gawa pa rin ng kanyang pagkalito. Mas mabigat ang mga binitiwan niyang salita sa huli: “Ninais ko lang ipakita ang kawalang-kabuluhan ng anumang debosyon at relihiyon.” Sa mga nagugulumihanan at naghahanap ng kahulugan sa kanilang pananampalataya, hindi makakatulong ang pelikulang tulad nito

Law Abiding Citizen

Cast: Jamie Foxx, Gerard Butler, Viola Davis, Bruce McGill, Leslie Bibb, Colm Meaney, Regina Hall; Director: F. Gary Gray; Producers: Gerard Butler, Lucas Foster, Mark Gill; Screenwriter: Kurt Wimmer; Music: Brian Tyler; Editor: Tariq Anwar; Genre: Drama; Cinematography: Jonathan Sela; Distributor: Overture Films; Location: Philadelphia; Running Time: 109 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above

Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) is a loving father and husband until his wife and his daughter are raped and murdered during a home invasion. But a messed up forensic investigation compromises the findings. Prosecutor Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) decides to make a deal with Darby (Christian Stolte), the actual rapist and murderer, and pin down Rupert Ames (Josh Stewart) on a theft charge. Rice argues that what matters is not what it right but what can be proven in court. Ten years after, Ames is executed by lethal injection but suffers an agonizing death because of a chemical alternation. Soon after Darby is abducted and brutally dismembered by Shelton . When police arrest and incarcerate Shelton , a series of brutal killings take place after the latter’s requests are denied or not served on time. Shelton emphasizes to Rice that the killings are not mere retribution for his family but defiance for the failure of the justice system.

Law Abiding Citizen is a chilling drama which illustrates how the failure of justice eventually destroys lives and humanity. Butler , Foxx and Stolte deliver an outstanding and authentic portrayal of their characters. The camerawork and editing keep up with the action and suspense. Entertainment-wise, the movie accomplishes its goal. The plot, however, is a little cheesy and exaggerated. The movie feels like one of the local films where the hero is always pushed to his limits and forced to seek revenge against the bad guys. Director Gary Grey was not successful in maintaining sympathy for the protagonist turned anti-hero because as the violence progresses, the film becomes another serial-slasher movie as one man searches for justice.

Vengeance has been romanticized time and again as people turn to St. Paul’s letter to the Romans stating, “Vengeance is mine”, and conveniently leaving or forgetting the part which states, “says the Lord”. With this in mind, some people can now rationalize acts of violence and retribution in their search for justice. From a little child’s small and sometimes hilarious manner of getting even to the brutal and violent and at times legalized ways of obtaining justice, revenge has become a way of life. But getting even, getting back, revenge or however it is termed can never be righteous and good. We cannot correct a wrongdoing with another crime or sin. We need to remember that as human beings we are asked to be compassionate and as Christians we are expected to forgive and be merciful.

Although the film makes a strong statement against systematized injustice it does so in a very brutal and violent manner. The theme and treatment are for mature audiences only.

Michael Jackson's This Is It

Cast: Michael Jacson; Director: Kenny Ortega; Producers: Paul Gongaware, Randy Phillips; Music: Michael Bearrden; Genre: Documentary/ Music; Cinematography: Kevin Mazur; Distributor: Sony Pictures Entertainment; Location: USA; Running Time: 112 min.;

Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance

There is no synopsis to this musical documentary on the legendary Michael Jackson. It shows clips and footage from rehearsals for the show that was to be “it”. Actually a concert tour, it was to have begun in London last July, had it not been forestalled by his death at age 50 a month before. What’s interesting is Jackson, talking about This Is It, reportedly said “This is the final curtain call.” That’s an innocent enough remark but it teases one’s curiosity. Was Michael Jackson planning to retire after “it”? Was it his second wind or last hurrah, Jackson being aware that younger and equally brilliant performers were waiting on the wing? If he was as sick as was often reported, did Michael sense he wasn’t going to be around much longer? Premonition or not, he surely didn’t expect the curtain to fall that soon.

The soundless opening screen allows the viewer to focus on the background of the documentary, put together by director Kenny Ortega. This Is It is a collage that uses as its canvas footage from April to June 2009 rehearsals—numbers starring Jackson and his dancers and back-up singers. As visual enhancement for certain songs, Ortega uses pre-filmed sequences and footage originally meant for other purposes mixed with stage work. The song “Thriller” is made out like a clip from a horror movie, with ghouls crawling out from their tombs, and two-dimensional ghosts fluttering like eerie kites over the audience’s heads. Particularly appealing is the footage of a little girl playing in a rain forest, used to enhance Jackson’s environmental pitch in the song “Earth Cry”. There’s also an ingenious black and white number, “Smooth Criminal”, which inserts Jackson in film clips starring Rita Hayworth and Humphrey Bogart.

The viewer may rightfully expect to be entertained by This Is It, but there are a few things one must note before swallowing the whole thing as gospel truth. True that This Is It reveals a Michael Jackson that is in stark contradiction to that which we had known before: the image of the profligate performer who thrives on self-abuse—drugs, pedophilia, scandals, questionable sexual identity, shady business deals, lawsuit, rocky marriage, etc.

His eccentric taste and lifestyle reinforced that image, which was to be further cemented by his insatiable attempts to turn a black temple (of the Holy Spirit) into a white one. It was an image that—no mean thanks to media—turned him into an icon that was at once abominable and pathetic. In fact, the aborted summer concert tour was viewed by some as a money magnet to bail the idol out of his financial difficulties.

And then Michael Jackson died. Is that it?

Enter This Is It, the movie. Where is the pervert, the swindler, the druggie, the prima donna? Nowhere to be found. Instead there is a cool, collected, soft-spoken Michael Jackson, driven by a passion for excellence at his craft, his heart beating to the swing of a metronome but never without tenderness for the stagehands, gaffers, technicians, and fellow artists who in turn adore him sincerely.

It brings great delight to watch him spin in place, refine cues for the musicians, dance in unison with the others and yet shine as the most gifted of them all. He is an artist lost in his body and yet in total control of it, performing with clockwork precision and the discipline of a saint. He often says “God bless you” instead of just “Thank you”, projecting the image of a selfless professional, not an egoistic superstar.

There is a moving scene towards the end where Michael forms a circle of thanksgiving with the others in the dimly lit rehearsal space—here emerges his image as the ultimate team player and team leader, inspiring others by his vision, his principles, his attitudes, and his perfection at work. In fact, here you could see a humble and almost holy picture of Michael Jackson, if you would only close an eye to his trademark crotch-clutching gesture.

What is this telling us? It may be uplifting to think that there is indeed a beautiful side to Michael Jackson that had been unfairly obliterated by a bad press, but—with due respect to the deceased—we should not forget that this is a media product as well, packaged and marketed, possibly to promote a legend, and to rake in a profit as well. Ever a controversial figure, Michael Jackson sells, because controversy sells. Following his sudden and puzzling death, Columbia Pictures promptly bought—for sixty million dollars, that’s US$60,000,000.00—the footage taken during the now-famous rehearsals, and commissioned the concert director Kenny Ortega (director of High School Musicals) to make a movie out of it. The footage was reportedly originally intended for Jackson’s private library, but there it was, sold, so that the public may enjoy it four months after his death.

We would like to think it is a eulogy crafted by close associates and mourning friends whom Michael had left behind without proper goodbyes. The grief is almost palpable in the testimonies of Michael’s fellow concert performers. We are kind to our dead, and we like to recall what is good in them, thus we edit the unsavory aspects of their life and remember those that may inspire us. Who knows what is in the footage excluded from this documentary? Who can say that Michael never lost his temper, threw tantrums at rehearsals, or collapsed from exhaustion while moonwalking?

It is not our intention to belittle this exceptional tribute from well-meaning colleagues. Our point is for the public to realize that if media can break, media can also remake—and neither would be absolutely correct or fair about their subject. Rather it is for the public to choose which qualities in the deceased we—especially his fans—would want to emulate. This Is It rounds off the humanity of the “King of Pop”: it allows us to regard his imperfections with compassion, and to view his dreams for a better world with hope, while offering to the young something more to imitate than his moonwalk.

Jennifer's Body

Cast: Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, Johnny Simons, Adam Brody; Director: Karyn Kusama; Producers: Daniel Dubiecki, Mason Novick, Jason Retiman; Screenwriter: Diablo Cody; Music: Stephen Barton, Theodore Shapiro; Editor: Plummy Tucker; Genre: Horror/ Thriller; Cinematography: M. David Mullen; Distributor: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation; Location: USA; Running Time: 102 min.;

Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above

Jennifer Check (Megan Fox) is the high school teen queen over whom all the boys drool and whom all the girls envy. Nerdy-looking Needy Lesnick (Amanda Seyfried) is Jennifer’s best buddy from childhood, and the two seem to need each other to prove to the rest that: Jennifer is not really that friendless, and Needy somehow amounts to something with no less than the school queen as her friend. One night, Jennifer drags Needy to a “club” which turns out to be a cheap local bar where a rock band is performing. The bar catches fire. Ever the reckless daredevil, Jennifer defies Needy’s common sense and ends up in the rock band’s van roaring off to an unknown destination in the middle of the night. Everybody gives Jennifer up for good and then she comes back with an enormous appetite for male teen flesh, literally. Needy is convinced an evil spirit has inhabited Jennifer’s body, but nobody believes her.

Is Jennifer’s Body a horror, a comedy or a teen romance flick? It’s too predictable to be horrible, too horrible to be funny, and too laughable to be romantic. So it defies classification, not because it is creating a new and exceptionally unique one, but because it fails to establish its own identity. It’s not the movie’s fault, of course, but rather the work of a confused duo--director Karyn Kusama and writer Diablo Cody who seem to be treading on grounds they are unfamiliar with. This is unacceptable—if not downright unforgiveable—in film making. Even if they were just operating a horror booth in an amusement park, they should know which buttons to press at the right moment in order to scare the riders breathless. Give the customers their money’s worth, y‘know? A word about the actors: the boys are there not as persons but as props, dumb studs whose lust soon turns them into steaks for Jennifer. The girls? Seyfried is the one who saves the day—she can act, and let’s hope more challenging roles help her mature into seasoned Oscar material in due time. Perhaps Fox is the reason Jennifer’s Body as a horror movie fails to really grip the audience’s attention. She’s just too much of a Jolie copycat to convince us she means business when she reveals her fangs.

The moral of the story? Go ahead, boys, be suckers for sexy bods and be ready to be eaten up alive (but not necessarily in bed), ha ha! Girls, if you cannot as yet find boyfriends with intelligence to match your own, wait; it’s better to be boyless than to be with someone who thinks you’re being silly when you’re being dead serious. Unless you want to be widowed before you’re wedded.

ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Nicholas Cage, Kristen Bell, Bill Nighy, Freddie Highmore, Donald Sutherland, Eugene Levy, Nathan Lane, Matt Lucas, Sterling Beaumons, Madeline Carolle, Charlize Theron; Director: David Bowers; Producer: Maryann Garger; Screenwriters: Timothy Harris, David Bowers; Music: John Ottman; Editor: Robert Anich Cole; Genre: Children, Science Fiction, Adventure Comedy; Cinematography: Pepe Valencia; Distributor: Summit Entertainment; Running Time: 85 mins.:

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance

BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS

Few characters have made as powerful or as lasting an impression on international popular culture as Astro Boy. The little robot first appeared in 1951 as a character in the celebrated artist and animator Osamu Tezuka’s legendary manga(Japanese comic book) and became an instant icon. He was subsequently featured as the star of his own television series in both black-and white and in color, eventually airing in over 40 countries. Astro Boy created the standard for a new form of animation that has become world famous as anime.

Now for the first time, Astro Boy is brought to life on the big screen. Created with breathtaking computer animation from Imagi Studios, the film Astro Boy is a thrilling tale of a true hero.

Set in futuristic Metro City, Astro Boy is about a young robot with incredible powers created by a brilliant scientist named Dr. Tenma (Nicolas Cage). Powered by positive “blue” energy, Astro Boy (Freddie Highmore) is endowed with super strength, x-ray vision, unbelievable speed and the ability to fly. Embarking on a journey in search of acceptance, Astro Boy encounters many other colorful characters along the way. Through his adventures, he learns the joys and emotions of being human, and gains the strength to embrace his destiny. Ultimately learning his friends and family are in danger, Astro Boy marshals his awesome super powers and returns to Metro City in a valiant effort to save everything he cares about and to understand what it means to be a hero.

Patient X

Cast: Richard Gutierrez, Cristine Reyes, TJ Trinidad, Miriam Quiambao; Director: Yam Laranas; Producers: Jose Mari Abacan, Veronique Del Rosario-Corpus, Vincent G. Del Rosario III, Yam Larnas; Screenwriters: Yam Laranas, Aloy Adlawan; Music: Nani Naguit; Editor: Chuck Gutierrez; Genre: Horrors; Cinematography: Yam Laranas; Distributor: GMA Films; Location: Manila; Running Time: 100 mins.;

Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 1.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Dalawampung taon na ang nakalilipas nang masaksihan ni Lukas (Richard Gutierrez) ang pagpatay sa kanyang pamilya ng mga aswang dahil lang kinukuha ng mga ito si Guada (Cristine Reyes). Hindi na nahuli ang mga ito ngunit makakatanggap bigla si Lukas ng balitang ang isa sa kanila ay nahuli ng isang pulis (TJ Trinidad) na pinatay rin ng mga aswang ang buong pamilya. Magbabalik si Lukas sa kanilang lugar upang makita ang mukha ng taong pumatay sa kanyang pamilya. Nakakulong sa isang silong ng ospital ang nahuling suspek. Laking gulat niya nang makita niyang ang nahuli pala ay si Guada na bagama't dalawampung taon na ang nakalipas ay hindi nagbago ang anyo. Anumang gawin ay hindi mapatay-patay ang tulad ni Guada. Ito ang pilit na aalamin nila Lukas habang si Guada ay pilit na kinukuha ng mga kasamahan niyang aswang. Ngunit pawang napapalapit si Lukas kay Guada dahil sa naging mabait ito sa kanya. Isa pa, sinasabi ni Guada na ayaw na niyang pumatay ng tao kung kaya't hangga't maaari'y ayaw na niyang sumama sa mga kasamahang aswang. Subalit hindi titigil ang mga ito sa pagpatay sa mga tao sa ospital hangga't hindi nakukuha si Guada. Dito magsisimulang malito si Lukas kung pakakawalan ba niya o hindi si Guada.

Walang dudang maganda ang intensiyon ng pelikula. Wala rin dudang magaganda ang kuha ng kamera at may mga eksena talagang madadala ang manononood sa katakutan. Ngunit hindi pa rin maitatanggi ang napakaraming butas sa kuwento ng pelikula. Nariyang hindi malinaw kung si Guada ba ay kakampi o kaaway. Hindi rin malaman kung paanong naging malapit si Lukas kay Guada at kung paanong ang damdamin sa isang tao ay magbago sa loob lamang ng ilang oras o minuto? Hindi rin katanggap-tanngap ang maraming kamalian sa detalye tulad ng hindi pagtawag ng mas malaking puwersa gayong nalalaman nilang hindi tao ang kanilang kaaway kundi halimaw? Paanong ang isang pasyente ay maiwan sa gitna ng halos abandonado ng ospital? Ilan lamang ito sa mga katanungang iniwan ng pelikula. Sayang at maayos sana ang pagkakadirehe at ang pag-arte ng mga tauhan ay maayos naman. Ngunit kulang na kulang sa bigat at lalim ang kuwento. Maging ang kuwento ng mga aswang ay mababaw din. Walang bagong matututunan sa pelikula kundi ang kung paano patayin ang mga aswang. At maging ito ay hindi kagulat-gulat at kataka-takang hindi nila agad nalaman sa kuwento.

Ang mga aswang ba'y mga halimaw o tao ring likha ng Diyos? Ito ang katanungang gugulo sa isip ng manonood sa kanilang panonood ng Patient X. Ipinakitang nais nang magbago ni Guada ngunit hindi niya magawa dahil kailangan niyang mabuhay. Anong klaseng nilalang ang kinakailang pumatay para mabuhay? Paanong nagkakaroon ng puso ang mga katulad nila? Paano silang nagkakaroon ng damdamin gayong walang awa naman nilang kinakatay ang mga taong kanilang inaatake? Nagiging hati rin ang puso ng mga tao kung ang mga ganitong uri ba'y nararapat patayin. Kung nag-aanyong tao lamang sila ay hindi sana mahirap sagutin. Ngunit paano kung ito ay iyo nang maging kaibigan, o asawa? Sa mga ganitong uri ng sitwasyon, hindi man lang naramdaman ang pananalig ng tao sa Diyos na dapat sanang ginamit din nilang sandata sa paglaban at pagkitil sa mga kampon ng demonyo. Ngunit hindi. Nanatiling umaasa sila sa kanilng lakas kahit pa ang kanilang kaaway ay alam nilang may sa demonyong taglay. Dapat gabayan ang mga batang manonood upang sila'y mapaliwanagan na ang mga ito'y kathang isip lamang at hindi kailanman magiging mas makapangyarihan ang masama sa kabutihan.

The Hurt Locker

Cast: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Makie, Brian Geraghty; Director: Kathryn Bigelow; Producers: Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier, Greg Shapiro; Screenwriter: Mark Boal; Music: Marco Beltrami, Buck Sanders; Editor: Chris Innis, Bob Murawski; Genre: Action/ Suspense; Cinematography: Barry Ackroyd; Distributor: Summit Entertainment; Location: Iraq; Running Time: 131 mins.;

Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above

Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner) is an unorthodox and reckless soldier who joins the Bravo Company as the team leader of Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) unit during the US-Iraq war in 2004. His teammates include tough and uncompromising Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Makie) and the younger self-centered Eldridge (Brian Geraghty). James's impulsiveness irritates and causes tension within his team. However, James becomes compassionate with an Iraqi boy nicknamed Beckham and raises hell and gets Eldridge shot in the leg when he thinks Beckham was the dead boy implanted with unexploded bombs. The team is called for a final mission two days before they return to their country. They are asked to assist a situation where a helpless man strapped with time bombs is forced to wander into the military checkpoint, but James is unable to diffuse the bomb in time and is force to flee just as the bomb explodes. At this point, Sanborn breaks down and informs James he can no longer stomach the pressure of being in the EOD. After some time, James is seen bidding goodbye to his baby boy and saying that there is only one thing he really loves.

The Hurt Locker is based on the chronicles of freelance writer Mark Boal who was embedded with a US Bomb Squad in the Iraqi war of 2004. Director Bigelow transforms these accounts into a riveting film that realistically captures the psychological and physical dangers of war. The camerawork is excellent and captures the drama of the moment. The characters develop strongly and push the plot effectively. Over-all, this is an excellent anti-war movie because it does not merely moralize about the evil of war but more successfully demonstrates its horrors with the psychological fixation to violence and danger one develops.

As quoted in the opening sequence, war journalist Chris Hedges correctly illustrates that the greater evil of war is not in the physical destruction but in the moral and psychological corruption it brings. Once exposed to such amount of raw, repeated and uninhibited violence, man has the tendency to feel invincible and god-like. He becomes addicted to its thrills and risks regardless of its purpose and consequences. War, therefore, can never be justified as it never becomes a strong enough reason to not only dehumanize the victims but also to corrupt those sent out to perform the acts of violence and aggression. Naturally, the movie contains disturbing images and situations of war. The themes and scenes of the film are better suited for older and more mature audiences.

500 Days of Summer

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.