Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief
Cast: Logan Lerman, Kevin McKidd, Steve Coogan, Catherine Keener, Maria Olsen; Director: Chris Columbus; Screenplay: Joe Stillman, Rick Riordan; Producer/ Distributor: 20th Century Fox ; Running Time:125 minutes; Location: USA; Genre: Fantasy
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
Rating: For viewers ages 13 and below with parental guidance
Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) is a young man dealing with various issues at home and school. He and his mother (Catherine Keener) live with an abusive stepfather. Percy’s Dyslexia and ADHD make schooling even harder for him. In one field trip to a Greek history museum, Percy is attacked by his substitute teacher (Maria Olsen) who turns into a monstrous winged creature. Shocked and confused, his real identity is then revealed to him – that he is the son of a Greek god Poseidon and is accused of stealing Zeus’ lightning bolt so his uncle Hades (rival of his father), and his mignons are after him. Upon learning this, Percy is sent off to a safe retreat in the woods to meet and train with other children who are also offspring of a Greek god and human parent. While training swordsmanship and other skills for future battle, Percy finds out that his uncle Hades is holding his mother in the underworld. Percy sneaks out of the camp together with Annabeth (Melina Kanakaredes), daughter of Athena and Grover (Brandon T. Jackson), his protector, to rescue his mother and at the same time prove his innocence that he did not steal the lightning bolt that must be returned to Zeus to prevent the brewing war among the Olympians which poses imminent threat and danger to both the mortal and immortal worlds.
Another film adaptation of a novel, Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief reminds the audience of the Harry Potter series. Sadly though, the film pales in comparison in terms of depth and magnitude. Although the film has its strengths that rely heavily on the Greek mythology accent in storytelling, it falls short in terms of cohesiveness and characterization. It will not also help if an audience is not knowledgeable of the Greek history and literature. But then, the visual effects are a spectacle and a real delight especially for young viewers. The script is apparently shallow but perhaps, it is the film’s way of reaching out to its audience. There is drama, humor and youth sensibilities combined that make the feature an effective venue for teen entertainment.
Greek gods and goddesses represent people’s aspiration for fame, fortune and power. For the longest time, the Greek mythology is believed to have inspired and influence many in terms of having concrete images and portrayals of God. Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is able to provide these images on a positive tone. The offspring of a Greek god and human parent are born good and the voice of conscience they hear are actually the voice of their parent gods. This portrayal metaphorically represents God, whose voice we often hear but most of the time, fail to recognize. The said voice leads the main characters towards the right path and corrects decisions. The world of casino depicted in the film represents the hell of the worldly society. Alluring, enticing and without any trace of suffering, but all these are nothing but superficial traps leading to misery. Hell is seen as the destruction of human kind where despair, hopelessness and sin prevail. The antagonist in the story wants the destruction of Olympians so that he would be heir to the throne and rule the universe. Such hunger and greed for power, and disrespect of authorities never succeed. Ultimately, in the battle between good and evil, the former remains victorious. And this is possible only because, the good took action, recognized his innate power and goodness, and never allowed evil to succeed. There is a certain degree of violence and sexual innuendos in the film, although in context, that makes it appropriate only to audiences 13 years old and below with parental guidance.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Couples Retreat
Cast: Vince Vaughn, Jason Bateman, Jon Favreau, Faizon Love, Kristen Bell; Direction: Peter Billingsley; Screenplay: Jon Favreau, Vince Vaughn, Dana Fox; Producer: Scott Stuber; Music: A.R. Rahman; Genre: Romantic Comedy; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: South Pacific; Running Time: 107 minutes;
Technical Assessment : 2.5
Moral Assessment : 2.5
CINEMA Rating : For mature viewers 18 and above
Four couples fly to a Southern Pacific island named Eden to have a fun-filled holiday under the pretense of attending a couples’ therapy retreat facilitated by famous Frenchman Marcel (Jean Reno). The couples include typical husband and wife Dave (Vince Vaughn) and Ronnie (Malin Akerman) who are having problems with their teenaged daughter; high school sweethearts Joey (Jon Favreau) and Lucy (Kristen Davis) who are in the brink of separating; childless couple Jason (Jason Bateman) and Cynthia (Kristen Bell) who initiated the retreat and recently divorced Shane (Faizon Love) and his girlfriend Trudy (Kali Hawk). On the island, the group is ushered to Eden West and drilled with rules and policies, including the mandatory attendance in the couples’ therapy sections. Realizing the amenities of the resort, the couples agree to put up with a few hours of couples session. Fortunately, the unusual therapy sessions proved to be valuable as couples learned underlying issues of their relationship and an accidental trip to Eden East, the part of the island delegated for the singles, make them realize the love and commitment they still have for their spouses.
COUPLES’ RETREAT falls flat both in its attempt to be romantic and funny. The script is predictable, mediocre and sloppy although it does develop fairly well. With this kind of script, it is hard to decide whether the performances are wasted or are just unimaginative by themselves. It even falls flat visually despite its efforts to show the charm of Bora Bora. Despite the feel good ending, the movie fails to latch on the viewers’ hearts to become memorable. There are some good funny moments and a few tender scenes but overall it lacks that certain spice to become brilliant. A few months from now, even those who watch the movie will forget they did watch it.
Marriage is not just a piece of paper after a ceremony but a lifelong commitment celebrating true love. Couples Retreat reminds us about the value of keeping that commitment and exerting all efforts to keep the love alive between spouses. However, the methods invoked to bring out these themes, obviously just played out for comedy, are not credible alternative for real values rooted in spirituality. Young adults may be misled to think that humor is enough to repair a relationship.
There are several disturbing situations in the film including an adulterous relationship, rear nudity and jokes with sexual undertones and crude language. The movie better suited for mature adults.
Technical Assessment : 2.5
Moral Assessment : 2.5
CINEMA Rating : For mature viewers 18 and above
Four couples fly to a Southern Pacific island named Eden to have a fun-filled holiday under the pretense of attending a couples’ therapy retreat facilitated by famous Frenchman Marcel (Jean Reno). The couples include typical husband and wife Dave (Vince Vaughn) and Ronnie (Malin Akerman) who are having problems with their teenaged daughter; high school sweethearts Joey (Jon Favreau) and Lucy (Kristen Davis) who are in the brink of separating; childless couple Jason (Jason Bateman) and Cynthia (Kristen Bell) who initiated the retreat and recently divorced Shane (Faizon Love) and his girlfriend Trudy (Kali Hawk). On the island, the group is ushered to Eden West and drilled with rules and policies, including the mandatory attendance in the couples’ therapy sections. Realizing the amenities of the resort, the couples agree to put up with a few hours of couples session. Fortunately, the unusual therapy sessions proved to be valuable as couples learned underlying issues of their relationship and an accidental trip to Eden East, the part of the island delegated for the singles, make them realize the love and commitment they still have for their spouses.
COUPLES’ RETREAT falls flat both in its attempt to be romantic and funny. The script is predictable, mediocre and sloppy although it does develop fairly well. With this kind of script, it is hard to decide whether the performances are wasted or are just unimaginative by themselves. It even falls flat visually despite its efforts to show the charm of Bora Bora. Despite the feel good ending, the movie fails to latch on the viewers’ hearts to become memorable. There are some good funny moments and a few tender scenes but overall it lacks that certain spice to become brilliant. A few months from now, even those who watch the movie will forget they did watch it.
Marriage is not just a piece of paper after a ceremony but a lifelong commitment celebrating true love. Couples Retreat reminds us about the value of keeping that commitment and exerting all efforts to keep the love alive between spouses. However, the methods invoked to bring out these themes, obviously just played out for comedy, are not credible alternative for real values rooted in spirituality. Young adults may be misled to think that humor is enough to repair a relationship.
There are several disturbing situations in the film including an adulterous relationship, rear nudity and jokes with sexual undertones and crude language. The movie better suited for mature adults.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Valentine's Day
Cast: Jessica Alba, Kathy Bates, Jessica Biel, Bradley Cooper, Eric Dane, Patrick Dempsey, Hector Elizondo, Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, Topher Grace, Anne Hathaway, Carter Jenkins, Ashton Kutcher, Queen Latifah, Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift; Director: Garry Marshall; Producers: Mike Karz, Wayne Allan Rice, Josie Rosen; Screenwriter: Katherine Fugate; Music: John Debney; Editor: Bruce Green; Genre: Comedy/ Romance; Cinematography: Charles Minsky; Distributor: New Line Cinema; Location: Los Angeles, California; Running Time: 125 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
As everyone in Los Angeles anticipates Valentine’s Day, flower shop owner Reed (Ashton Kutcher) prepares for the busiest day of the year. But before he does that, he proposes marriage to live-in girlfriend Morley (Jessica Alba). While his best friend Julia (Jennifer Garner), is madly in-love with his doctor boyfriend (Patrick Dempsey) whose leaving for a scheduled surgery in another city. Julia does not suspect that his boyfriend might be hiding something from her. Her best friend Kara (Jessica Biel), meanwhile, insists that she attends her “I hate Valentine’s Day” party that same night. Theirs and other lives of various characters dealing with different issues of romance, falling in and out of love, break-up and making-up, intertwines further in one of the most celebrated and overrated, usually commercialized, occasions in the world.
Valentine’s Day treatment tends to be lighter as compared to other films of the same genre. The convoluted plots and subplots never really rise beyond expectations. The entire thread of the story just remained at a comfortable level without added depth and substance. Most scenes are nothing more than romantic clichés that the audience may have already seen in a movie or two. The material comes out as very limiting to the supposedly powerhouse cast. But then, Valentine’s Day still passes off as a date movie with some of its romantic twists and relatable subplots. The film also provides some good laughs and uplifting moments with its showcase of various kinds of love. The strength of the film really lies on its stellar casts whom audiences anticipate to see on the big screen only that their appearances seem to be very brief, leaving their fans wanting for more.
What really is the relevance of Valentine’s Day? This is one important question posed by the movie. Has this day really lost its relevance and is nothing more than a product of commercialism? Valentine’s Day has tried answering these questions by presenting various lives of people longing for love, looking for love and holding on to love. They all believe that love exists and it’s the only thing on the planet that keeps everyone sane. Some may have lost their faith in love but they eventually find it in the most unexpected moment. The really disturbing aspect of the movie however is the somewhat distorted concepts of love that appears to center on sex. Most characters in the story, most of the time, relate love with sex as if the two are interchangeable terms. The kid’s concept of love remains to be the purest along with that of the mother’s love. Love between friends of the opposite sex seems to be impossible to remain platonic because it eventually leads to mutual attraction. But then, marrying one’s best friend is almost always a good idea for friendship is a good foundation of love. Communication, honesty, forgiveness, tolerance and acceptance are some of the virtues associated with love and is really shown effectively in the movie. The entire concept of the film however, with some adult themes, nudity and presentation of homosexual and extra-marital affairs, although made in context, make the movie appropriate for mature audience only.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Love Happens
Cast: Aaron Eckhart, Jennifer Aniston, Dan Fogler, Judy Greer; Director: Brandon Camp; Producers: Scott Stuber, Mike Thompson; Screenwriters: Brandon Camp, Mike Thompson; Music: Christopher Young; Editor: Dana E. Glauberman; Genre: Drama, Comedy, Romance; Cinematography: Eric Alan Edwards; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 109 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Burke (Aaron Eckhart) has just lost his wife and writes a self help book to cope with his own grief. During seminars, he helps people who lost their loved ones get over their pain and loneliness. But when alone in his room, he is a complete mess. When he holds a weekend seminar in Seattle, the place where his wife died, he meets Eloise (Jennifer Aniston) a florist who has no luck in finding her true love. As their friendship develops into something deeper, Burke begins to admit that he has not exactly been faithful to what he is preaching because of a secret surrounding his wife’s death. Eventually, Eloise helps him get over his grief and guilt and makes love happen for both of them.
In general Love Happens is technically above average and manages to bring out a happy sighs from the viewers when the end credits begin to roll. The storyline, though predictable, moves decently and the acting is adequate. Aniston and Eckhart make a believable pair. The music is endearing and does not exaggerate the feel-good-scenes. It is good but not memorable and few years from now, you cannot expect it to be in any list of must-see love stories.
There are a number of positive messages in the film. One, it celebrates life and teaches us to accept death. Love Happens illustrates hope as it follows a person goes through his sorrow and his learning to forgive himself and move on. Two, the film shows us how charity is an act when one stranger is willing to give more than he can afford so that another person may suffer less. The movie showcases several characters in their various degrees of sadness or pain while appreciating and people who help them overcome their grief.
Dear John
Cast: Channing Tatum, Amanda Seyfried, Richard Jenkins, Henry Thomas; Director: Lasse Hallstrom; Producers: Marty Bowen, Wyck Godfrey, Ryan Kavanaugh; Screenwriter: Jamie Linden; Music: Deborah Lurie; Editor: Kristina Boden; Genre: Drama, Romance, War; Cinematography: Terry Stacey; Distributor: Paramount Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 105 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
John (Channing Tatum), a soldier of the U.S. Army Special Forces is having a two week leave to be with Mr. Tyree (Richard Jenkins), his father who collects rare coins with a passion bordering on abnormality. Also on a spring break is Savannah Curtis (Amanda Seyfried), a young college student whose physical beauty matches her idealism. One fateful day on a South Carolina beach, John happens to be around when Savannah accidentally drops her purse by the pier and John skillfully retrieves it from the deep water. In the two glorious weeks that follow, the two new acquaintances fall madly in love, enjoy their short time together, even get to know each other’s family and neighbors. After the two week togetherness the two lovers vow to keep their love alive during John’s one year tour of duty by frequently writing each other. But 9/11 happens and John, the good soldier answers the call of duty and enlists again for deployment abroad. This time the separation is much longer. Until when can the two lovers endure the lengthy separativeness? Will the love letters suffice to keep the flame of love burning?
One familiar with Nicholas Spark’s novels or films based on these novels will most probably be conditioned to expect a bitter sweet ending to our current Dear John, another adaptation to the screen of the popular novelist’s work. And true enough, just like the favorite romances, his The Notebook and Message in a Bottle, the film Dear John has that twist almost at the end that makes the ending “not too happy nor too sad” and therefore bearing some similitude to life. A romance is hardly expected to be “realistic” in the sense that it cannot be grim and dead serious but the viewer may appreciate some semblance to life as in the logical development of this story and of its characters. Love, indeed, can be mentioned as among the “collateral damage” in a war. Then, love may not be extinguished but it can undergo a change. Very good photography has captured the beautiful sunshiny ambience surrounding happy young love as well as the grime, hardship and danger in the war scenes as depicted or sepia shades interspersed between the reading of the love letters. The lead characters are well cast. Pensive Channing Tatum with his beautifully chiseled body and Amanda Seyfried with her Rapunzel-like golden hair and expressive eyes are right for the roles which they do adequately well. There is not much depth to the characterization but we note Savannah’s compassionate nature as shown in her attitude towards the special child and John’s mildly autistic father. We also note the patriotic streak in John which impels him to answer his country’s call, a sacrifice that costs him dearly. Such character traits have a bearing on the outcome of the story. Director Lasse Hallstrom handles the story with a tender light touch so that the film acquires a quiet, somewhat lyrical, equality.
Dear John has many things going for it. It is technically good, for one. It has also some positive values. The lead character Savannah comes from a well to do family. But she is unlike other young rich girls her age, on vacation from college. True, she has time far fun but she also gives some attention to those less fortunate, like her autistic neighbor whom she teaches to ride a horse and with whom she spends time. She is idealistic and dreams of building a camp for needy children after graduation. She envisions a life not only of pleasure but also of giving. She probably understands John’s father better than John himself so that she mentions that he may be an undiagnosed mild case but needs understanding, nevertheless. John did not at first really understand his father with whom he could hardly communicate but he does spend some time with him. Autism is poignantly portrayed and the involved families have generously accepted the consequences of the “disability”. Another positive value portrayed is John’s readiness to respond to his country’s needs. However, in spite of the film’s technical excellence and other good points noted, the picture is rated below average because it is blighted by some negative values. Pre-marital sex can never be condoned. Aside from the sensuality, there is also some violence. Only mature viewers 14 years old and above should allowed to see this movie.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
John (Channing Tatum), a soldier of the U.S. Army Special Forces is having a two week leave to be with Mr. Tyree (Richard Jenkins), his father who collects rare coins with a passion bordering on abnormality. Also on a spring break is Savannah Curtis (Amanda Seyfried), a young college student whose physical beauty matches her idealism. One fateful day on a South Carolina beach, John happens to be around when Savannah accidentally drops her purse by the pier and John skillfully retrieves it from the deep water. In the two glorious weeks that follow, the two new acquaintances fall madly in love, enjoy their short time together, even get to know each other’s family and neighbors. After the two week togetherness the two lovers vow to keep their love alive during John’s one year tour of duty by frequently writing each other. But 9/11 happens and John, the good soldier answers the call of duty and enlists again for deployment abroad. This time the separation is much longer. Until when can the two lovers endure the lengthy separativeness? Will the love letters suffice to keep the flame of love burning?
One familiar with Nicholas Spark’s novels or films based on these novels will most probably be conditioned to expect a bitter sweet ending to our current Dear John, another adaptation to the screen of the popular novelist’s work. And true enough, just like the favorite romances, his The Notebook and Message in a Bottle, the film Dear John has that twist almost at the end that makes the ending “not too happy nor too sad” and therefore bearing some similitude to life. A romance is hardly expected to be “realistic” in the sense that it cannot be grim and dead serious but the viewer may appreciate some semblance to life as in the logical development of this story and of its characters. Love, indeed, can be mentioned as among the “collateral damage” in a war. Then, love may not be extinguished but it can undergo a change. Very good photography has captured the beautiful sunshiny ambience surrounding happy young love as well as the grime, hardship and danger in the war scenes as depicted or sepia shades interspersed between the reading of the love letters. The lead characters are well cast. Pensive Channing Tatum with his beautifully chiseled body and Amanda Seyfried with her Rapunzel-like golden hair and expressive eyes are right for the roles which they do adequately well. There is not much depth to the characterization but we note Savannah’s compassionate nature as shown in her attitude towards the special child and John’s mildly autistic father. We also note the patriotic streak in John which impels him to answer his country’s call, a sacrifice that costs him dearly. Such character traits have a bearing on the outcome of the story. Director Lasse Hallstrom handles the story with a tender light touch so that the film acquires a quiet, somewhat lyrical, equality.
Dear John has many things going for it. It is technically good, for one. It has also some positive values. The lead character Savannah comes from a well to do family. But she is unlike other young rich girls her age, on vacation from college. True, she has time far fun but she also gives some attention to those less fortunate, like her autistic neighbor whom she teaches to ride a horse and with whom she spends time. She is idealistic and dreams of building a camp for needy children after graduation. She envisions a life not only of pleasure but also of giving. She probably understands John’s father better than John himself so that she mentions that he may be an undiagnosed mild case but needs understanding, nevertheless. John did not at first really understand his father with whom he could hardly communicate but he does spend some time with him. Autism is poignantly portrayed and the involved families have generously accepted the consequences of the “disability”. Another positive value portrayed is John’s readiness to respond to his country’s needs. However, in spite of the film’s technical excellence and other good points noted, the picture is rated below average because it is blighted by some negative values. Pre-marital sex can never be condoned. Aside from the sensuality, there is also some violence. Only mature viewers 14 years old and above should allowed to see this movie.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Did You Hear About Morgans?
Cast: Hugh Grant, Meryl Jessica Parker, Sam Elliott, Mary Steenburgen; Director: Marc Lawrence; Producers: Martin Shafer, Liz Glotzer; Screenwriter: Marc Lawrence; Music: Theodore Shapiro; Editor: Susan E. Morse; Genre: Drama; Cinematography: Florian Ballhaus; Distributor: Sony Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 123 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
High profile and successful Manhattan couple, Meryl (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Paul Morgan (Hugh Grant) have almost everything going for them except their failing marriage caused by Paul’s infidelity and Meryl’s suspected infertility. Meryl has been living alone in her apartment and Paul has been staying in a hotel for three months already. But when they witness a murder and become a target of a professional killer, they will have no choice but to come to terms that they will live together again under one roof. The FBI’s witness protection program takes them away from New York to a tiny town in Ray, Wyoming. There, they will experience a totally different life together away from the city, with Paul trying very hard to rekindle their old romance. Will Meryl finally give in?
The premise, though pretty interesting, remains to be the usual Hollywood mainstream. The film has lots of strengths and acting is one of them. Parker fits the role of a materialistic city girl perfectly and Grant is as convincing although quite predictable. There are still some stereotypical portrayals present in the story like the typical New Yorkers and country folks but the story does not dwell on too much of these so the entire picture comes out as refreshing. The suspense part is a bit slow and does not really build into a climax and the romance lacks certain sparkle. But the Parker-Grant tandem provides some sort of depth and maturity in the romance so they are able to pull it off. The focus on the marital issues comes out effectively and it is this part of the movie where the audience is tickled. The laughs are good enough and do not undermine the audience’s intellect.
Marital problems and issues abound the fast-paced city lifestyle so the film’s theme will always be timely and relevant. There are two distinct characters in the story and their differences are really apparent. Issues of infidelity, communication differences, personality differences, and even infertility are discussed in the film head-on. Infidelity is a mistake in any relationship and the movie tells the audience just as that. No justification. No compromise. It is wrong and will always be wrong in the eyes of men and in the eyes God. But then, the film also recognizes the value of forgiveness. It is in forgiving one another that a couple stays together in marriage. It is also in forgiveness that they are able to fully fulfill their marriage vows. However, as shown in the movie, forgiveness is not given easily unless there is sincere contrition on the part of the offender. Paul has to say sorry so many times but the words meant nothing until Meryl felt the sincerity. When the Morgans lived in the tiny town of Wyoming, they are able to appreciate one another - both their similarities and differences. Once they have been away from the busy and materialistic city lifestyle, they are able to communicate like they have never done before. And finally, the Morgans are able to realize life’s essentials – relationships. More than the wealth and status, it is their marriage—their family, that is worth keeping and worth saving.
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
High profile and successful Manhattan couple, Meryl (Sarah Jessica Parker) and Paul Morgan (Hugh Grant) have almost everything going for them except their failing marriage caused by Paul’s infidelity and Meryl’s suspected infertility. Meryl has been living alone in her apartment and Paul has been staying in a hotel for three months already. But when they witness a murder and become a target of a professional killer, they will have no choice but to come to terms that they will live together again under one roof. The FBI’s witness protection program takes them away from New York to a tiny town in Ray, Wyoming. There, they will experience a totally different life together away from the city, with Paul trying very hard to rekindle their old romance. Will Meryl finally give in?
The premise, though pretty interesting, remains to be the usual Hollywood mainstream. The film has lots of strengths and acting is one of them. Parker fits the role of a materialistic city girl perfectly and Grant is as convincing although quite predictable. There are still some stereotypical portrayals present in the story like the typical New Yorkers and country folks but the story does not dwell on too much of these so the entire picture comes out as refreshing. The suspense part is a bit slow and does not really build into a climax and the romance lacks certain sparkle. But the Parker-Grant tandem provides some sort of depth and maturity in the romance so they are able to pull it off. The focus on the marital issues comes out effectively and it is this part of the movie where the audience is tickled. The laughs are good enough and do not undermine the audience’s intellect.
Marital problems and issues abound the fast-paced city lifestyle so the film’s theme will always be timely and relevant. There are two distinct characters in the story and their differences are really apparent. Issues of infidelity, communication differences, personality differences, and even infertility are discussed in the film head-on. Infidelity is a mistake in any relationship and the movie tells the audience just as that. No justification. No compromise. It is wrong and will always be wrong in the eyes of men and in the eyes God. But then, the film also recognizes the value of forgiveness. It is in forgiving one another that a couple stays together in marriage. It is also in forgiveness that they are able to fully fulfill their marriage vows. However, as shown in the movie, forgiveness is not given easily unless there is sincere contrition on the part of the offender. Paul has to say sorry so many times but the words meant nothing until Meryl felt the sincerity. When the Morgans lived in the tiny town of Wyoming, they are able to appreciate one another - both their similarities and differences. Once they have been away from the busy and materialistic city lifestyle, they are able to communicate like they have never done before. And finally, the Morgans are able to realize life’s essentials – relationships. More than the wealth and status, it is their marriage—their family, that is worth keeping and worth saving.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Where the Wild Things Are
Cast: Max Records, Catherin Keener, Mark Ruffalo, Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper, Paul Dano, James Gandolfini; Director: Spike Jonze; Producers: Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman, Maurice Sendak; Screenwriters: Spike Jonze, Dace Egger; Music: Karen O Carter Burwell; Editor: Eric Zumbrunnen; Genre: Animation, Fantasy; Cinematography: Lance Acord; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Running Time: 101 min.;
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
The movie is an adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s 1963 award winning children’s book. It stars 9 year-old Max (Max Records), a boy with a very active imagination and bad temper. He constantly throws tantrums when things don’t go his way. When his divorced mother, Connie (Catherine Keener), yells at him for acting out during dinner with her boyfriend, Max runs away in the middle of the night and stumbles into an island inhabited by six large monster-like creatures. When the giant creatures are about to eat him, Max tells them he is actually a king with magical powers and that he can unite their group. For a time, Max is able to impose his rules and bond Carol (James Gandolfini) and KW (Lauren Ambrose). However, when Alexander (Paul Dano) gets hurt during a fight between the “good guys” and the “bad guys”, as Max suggested, settling another issue among the group, his secret is exposed and he decides to come home.
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is a poignant movie about childhood and the inner struggles of a child. The director’s vision and interpretation is beautiful, stunning and painfully truthful despite the animations and puppetry. The story is symbolic but clear while Records portrays his character very well. The production has tenderly captured Max’s struggle as shown by his unruly exterior and his lonely inner self and creatively presented the conflicts a young boy undergoes. The giant creatures capture an aspect of Max’s personality and life and show how children manage to be alternately creative and destructive as the same time. The technical side of the film is outstanding, with a moving musical score, spectacular cinematography and imaginative CGI’s.
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE shows selfishness and selflessness, creativity and destruction, temper and patience, acceptance and maturity through the eyes and mind of a 9 year old. More importantly, it emphasizes the value of home and family as Max travels in his mind to his make-believe world of carefree monsters, at the end of the day, he chooses to return home to his family.
The authors of the film have emphasized that this is a movie about childhood and not necessarily for children, but with six adorable creatures interacting with a child protagonist, most children with be enticed to watch this as well. It is important that parents understand the movie and consciously decide if they can afford to allow them to watch this.
On the one hand, the movie may be too dark for some children. There is a certain melancholy in the film that might disturb very young audiences. Parents should be prepared to guide and explain the destructive behaviors expressed every now and then. On the other hand, as soon as parents are ready to deal with issues that may arise, it is a must see movie to explain friendship, inner struggles and discipline to young children.
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
The movie is an adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s 1963 award winning children’s book. It stars 9 year-old Max (Max Records), a boy with a very active imagination and bad temper. He constantly throws tantrums when things don’t go his way. When his divorced mother, Connie (Catherine Keener), yells at him for acting out during dinner with her boyfriend, Max runs away in the middle of the night and stumbles into an island inhabited by six large monster-like creatures. When the giant creatures are about to eat him, Max tells them he is actually a king with magical powers and that he can unite their group. For a time, Max is able to impose his rules and bond Carol (James Gandolfini) and KW (Lauren Ambrose). However, when Alexander (Paul Dano) gets hurt during a fight between the “good guys” and the “bad guys”, as Max suggested, settling another issue among the group, his secret is exposed and he decides to come home.
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE is a poignant movie about childhood and the inner struggles of a child. The director’s vision and interpretation is beautiful, stunning and painfully truthful despite the animations and puppetry. The story is symbolic but clear while Records portrays his character very well. The production has tenderly captured Max’s struggle as shown by his unruly exterior and his lonely inner self and creatively presented the conflicts a young boy undergoes. The giant creatures capture an aspect of Max’s personality and life and show how children manage to be alternately creative and destructive as the same time. The technical side of the film is outstanding, with a moving musical score, spectacular cinematography and imaginative CGI’s.
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE shows selfishness and selflessness, creativity and destruction, temper and patience, acceptance and maturity through the eyes and mind of a 9 year old. More importantly, it emphasizes the value of home and family as Max travels in his mind to his make-believe world of carefree monsters, at the end of the day, he chooses to return home to his family.
The authors of the film have emphasized that this is a movie about childhood and not necessarily for children, but with six adorable creatures interacting with a child protagonist, most children with be enticed to watch this as well. It is important that parents understand the movie and consciously decide if they can afford to allow them to watch this.
On the one hand, the movie may be too dark for some children. There is a certain melancholy in the film that might disturb very young audiences. Parents should be prepared to guide and explain the destructive behaviors expressed every now and then. On the other hand, as soon as parents are ready to deal with issues that may arise, it is a must see movie to explain friendship, inner struggles and discipline to young children.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Princess and the Frog
Cast: Anika Noni Rose, John Goodman, Keith David, Jim Cummings; Director: John Musker, Ron Clements; Producer: Peter Del Vecho; Screenwriters: Ron Clements, John Musker; Music: Randy Newman; Editor: Jeff Draheim; Genre: Animated/Children; Distributor: Walt Disney; Location: USA; Running Time: 96 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
Walt Disney Animation Studios presents the musical THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG, an animated comedy set in the great city of New Orleans. From the creators of “the Little Mermaid” and “Aladdin” comes a modern classic tale, featuring a beautiful girl named Tiana (Anika Noni Rose), a frog prince who desperately wants to be human again, and a fateful kiss that leads them both on a hilarious adventure through the mystical bayous of Louisiana.
THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG marks the return to hand-drawn animation form the revered team of John Musker and Ron Clements, with music by Oscar-winning composer Randy Newman. (Walt Disney)
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
Walt Disney Animation Studios presents the musical THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG, an animated comedy set in the great city of New Orleans. From the creators of “the Little Mermaid” and “Aladdin” comes a modern classic tale, featuring a beautiful girl named Tiana (Anika Noni Rose), a frog prince who desperately wants to be human again, and a fateful kiss that leads them both on a hilarious adventure through the mystical bayous of Louisiana.
THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG marks the return to hand-drawn animation form the revered team of John Musker and Ron Clements, with music by Oscar-winning composer Randy Newman. (Walt Disney)
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Paano Na Kaya
Cast: Kim Chiu, Gerarld Anderson, Melissa Ricks, Ricky Davao, Rio Locsin; Director: Ruel Bayani; Producers:; Screenwriter: Ralph Jacinto Quiblat, Carmille Andrea Mangampat; Genre: Drama; Distributor: Star Cinema; Location: Manila; Running Time: 100 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Matalik na magkaibigan sina Mae (Kim Chiu) at Bogs (Gerald Anderson) ngunit si Mae ay may lihim na pagtingin kay Bogs. Matagal itong kinimkim ni Mae habang si Bogs naman ay baliw na baliw kay Anna (Melissa Ricks). Bilang matalik na kaibigan, madalas tinutulungan pa ni Mae si Bogs sa mga gimik nito sa panliligaw kay Anna hanggang sa tuluyan nang maging magkasintahan ang dalawa. Ngunit isang araw ay bigla na lamang makikipag-hiwalay si Anna kay Bogs dahil may iba na pala itong mahal. Labis itong dadamdamin ni Bogs at ibibigay naman ni Mae ang kanyang todong suporta dito hanggang sa di-maiiwasang maibulalas ni Mae kay Bogs ang pinakatatago niyang damdamin para dito. Ito ang maghuhudyat ng pagtatapos ng kanilang pagiging magkaibigan at magsisimula na silang maging magkasintahan. Maayos na sana ang lahat sa kanilang dalawa nang biglang magbalik sa buhay ni Bogs si Anna. Dito magsisimulang mapaisip si Mae kung talagang minahal nga ba siya ni Bogs o naging panakip-butas lamang siya.
Kung tutuusin ay walang gaanong bago sa kuwento. Dalawang matalik na magkaibigan na magkaka-ibigan. Halos walang pinag-iba ang takbo ng kuwento sa mga nakagawian nang palabas na may parehas na tema. Pinakabago na lang marahil ay ang mga nagsiganap na pawang maiinit na tambalan ng makabagong henerasyon. Mahuhusay naman ang kanilang naging pagganap. Higit na mahusay ang mga pangalawang tauhan na nagpatibay pang lalo sa bigat at lalim ng daloy ng kuwento. Maayos naman ang pagkakadirehe at tama ang timpla ng mga emosyon sa bawat eksena. Yun nga lang, may mga linyang pawang luma at gasgas nang maririnig sa ibang mga pelikula. Sa kabuuan ay dama ang pagiging luma ng materyal. Hindi malinaw kung ano ang kaaya-ayang katangian ng mga tauhan upang sila ay magmahalan o mahalin. Magdudulot ito ng labis na kalituhan sa tunay na kahulugan ng pagmamahal.
Umikot ang buong kuwento sa tema ng pagmamahal at sa maraming uri nito na sa bandang huli’y pawang magkaka-kabit at magkakarugtong. Sinasabi ng pelikula na sa tahanan unang natututunan ang pagmamahal. Kung salat nito sa mga tahanan ay hahanapin ito sa labas at walang kasiguruhang matutunan at magagampanan ito ng maayos sa kabila ng kakulangan nito sa pamilya. Ito ang ipinakita sa relasyong Mae at Bogs. Parehas silang naghahangad ng pagmamahal sa kani-kanilang pamilya. Si Mae, sa kanyang ama, samantalang si Bogs, sa kanyang ina. Nagawa nilang punan ang mga kakulangang ito sa lalim ng kanilang pagkakaibigan hanggang sa sila’y tuluyang maging magkasintahan ngunit pawang hindi pa rin naging sapat ang isa’t-isa upang punan ang anumang kakulangan. Magandang mensahe ito sa mga pamilya upang kanilang pagtibayin ang pagmamahal sa loob ng tahanan dahil ito ang magiging matibay na pundasyon ng kahit sinong magmamahal. Anu mang labis at kulang ay makasasama maging sa pagmamahal. Ang ama ni Mae ay naging malabis sa pagnanais na mapabuti ang anak na sa bandang huli’y labis na sama ng loob lamang ang naitanim sa puso nito. Naging malabis din ang ibinuhos na pagmamahal ni Mae sa kanyang kaibigang si Bogs na halos makalimutan na niya ang kanyang sariling kapakanan. Ngunit magandang pundasyon din ng pagmamahalan ang pagkakaibigan bagama’t mahirap itong panindigan. Sa bandang huli nama’y namayani pa rin ang wagas na pag-ibig at walang hindi bumubuti kung paiiralin ang unawaan at pagpapatawad.
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Matalik na magkaibigan sina Mae (Kim Chiu) at Bogs (Gerald Anderson) ngunit si Mae ay may lihim na pagtingin kay Bogs. Matagal itong kinimkim ni Mae habang si Bogs naman ay baliw na baliw kay Anna (Melissa Ricks). Bilang matalik na kaibigan, madalas tinutulungan pa ni Mae si Bogs sa mga gimik nito sa panliligaw kay Anna hanggang sa tuluyan nang maging magkasintahan ang dalawa. Ngunit isang araw ay bigla na lamang makikipag-hiwalay si Anna kay Bogs dahil may iba na pala itong mahal. Labis itong dadamdamin ni Bogs at ibibigay naman ni Mae ang kanyang todong suporta dito hanggang sa di-maiiwasang maibulalas ni Mae kay Bogs ang pinakatatago niyang damdamin para dito. Ito ang maghuhudyat ng pagtatapos ng kanilang pagiging magkaibigan at magsisimula na silang maging magkasintahan. Maayos na sana ang lahat sa kanilang dalawa nang biglang magbalik sa buhay ni Bogs si Anna. Dito magsisimulang mapaisip si Mae kung talagang minahal nga ba siya ni Bogs o naging panakip-butas lamang siya.
Kung tutuusin ay walang gaanong bago sa kuwento. Dalawang matalik na magkaibigan na magkaka-ibigan. Halos walang pinag-iba ang takbo ng kuwento sa mga nakagawian nang palabas na may parehas na tema. Pinakabago na lang marahil ay ang mga nagsiganap na pawang maiinit na tambalan ng makabagong henerasyon. Mahuhusay naman ang kanilang naging pagganap. Higit na mahusay ang mga pangalawang tauhan na nagpatibay pang lalo sa bigat at lalim ng daloy ng kuwento. Maayos naman ang pagkakadirehe at tama ang timpla ng mga emosyon sa bawat eksena. Yun nga lang, may mga linyang pawang luma at gasgas nang maririnig sa ibang mga pelikula. Sa kabuuan ay dama ang pagiging luma ng materyal. Hindi malinaw kung ano ang kaaya-ayang katangian ng mga tauhan upang sila ay magmahalan o mahalin. Magdudulot ito ng labis na kalituhan sa tunay na kahulugan ng pagmamahal.
Umikot ang buong kuwento sa tema ng pagmamahal at sa maraming uri nito na sa bandang huli’y pawang magkaka-kabit at magkakarugtong. Sinasabi ng pelikula na sa tahanan unang natututunan ang pagmamahal. Kung salat nito sa mga tahanan ay hahanapin ito sa labas at walang kasiguruhang matutunan at magagampanan ito ng maayos sa kabila ng kakulangan nito sa pamilya. Ito ang ipinakita sa relasyong Mae at Bogs. Parehas silang naghahangad ng pagmamahal sa kani-kanilang pamilya. Si Mae, sa kanyang ama, samantalang si Bogs, sa kanyang ina. Nagawa nilang punan ang mga kakulangang ito sa lalim ng kanilang pagkakaibigan hanggang sa sila’y tuluyang maging magkasintahan ngunit pawang hindi pa rin naging sapat ang isa’t-isa upang punan ang anumang kakulangan. Magandang mensahe ito sa mga pamilya upang kanilang pagtibayin ang pagmamahal sa loob ng tahanan dahil ito ang magiging matibay na pundasyon ng kahit sinong magmamahal. Anu mang labis at kulang ay makasasama maging sa pagmamahal. Ang ama ni Mae ay naging malabis sa pagnanais na mapabuti ang anak na sa bandang huli’y labis na sama ng loob lamang ang naitanim sa puso nito. Naging malabis din ang ibinuhos na pagmamahal ni Mae sa kanyang kaibigang si Bogs na halos makalimutan na niya ang kanyang sariling kapakanan. Ngunit magandang pundasyon din ng pagmamahalan ang pagkakaibigan bagama’t mahirap itong panindigan. Sa bandang huli nama’y namayani pa rin ang wagas na pag-ibig at walang hindi bumubuti kung paiiralin ang unawaan at pagpapatawad.
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Blind Side
Cast: Sandra Bullock, Tim McGraw, Quinton Aaron, Jae Head, Lily Collins; Director: John Lee Hancock; Producers: Gil Netter, Broderick Johnson, Andrew Kosove; Screenwriter: John Hancock; Music: Carter Burwell; Editor: Mark Livolsi; Genre: Drama; Cinematography: Alar Kivilo; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 100 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
African-American teenager Michael Oher's a.k.a Big Mike (Quinton Aaron) feels outcast in a Christian school due to variety of reasons from his low academic qualification to his big body frame for his age, skin color and being oddly silent apparently due to his complicated childhood. When Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) sees Michael wandering in the street on one cold night, she invites him to sleep over in the house with her family -- husband Sean (Tim McGraw) and children SJ (Jae Head) and Collins (Lily Collins). The generosity of Touhy family does not end with overnight place of sleep for Michael but finding a new family where he is loved and accepted. On discovery of his niche in playing football, he gets the full support of the Tuohy family to the point of going all the way to process legal guardianship for him and get a tutor to improve his academic profile. When Michael starts to make a name in sports, tempting scholarship packages come to his plate from different schools. However, when he finally chooses one, those schools that he rejects make him believe that Tuohy family's motivation for helping him is to influence his decision for choice of school. After all those things done for him by Tuohy family is Michael up to be cynical about them, isolates himself and feels outcast again? How about the promising sports career?
Based on the book Evolution of a Game, The Blind Side offers an inspiring story complimented by excellent treatment by the director and the casting that fits each character. There are combined drama and comedy, conventional and unconventional family settings, and theme of social relevance. The lines are meaningful and put to life by good portrayal of the actors especially Bullock. The cinematography captured the settings for a good production design to establish highlight of each scene. Overall, film The Blind Side is way above in the technical aspects and keep up to the essence of a very good story.
The film shows that an act of kindness cannot be contained, there is overflow. Leigh Anne influenced others primarily her family then the coach, the teachers and school officials to extend kindness to Michael, and this creates a pleasant environment for everybody. It brings positive change not only to the recipient but also to the giver. The film projects both a strong and soft woman in the character of Leigh Anne, an understanding and supportive husband, obedient and loving children to their parents. The film is also a good reminder for key people in the schools, sports, law enforcer of their responsibility to make or unmake a person especially at a young age. Rather to look at each young person as an opportunity to see potentials of good citizens in the making. Whilst the story is about Michael, the key messages to address the moral dimension are found in the people around him. Overall the film offers a lot of positive values not only in the family situation but throughout the school, community and society at large.
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
African-American teenager Michael Oher's a.k.a Big Mike (Quinton Aaron) feels outcast in a Christian school due to variety of reasons from his low academic qualification to his big body frame for his age, skin color and being oddly silent apparently due to his complicated childhood. When Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) sees Michael wandering in the street on one cold night, she invites him to sleep over in the house with her family -- husband Sean (Tim McGraw) and children SJ (Jae Head) and Collins (Lily Collins). The generosity of Touhy family does not end with overnight place of sleep for Michael but finding a new family where he is loved and accepted. On discovery of his niche in playing football, he gets the full support of the Tuohy family to the point of going all the way to process legal guardianship for him and get a tutor to improve his academic profile. When Michael starts to make a name in sports, tempting scholarship packages come to his plate from different schools. However, when he finally chooses one, those schools that he rejects make him believe that Tuohy family's motivation for helping him is to influence his decision for choice of school. After all those things done for him by Tuohy family is Michael up to be cynical about them, isolates himself and feels outcast again? How about the promising sports career?
Based on the book Evolution of a Game, The Blind Side offers an inspiring story complimented by excellent treatment by the director and the casting that fits each character. There are combined drama and comedy, conventional and unconventional family settings, and theme of social relevance. The lines are meaningful and put to life by good portrayal of the actors especially Bullock. The cinematography captured the settings for a good production design to establish highlight of each scene. Overall, film The Blind Side is way above in the technical aspects and keep up to the essence of a very good story.
The film shows that an act of kindness cannot be contained, there is overflow. Leigh Anne influenced others primarily her family then the coach, the teachers and school officials to extend kindness to Michael, and this creates a pleasant environment for everybody. It brings positive change not only to the recipient but also to the giver. The film projects both a strong and soft woman in the character of Leigh Anne, an understanding and supportive husband, obedient and loving children to their parents. The film is also a good reminder for key people in the schools, sports, law enforcer of their responsibility to make or unmake a person especially at a young age. Rather to look at each young person as an opportunity to see potentials of good citizens in the making. Whilst the story is about Michael, the key messages to address the moral dimension are found in the people around him. Overall the film offers a lot of positive values not only in the family situation but throughout the school, community and society at large.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Fidel
Cast: Lance Raymundo, Andrea del Rosario, Snooky Serna, Ma. Isabel Lopez; Director: Mark Shandii Bacolod; Screenwriter: Charlotte Dianco; Music: ; Editor: Orlean Joseph Tan; Genre: Drama; Cinematography: Rain Yamson III; Distributor: Piperstorm Pictures and Periwinke Entetertainment; Location: Manila; Running Time: 90 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Si Fidel (Lance Raymundo) ay nagpunta ng Dubai upang magtrabaho at makatulong sa pamilya. Ngunit isang araw ay mababalitaang siya ay nakulong dahil napatay niya ang kanyang amo. Ayaw sabihin ni Fidel kung bakit niya pinatay ang kanyang amo. Inamin lamang niya ng agaran ang krimen. Kahit pa pinapayuhan siya ng kanyang abogado na sabihing “self defense” ang nangyari ay hindi niya ginagawa. Nang mabalitaan ito ng kanyang pamilya sa Pilipinas ay hindi sila makapaniwala dahil sa kanilang pagkakakilala dito ay mabuting tao si Fidel at walang kakayahang gumawa ng krimen. Gagawin nila ang lahat upang matulungang mapalaya si Fidel kung kaya’t makakarating ang kuwento ni Fidel kay Vega (Andrea del Rosario), isang reporter na naghahanap ng istorya upang mailigtas ang kanyang programa sa telebisyon na sumasadsad ang ratings. Susubukang imbestigahan ni Vega ang kaso ni Fidel kasabay ng intensiyong tulungan ito. Ngunit sadyang hindi mapagsasalita si Fidel sa tunay na dahilan ng pagpatay niya sa kanyang amo. Ano kaya ang itinatagong lihim ni Fidel?
Hindi karaniwan ang kuwento ng Fidel. Nagsubok itong maghain ng isang kuwentong bihirang pasukin at pag-usapan sa publiko dahil na rin marahil sa pag-iiwas ng karamihan sa kahihiyan. Maganda sana ang kuwentong nais tahakin ng pelikula ngunit pawang napako ito sa iisang punto lamang na hindi naman nagkaroon ng maigting na pagtatapos. Nasayang ang dapat sana’y magandang materyal pampelikula. Naging melodramatiko ang pelikula sa halip na harapin ang mga tunay na problema na kinakaharap ng bida kasabay ng maraming sakit ng lipunan. Marami ding kahinaan sa direksiyon kung kaya’t nasayang ang galing ng mga tauhan. Hindi tumataas ang emosyon maging sa mga eksena na dapat sana’y may matinding tensiyon. Bagkus, walang anumang naramdaman ang manonood sa mga eksenang ito.
Bagama’t isang maselang paksa ang tinalakay ng Fidel, nanatili itong wagas sa hangaring maghatid ng kuwento ukol sa dignidad at pagpahahalaga sa karapatang-pantao. Hindi nagpadala ang pelikula sa tawag ng pang-aabuso ng media na siya mismong nais labanan nito. Ipinakita sa Fidel kung paanong nawawalan ng kapayapaan ang taong gumawa ng krimen. Hindi nito kinukunsinte ang kasalanan bagkus ay ipinakitang ito ay may karampatang parusa. Hindi nga naman maitatama ng mali ang isang pagkakamali. Nang ilagay ni Fidel ang batas sa kanyang mga kamay ay ninais niyang ipaghiganti ang kanyang dignidad ngunit alam din niya ang magiging kanyang kahihinatnan kapag ginawa niya ito. Hindi niya tinakasan ang krimen, sa halip ito ay kanyang hinarap. Yun nga lang ay pawang mas namayani pa rin sa kanya ang kahihiyan sa halip na sabihin ang katotohanan. Sa bandang huli nama’y pinalaya pa rin ang kanyang damdamin sa pagsasabi nito ng katotohanan sa kanyang mga magulang. Mabigat man, ay kinailangan niyang tanggapin ang parusang nakaatang sa kanya. Mahalaga rin ang mensahe ng pelikula ukol sa ginagawang pang-aabuso ng mass media sa mga dapat sana’y tunay na kuwento ng mga totoong tao. Sa madalas na pagkakataon, hindi ang pagtulong sa kapwa ang namamayani sa kanila kundi ang pagpapayabong ng negosyo o posisyon sa trabaho na sa halip na pumanig sa katotohanan ay nagnanais lamang na gamitin at abusuhin ang kuwento upang bumenta lamang ang programa. Ang puntong ito ay maliwanag namang naisaad sa pelikula. Sayang nga lang at ang kabutihang-loob ni Fidel ay hindi naging sapat upang nalagpasan sana niya ng mas maayos ang kanyang kalagayan sa halip na ilagay ang batas sa kanyang mga kamay. Ang sensitibong tema ng pelikula ay nararapat lamang sa mga manonood na nasa wastong gulang.
Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Si Fidel (Lance Raymundo) ay nagpunta ng Dubai upang magtrabaho at makatulong sa pamilya. Ngunit isang araw ay mababalitaang siya ay nakulong dahil napatay niya ang kanyang amo. Ayaw sabihin ni Fidel kung bakit niya pinatay ang kanyang amo. Inamin lamang niya ng agaran ang krimen. Kahit pa pinapayuhan siya ng kanyang abogado na sabihing “self defense” ang nangyari ay hindi niya ginagawa. Nang mabalitaan ito ng kanyang pamilya sa Pilipinas ay hindi sila makapaniwala dahil sa kanilang pagkakakilala dito ay mabuting tao si Fidel at walang kakayahang gumawa ng krimen. Gagawin nila ang lahat upang matulungang mapalaya si Fidel kung kaya’t makakarating ang kuwento ni Fidel kay Vega (Andrea del Rosario), isang reporter na naghahanap ng istorya upang mailigtas ang kanyang programa sa telebisyon na sumasadsad ang ratings. Susubukang imbestigahan ni Vega ang kaso ni Fidel kasabay ng intensiyong tulungan ito. Ngunit sadyang hindi mapagsasalita si Fidel sa tunay na dahilan ng pagpatay niya sa kanyang amo. Ano kaya ang itinatagong lihim ni Fidel?
Hindi karaniwan ang kuwento ng Fidel. Nagsubok itong maghain ng isang kuwentong bihirang pasukin at pag-usapan sa publiko dahil na rin marahil sa pag-iiwas ng karamihan sa kahihiyan. Maganda sana ang kuwentong nais tahakin ng pelikula ngunit pawang napako ito sa iisang punto lamang na hindi naman nagkaroon ng maigting na pagtatapos. Nasayang ang dapat sana’y magandang materyal pampelikula. Naging melodramatiko ang pelikula sa halip na harapin ang mga tunay na problema na kinakaharap ng bida kasabay ng maraming sakit ng lipunan. Marami ding kahinaan sa direksiyon kung kaya’t nasayang ang galing ng mga tauhan. Hindi tumataas ang emosyon maging sa mga eksena na dapat sana’y may matinding tensiyon. Bagkus, walang anumang naramdaman ang manonood sa mga eksenang ito.
Bagama’t isang maselang paksa ang tinalakay ng Fidel, nanatili itong wagas sa hangaring maghatid ng kuwento ukol sa dignidad at pagpahahalaga sa karapatang-pantao. Hindi nagpadala ang pelikula sa tawag ng pang-aabuso ng media na siya mismong nais labanan nito. Ipinakita sa Fidel kung paanong nawawalan ng kapayapaan ang taong gumawa ng krimen. Hindi nito kinukunsinte ang kasalanan bagkus ay ipinakitang ito ay may karampatang parusa. Hindi nga naman maitatama ng mali ang isang pagkakamali. Nang ilagay ni Fidel ang batas sa kanyang mga kamay ay ninais niyang ipaghiganti ang kanyang dignidad ngunit alam din niya ang magiging kanyang kahihinatnan kapag ginawa niya ito. Hindi niya tinakasan ang krimen, sa halip ito ay kanyang hinarap. Yun nga lang ay pawang mas namayani pa rin sa kanya ang kahihiyan sa halip na sabihin ang katotohanan. Sa bandang huli nama’y pinalaya pa rin ang kanyang damdamin sa pagsasabi nito ng katotohanan sa kanyang mga magulang. Mabigat man, ay kinailangan niyang tanggapin ang parusang nakaatang sa kanya. Mahalaga rin ang mensahe ng pelikula ukol sa ginagawang pang-aabuso ng mass media sa mga dapat sana’y tunay na kuwento ng mga totoong tao. Sa madalas na pagkakataon, hindi ang pagtulong sa kapwa ang namamayani sa kanila kundi ang pagpapayabong ng negosyo o posisyon sa trabaho na sa halip na pumanig sa katotohanan ay nagnanais lamang na gamitin at abusuhin ang kuwento upang bumenta lamang ang programa. Ang puntong ito ay maliwanag namang naisaad sa pelikula. Sayang nga lang at ang kabutihang-loob ni Fidel ay hindi naging sapat upang nalagpasan sana niya ng mas maayos ang kanyang kalagayan sa halip na ilagay ang batas sa kanyang mga kamay. Ang sensitibong tema ng pelikula ay nararapat lamang sa mga manonood na nasa wastong gulang.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Johnny Depp, Heath Ledger, Jude Law, Lily Cole, Colin Farrell, Christopher Plummer, Tom Waits, Andrew Garfield, Peter Stormare, Verne Troyer; Director: Terry Gilliam; Producers: Amy Gilliam, Terry Gilliam, Samuel Hadida, William Vince; Screenwriters: Terry Gilliam, Charles McKeown; Music: Jeff Danna, Mychael Danna; Editor: Mick Audsley; Genre: Fantasy/Comedy; Cinematography: Nicola Pecorini; Location: London; Running Time: 120 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
A traveling theater company gives its audience much more than they were expecting.
A fantasy film that follows the leader of a traveling theater troupe who, having made deal with the Devil, takes audience members through a magical mirror to explore their imaginations.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS:
Everyone has to make a choice between good and evil but the choice should be clear.
Cast: Johnny Depp, Heath Ledger, Jude Law, Lily Cole, Colin Farrell, Christopher Plummer, Tom Waits, Andrew Garfield, Peter Stormare, Verne Troyer; Director: Terry Gilliam; Producers: Amy Gilliam, Terry Gilliam, Samuel Hadida, William Vince; Screenwriters: Terry Gilliam, Charles McKeown; Music: Jeff Danna, Mychael Danna; Editor: Mick Audsley; Genre: Fantasy/Comedy; Cinematography: Nicola Pecorini; Location: London; Running Time: 120 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
A traveling theater company gives its audience much more than they were expecting.
A fantasy film that follows the leader of a traveling theater troupe who, having made deal with the Devil, takes audience members through a magical mirror to explore their imaginations.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS:
Everyone has to make a choice between good and evil but the choice should be clear.
Old Dogs
ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: John Travolta, Robin Williams, Kelly Preston, Seth Green, Matt Dillon, Rita Wilson, Dax Shepard, Bernie Mac, Luis Guzman, Ella Bleu Travolta, Conner Raybun, Lori Loughlin,Justin Long; Director: Walt Becjer; Producers: Andrew Panay, Robert L. Levy, Peter Abrams; Screenwriters: David Diamond, David Weissman; Music: John Debney; Editor: ; Genre: Family Oriented Comedy; Distributor: Walt Disney Studios; Location: Connecticut, USA; Running Time: 88 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
Two best friends – one unlucky-in-love divorcee and the other a fun-loving bachelor – have their lives turned upside down when they're charged with the care of 7-year-old twins while on the verge of the biggest business deal of their lives. The not-so-kid-savvy bachelors stumble in their efforts to take care of the twins, leading to one debacle after another, and perhaps to to new-found understanding of what's really important in life.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Parenting is a skill to be learned.
Cast: John Travolta, Robin Williams, Kelly Preston, Seth Green, Matt Dillon, Rita Wilson, Dax Shepard, Bernie Mac, Luis Guzman, Ella Bleu Travolta, Conner Raybun, Lori Loughlin,Justin Long; Director: Walt Becjer; Producers: Andrew Panay, Robert L. Levy, Peter Abrams; Screenwriters: David Diamond, David Weissman; Music: John Debney; Editor: ; Genre: Family Oriented Comedy; Distributor: Walt Disney Studios; Location: Connecticut, USA; Running Time: 88 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
Two best friends – one unlucky-in-love divorcee and the other a fun-loving bachelor – have their lives turned upside down when they're charged with the care of 7-year-old twins while on the verge of the biggest business deal of their lives. The not-so-kid-savvy bachelors stumble in their efforts to take care of the twins, leading to one debacle after another, and perhaps to to new-found understanding of what's really important in life.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: Parenting is a skill to be learned.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Sherlock Holmes
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong, Eddie Marsan; Director: Guy Ritchie; Producers: Susan Downey, Dan Lin, Joel Silver, Lionel Wigram; Screenwriters: Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham; Music: Hans Zimmer; Editor: James Herbert; Genre: Action/ Adventure/ Crime; Cinematography: Philippe Rousselot; Distributor: 20th Century Fox; Location: UK; Running Time: 128 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Before the fiendish Lord Blackwell (Mark Strong) can claim his sixth victim in a satanistic rite, master sleuth Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his sidekick Dr. Watson (Jude Law) burst into the scene and put the situation under control before the police arrive. Lord Blackwell is sent to the gallows but before the serial killer is hanged he prophesies that the murders will continue even after his execution. He is buried in a sealed tomb but in time is seemingly resurrected, beginning an exhilarating chase where clues are hunted and mysteries unraveled. As Blackwood predicted, the chaos and the mayhem continue, giving fresh challenges to Holmes and Watson. Things take a mystifying turn as Blackwell is discovered to be a member of a magic society.
A creation of author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), Sherlock Holmes is probably the best known detective in English (if not world) literature. The character has captivated readers so that it has been incarnated and reincarnated on film a countless number of times by a roster of actors that includes Charlton Heston, Roger Moore and Leonard Nimoy, “types” so different from one another. Now given new life and almost superhero status through the direction of Guy Ritchie, Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes may yet appeal to current audiences, whether or not they have encountered Holmes in Conan Doyle’s 56 short stories and four novels starring the character. When not sleuthing, Holmes is a boorish, arrogant know-it-all, unbearably self-absorbed and yet quite sympathetic. Such traits are apparent in Downey’s brilliant performance which is even given added fire by Law’s Watson. Their timing and chemistry make their action sequences thrilling and their bickering very amusing.
Detective movies are hardly material for discussions on morality or ethics, since audiences watch them for their suspense and brain-wracking value. They know that there are bad guys who must be punished in the end but fans are more interested in finding out who did what and how—how investigations are conducted, how mysteries are unraveled, and if their own calculations are validated in the conclusion. Detective movies challenge their fans to be vicarious detectives themselves, and Sherlock Holmes affords them that one pleasure. If you are looking for a whodunit with a witty script, a whiff of comedy and loads of action, Sherlock Holmes is it.
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Before the fiendish Lord Blackwell (Mark Strong) can claim his sixth victim in a satanistic rite, master sleuth Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his sidekick Dr. Watson (Jude Law) burst into the scene and put the situation under control before the police arrive. Lord Blackwell is sent to the gallows but before the serial killer is hanged he prophesies that the murders will continue even after his execution. He is buried in a sealed tomb but in time is seemingly resurrected, beginning an exhilarating chase where clues are hunted and mysteries unraveled. As Blackwood predicted, the chaos and the mayhem continue, giving fresh challenges to Holmes and Watson. Things take a mystifying turn as Blackwell is discovered to be a member of a magic society.
A creation of author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), Sherlock Holmes is probably the best known detective in English (if not world) literature. The character has captivated readers so that it has been incarnated and reincarnated on film a countless number of times by a roster of actors that includes Charlton Heston, Roger Moore and Leonard Nimoy, “types” so different from one another. Now given new life and almost superhero status through the direction of Guy Ritchie, Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes may yet appeal to current audiences, whether or not they have encountered Holmes in Conan Doyle’s 56 short stories and four novels starring the character. When not sleuthing, Holmes is a boorish, arrogant know-it-all, unbearably self-absorbed and yet quite sympathetic. Such traits are apparent in Downey’s brilliant performance which is even given added fire by Law’s Watson. Their timing and chemistry make their action sequences thrilling and their bickering very amusing.
Detective movies are hardly material for discussions on morality or ethics, since audiences watch them for their suspense and brain-wracking value. They know that there are bad guys who must be punished in the end but fans are more interested in finding out who did what and how—how investigations are conducted, how mysteries are unraveled, and if their own calculations are validated in the conclusion. Detective movies challenge their fans to be vicarious detectives themselves, and Sherlock Holmes affords them that one pleasure. If you are looking for a whodunit with a witty script, a whiff of comedy and loads of action, Sherlock Holmes is it.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Rebound
Cast: Catherine Zeta-Jones, Justine Bartha; Director: Bart Freundlich; Producers: ; Screenwriters: Bart Freundlich; Producer Bart Freundlich, Mark Gill, Robert Katz, Tim Perell; Music: Clint Mansell; Genre: Drama / Romantic Comedy; Distributor: ; Location: New York, USA; Running Time: 96 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Sandy (Catherine Zeta-Jones), has turned 40, separated from her husband and looking for a new job in a new city and trying to get over the pains and heartaches. She rents an apartment above a popular coffee shop with her two children. Aram Finklestein (Justine Bartha), a 25 year old college graduate, also recently divorced and unsure of what to do with his life, decides to work in the coffee shop, wasting his time with dead end jobs until something exciting comes up. Luck has it for Sandy as Aram turns out to be a superb nanny for her two children, allowing her to explore and improve her career and personal life. Aram becomes close to Sandy’s children and eventually to her as well. Conflicts and arguments arise when age and personality differences come in the way. Will this May-December affair have a happy ending after all?
The movie Rebound tickles the heart and appeals to young ones in love as well as young once in a matured love. The story, although not entirely original, develops effectively. The acting is believable and impressive while Zeta-Jones and Barth’s chemistry, although falling short at times, is still authentic. There were issues that could have been explored more to give the movie a new flavor and depth. For instance, while they touch the question of age differences, the subject is never really explored. Technical aspects of the film are well crafted, clean and respectable. Direction is almost brilliant with great visualization of a good nanny and subtle and witty interpretation of the comical romantic scenes. Overall, the movie is quite an enjoyable entertainment.
There are several unacceptable themes within the story. One, the premarital sexual relationship between employer and employee is both inappropriate and immoral. Some would also find imprudent that the movie treats as a joke the scene where Sandy’s children witness the sexual act. On the other hand, REBOUND offers a quick peek at authentic human emotions. Friendship is illustrated when Aram becomes attached to the children and remains friends with Sandy even after five years of separation. True love is exemplified when 15 years in between and the physical distance within five years are not enough reasons to douse each other’s feelings for each other. REBOUND, sans the novelty of a May-December love story, provides a good insight on human relationships. However, because of some problematic themes and situations, the movie is better suited for the mature adult audience.
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Sandy (Catherine Zeta-Jones), has turned 40, separated from her husband and looking for a new job in a new city and trying to get over the pains and heartaches. She rents an apartment above a popular coffee shop with her two children. Aram Finklestein (Justine Bartha), a 25 year old college graduate, also recently divorced and unsure of what to do with his life, decides to work in the coffee shop, wasting his time with dead end jobs until something exciting comes up. Luck has it for Sandy as Aram turns out to be a superb nanny for her two children, allowing her to explore and improve her career and personal life. Aram becomes close to Sandy’s children and eventually to her as well. Conflicts and arguments arise when age and personality differences come in the way. Will this May-December affair have a happy ending after all?
The movie Rebound tickles the heart and appeals to young ones in love as well as young once in a matured love. The story, although not entirely original, develops effectively. The acting is believable and impressive while Zeta-Jones and Barth’s chemistry, although falling short at times, is still authentic. There were issues that could have been explored more to give the movie a new flavor and depth. For instance, while they touch the question of age differences, the subject is never really explored. Technical aspects of the film are well crafted, clean and respectable. Direction is almost brilliant with great visualization of a good nanny and subtle and witty interpretation of the comical romantic scenes. Overall, the movie is quite an enjoyable entertainment.
There are several unacceptable themes within the story. One, the premarital sexual relationship between employer and employee is both inappropriate and immoral. Some would also find imprudent that the movie treats as a joke the scene where Sandy’s children witness the sexual act. On the other hand, REBOUND offers a quick peek at authentic human emotions. Friendship is illustrated when Aram becomes attached to the children and remains friends with Sandy even after five years of separation. True love is exemplified when 15 years in between and the physical distance within five years are not enough reasons to douse each other’s feelings for each other. REBOUND, sans the novelty of a May-December love story, provides a good insight on human relationships. However, because of some problematic themes and situations, the movie is better suited for the mature adult audience.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Puntod
Cast: Baby Forteza, Sheree, Mark Gil, Arnold Reyes, Pekto; Director: Cesar Apolinario; Producer: ADC Productions; Screenwriters: Tammy Dantes, Cesar Apolianrio and Melchor Encabo; Genre: Drama; Location: Manila; Running Time: 100 mins;
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Si Baby (Barbie Forteza) ay isang pipi’t bingi na bata na lumaki sa isang mahirap na komunidad sa tabi ng estero. Pamumulot ng mga basura sa lawa ng Maynila ang tanging pinagkakakitaan niya mula nang maulila siyang lubos. Araw-araw, tinitiis niya ang kahirapan ng buhay kapiling ang kanyang mapang-abusong nakatatandang kapatid na si Sarah (Sheree). Ang tanging nagpapasaya na lamang kay Baby ay ang palagian niyang pagdalaw sa puntod ng ina. Dito lamang siya nakakaramdam ng kapayapaan at pakiramdam niya’y may karamay siya sa buhay kapag siya’y naririto. Ngunit kahit ang mumunting kasiyahang ito’y mawawala sa kanya nang tanggalin ang mga labi ng kanyang ina sa puntod nito dahil hindi na sila nakakabayad ng kaukulang upa. Dahil dito, pagsusumikapan ni Baby na maibalik ang mga labi ng ina sa puntod nito sa pamamagitan ng pag-iipon ng pera. Sa tulong ng ilang kaibigan, magdodoble-kayod si Baby upang makaipon. Ngunit hindi pa rin magiging madali ang lahat para sa kanya at sa kanyang mga kaibigan.
Maraming ninais sabihin ang pelikula ukol sa kahirapan ng buhay. Ipinakita ng Puntod ang malabis na karukhaan sa mata ng isang batang puno ng pag-asa. Kahanga-hanga na sana ang simulain ng pelikula ngunit naging pawang mababaw at manipis pa rin ang kinalabasan nito sa kabila ng lawak ng sinakop nito sa mga usaping panlipunan. Marahil naging masyadong gigil ang mga may likha ng pelikula na paigtingin ang kanilang mensahe ukol sa kahirapan at kapabayaan ng gobyerno. Labas tuloy ay naging malabis ang pelikula sa pagpapakita ng maraming mukha ng kahirapan na halos wala na ring mararamdamang simpatya ang manonood. Nalimutan nitong maghain ng isang kaiga-igayang kuwento na magpupukaw sa natutulog na damdamin ng mga manonood. Sa halip ay naging isang mahabang sermon at komentaryong pangsosyal at politikal lamang ang pelikula. Sayang at may husay pa naman ang mga nagsiganap. Hindi malaman ng mismong pelikula kung ang nais ba nilang ipahatid ay lungkot o saya sa gitna ng kahirapan. Maraming tauhan at pangyayari ang pawang hindi kapani-paniwala kahit pa hango sa tunay na buhay ang kuwento.
Paano nga ba dapat ipakita ang mukha ng kahirapan? Ano ba ang tunay na kalagayan ng mga mahihirap sa lipunan? Hindi masama at lalong hindi kasalanan ang pagiging mahirap kung kaya’t hindi naman talaga problema kung ipakita man sa pelikula ang mukha nito. Ipinakita sa Puntod ang lahat ng mabaho, marumi, kabulukan at kawalang-pag-asa sa kahirapan, pero hindi pa rin naging malinaw kung ano ang ibig nitong sabihin. Pawang ipinakita ng pelikula ang kawalang-lakas at kawalang kapangyarihan ng mga mahihirap sa lipunan. Wala silang lakas sa mga mayayaman, mga pulitko at maging ang Diyos ay hindi sila pinapakinggan. Pinapalabas ng Puntod na sadyang may mga lugar pa rin sa lungsod ang tila tinalikuran na ng Diyos. Maging ang natitirang mabubuting tao ay nagiging masama rin kalaunan o kung hindi ma’y nauuwi sa masamang kapalaran. Talamak ang kasamaan at ang lipunang ipinakita sa pelikula ay walang kinikilalang Diyos, batas, gobyerno at kahit anumang kabutihan. Ang ilang salitang ginagamit din sa pelikula ay nakakabahala. Maaring ito ay totoong nangyayari ngunit para saan ba ang pagpapakita pa nito? Lumutang naman bilang sentro ng kuwento ang isang batang puno ng pag-asa at pagmamahal sa kapatid at kaibigan ngunit ipinalabas nilang ang kabutihang ito ay napakaliit kung ikukumpara sa napakalawak na lipunang hindi kumikilala sa kahalagahan ng buhay, kabutihan ng tao at pagmamahal ng Diyos. Sa mundong ipinakita sa Puntod, mas nakakalamang ang masama sa mabuti at walang lugar ang pag-asa para sa mahihirap. Ang mga kababaihan ay inaabuso at karamihan ay nauuwi sa maagang prostitusyon. Ilan lamang ito sa maseselang konseptong inilahad sa pelikula na hindi naman nabigyang-hustisya sa kabuuan. Bagama’t ang pangunahing tauhan ay isang bata, hindi nararapat ang pelikula sa mga manonood na wala pa sa hustong gulang.
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above
Si Baby (Barbie Forteza) ay isang pipi’t bingi na bata na lumaki sa isang mahirap na komunidad sa tabi ng estero. Pamumulot ng mga basura sa lawa ng Maynila ang tanging pinagkakakitaan niya mula nang maulila siyang lubos. Araw-araw, tinitiis niya ang kahirapan ng buhay kapiling ang kanyang mapang-abusong nakatatandang kapatid na si Sarah (Sheree). Ang tanging nagpapasaya na lamang kay Baby ay ang palagian niyang pagdalaw sa puntod ng ina. Dito lamang siya nakakaramdam ng kapayapaan at pakiramdam niya’y may karamay siya sa buhay kapag siya’y naririto. Ngunit kahit ang mumunting kasiyahang ito’y mawawala sa kanya nang tanggalin ang mga labi ng kanyang ina sa puntod nito dahil hindi na sila nakakabayad ng kaukulang upa. Dahil dito, pagsusumikapan ni Baby na maibalik ang mga labi ng ina sa puntod nito sa pamamagitan ng pag-iipon ng pera. Sa tulong ng ilang kaibigan, magdodoble-kayod si Baby upang makaipon. Ngunit hindi pa rin magiging madali ang lahat para sa kanya at sa kanyang mga kaibigan.
Maraming ninais sabihin ang pelikula ukol sa kahirapan ng buhay. Ipinakita ng Puntod ang malabis na karukhaan sa mata ng isang batang puno ng pag-asa. Kahanga-hanga na sana ang simulain ng pelikula ngunit naging pawang mababaw at manipis pa rin ang kinalabasan nito sa kabila ng lawak ng sinakop nito sa mga usaping panlipunan. Marahil naging masyadong gigil ang mga may likha ng pelikula na paigtingin ang kanilang mensahe ukol sa kahirapan at kapabayaan ng gobyerno. Labas tuloy ay naging malabis ang pelikula sa pagpapakita ng maraming mukha ng kahirapan na halos wala na ring mararamdamang simpatya ang manonood. Nalimutan nitong maghain ng isang kaiga-igayang kuwento na magpupukaw sa natutulog na damdamin ng mga manonood. Sa halip ay naging isang mahabang sermon at komentaryong pangsosyal at politikal lamang ang pelikula. Sayang at may husay pa naman ang mga nagsiganap. Hindi malaman ng mismong pelikula kung ang nais ba nilang ipahatid ay lungkot o saya sa gitna ng kahirapan. Maraming tauhan at pangyayari ang pawang hindi kapani-paniwala kahit pa hango sa tunay na buhay ang kuwento.
Paano nga ba dapat ipakita ang mukha ng kahirapan? Ano ba ang tunay na kalagayan ng mga mahihirap sa lipunan? Hindi masama at lalong hindi kasalanan ang pagiging mahirap kung kaya’t hindi naman talaga problema kung ipakita man sa pelikula ang mukha nito. Ipinakita sa Puntod ang lahat ng mabaho, marumi, kabulukan at kawalang-pag-asa sa kahirapan, pero hindi pa rin naging malinaw kung ano ang ibig nitong sabihin. Pawang ipinakita ng pelikula ang kawalang-lakas at kawalang kapangyarihan ng mga mahihirap sa lipunan. Wala silang lakas sa mga mayayaman, mga pulitko at maging ang Diyos ay hindi sila pinapakinggan. Pinapalabas ng Puntod na sadyang may mga lugar pa rin sa lungsod ang tila tinalikuran na ng Diyos. Maging ang natitirang mabubuting tao ay nagiging masama rin kalaunan o kung hindi ma’y nauuwi sa masamang kapalaran. Talamak ang kasamaan at ang lipunang ipinakita sa pelikula ay walang kinikilalang Diyos, batas, gobyerno at kahit anumang kabutihan. Ang ilang salitang ginagamit din sa pelikula ay nakakabahala. Maaring ito ay totoong nangyayari ngunit para saan ba ang pagpapakita pa nito? Lumutang naman bilang sentro ng kuwento ang isang batang puno ng pag-asa at pagmamahal sa kapatid at kaibigan ngunit ipinalabas nilang ang kabutihang ito ay napakaliit kung ikukumpara sa napakalawak na lipunang hindi kumikilala sa kahalagahan ng buhay, kabutihan ng tao at pagmamahal ng Diyos. Sa mundong ipinakita sa Puntod, mas nakakalamang ang masama sa mabuti at walang lugar ang pag-asa para sa mahihirap. Ang mga kababaihan ay inaabuso at karamihan ay nauuwi sa maagang prostitusyon. Ilan lamang ito sa maseselang konseptong inilahad sa pelikula na hindi naman nabigyang-hustisya sa kabuuan. Bagama’t ang pangunahing tauhan ay isang bata, hindi nararapat ang pelikula sa mga manonood na wala pa sa hustong gulang.
Alvin & the Chipmunks; Squeakquel
ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Zachary Levi, David Cross, Jason Lee, Justin Long; Director: Betty Thomas; Screenwriters: Jon Vitti, Jonathan Aibel; Genre: Children/Family, Family-Oriented Comedy; Distributor: 20th Century Fox; Location: USA; Running Time: 88 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
The new film, starring the Chipmunks and the Chipettes, follows in the footsteps of the original's blockbuster holiday 2007 release.
Now in the care of Dave Seville's newphew (Zachary Levi), the Chipmunks: Alvin, Simon and Theodore take a break from pop-music stardom and return to school. Almost immediately, the tiny rodents are given the giant task of saving their school's music program by winning a battle of the band's contest. Though the boys think winning the contest will be easy, romantic and musical sparks fly when they meet Brittany, Eleanor and Jeannette – also known as Chipettes.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: mild rude humor
Cast: Zachary Levi, David Cross, Jason Lee, Justin Long; Director: Betty Thomas; Screenwriters: Jon Vitti, Jonathan Aibel; Genre: Children/Family, Family-Oriented Comedy; Distributor: 20th Century Fox; Location: USA; Running Time: 88 mins;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
The new film, starring the Chipmunks and the Chipettes, follows in the footsteps of the original's blockbuster holiday 2007 release.
Now in the care of Dave Seville's newphew (Zachary Levi), the Chipmunks: Alvin, Simon and Theodore take a break from pop-music stardom and return to school. Almost immediately, the tiny rodents are given the giant task of saving their school's music program by winning a battle of the band's contest. Though the boys think winning the contest will be easy, romantic and musical sparks fly when they meet Brittany, Eleanor and Jeannette – also known as Chipettes.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS: mild rude humor
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The role of the feminine and the spiritual in the film Avatar (A commentary)
By Teresa R. Tunay
CBCP Office on Women
There’s no doubt that Avatar, director James Cameron’s spectacular opus that’s wowing critics all over, is a comment on the greed of contemporary society, but it’s amusing to see how well-known film critics are spotting “hidden messages” in the movie.
Due perhaps to the profusion of symbols in the film, Avatar lends itself to so many interpretations. Times of London’s Ben Hoyle writes that the movie “contains heavy implicit criticism of America’s conduct in the War on Terror.” Roger Ebert of Chicago Sun-Times gives Avatar a perfect 4/4 score and says in his review that this “allegory on contemporary politics”… “has a flat-out Green and anti-war message (that is) predestined to launch a cult.” Will Heaven of the Daily Telegraph laments the film’s “racist subtext” as being “nauseatingly patronizing” because it is a white man who becomes the virtual savior of a colored people who wear “tribal jewelry” with long Rastafarian hairstyles.
It is not surprising that critics would read messages into the movie if they knew that its director James Cameron (of the Titanic fame) is himself a known environmental activist who publicly points an accusing finger at the industrial society as the chief culprit behind the purported global climate change. Cameron would say that Avatar does make overt references to certain points in American history to underline the greed of humans who shamelessly take what they want from nature and indigenous people without giving anything back in return.
What the critics seem to miss in Avatar and which CINEMA notes with almost tongue-clucking delight is its focus on the role of the feminine and the spiritual as the real savior of creation.
The message is strong though subtly articulated in the little details that the more intellectual, rational, masculine mind would overlook: respect for nature (don’t we call nature our “mother”?); the planet’s name Pandora (Mother Pandora, as in Mother Earth?); the value of waiting for and obedience to the will of the divine (passive, feminine, very Marian, in fact); the ability to see the divine in palpable phenomena (intuition, a woman’s domain); and the fact that it’s the female characters who are noble, intelligent, strong-willed, and who do the real thinking while the tempestuous, impulsive, bloodthirsty males smugly engage themselves in mindless destruction.
Princess Neytiri ( Zoe Saldana), is the personification of Woman as teacher—superior to her male pupil, of course—anointed to educate and train the earthling-avatar in the ways of the Na’vi. Without losing her femininity she displays the integrity and self-sufficiency of a strong woman, telling the man she likes, “You have a strong heart, but you are stupid and do stupid things; you’re like a baby!” She stands on her own, holds her own—a fearless female who won’t take sh*t from a wishy-washy man, and that’s why she’s beguiling despite her flat chest.
Neytiri’s mother, the queen, is the Na’vi’s version of the high priestess—she alone is entrusted the role of interpreting signs from their deity. She presides at gatherings in the hallowed ground where the Tree of Souls stands like a gigantic and luminous weeping willow tenderly guiding believers in the right path.
There’s the daring woman scientist Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) who at first seems as driven and exacting as the marines she works with but who gradually mellows as repeated interaction with the Na’vi stirs and allows her superior self to justify her efforts and redeem her towards the end. This character shows conversion, an act of grace in the Christian universe of discourse. (Mr. Cameron, does this explain her name Grace Augustine?)
The aviatrix Trudy (Michelle Rodriguez) is another valiant woman whose tough go-go-go exterior belies a maternal conscience that would not tolerate the destruction of the peace-loving and innocent Na’vi.
Even the name of the race, Na’vi, sounds too close to “navel” or “bellybutton” as it’s popularly called: that hollow in the surface of the stomach where the umbilical cord is tied after being cut at birth. We wonder whether writer-director James Cameron intended this. The navel symbolizes the connectedness of the baby to its mother. Might the name “Na’vi” also symbolize the Na’vi’s connectedness to their “mother planet” Pandora? The Na’vi respect and protect their environment; they are aware that they owe their life to it.
Come to think of it, is there anything Na’vi-made on Pandora? Skyscrapers, automobiles, shopping malls, roads, like the man-made things on Earth? It seems only their clothing and jewelry and bows and arrows are Na’vi-made—for protection from elements, aesthetics, hunting and self-defense? Everything else is natural, even the monstrous but graceful flying dragons each Na’vi adult uses for mobility which must be tamed before they can be mounted.
I did not notice Na’vi-made dwellings, for the whole planet—despite the presence of elephant-size rhinoceri with snouts like a hammerhead shark—looks like a generous, hospitable and beneficent home where communities do meet and mate outdoors. So what are they fleeing from when their land is under attack from the gung-ho earthlings? I need to see the movie again.
The Na’vi’s connectedness to nature is made manifest in their bodies, too—they have glitters on their faces, as though they sweat mercury—just like the numerous things bred and nurtured by their land: flora and fauna that mesmerize one with their glow.
The ground from which the Tree of Souls rises shines with a luminosity that seems to issue from the planet’s womb (there again, a feminine thing!). And where healing takes place (if the Divine so wills), life-giving energy comes in the form of light, creeping like veins or tentacles out of the ground and reviving the near-dead. Even the sign demonstrating the anointing of the avatar uses light-emitting creatures—insects or flowers (?) materializing from thin air and alighting like milkweed seed on the chosen one until he dazzles with a white light that burns but neither burns nor blinds. (Talk about the Burning Bush and Jesus’ Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor!) Everywhere on Pandora there is light, light, light!
So, isn’t light a quality of the enlightened? And isn’t enlightenment the desire and work of the Spirit? Avatar is more than just a political statement, a battle-cry to save the environment, or (as some other film-critics see it) a sci-fi movie with a clunky, clicheic script. More than anything else it’s a call to restore our sense of the sacred, a tribute to the primacy of the spirit, and a paean to the power of the feminine to revive the spirit to save a decaying world.
Teresa R. Tunay
CBCP Office on Women/CINEMA
CBCP Office on Women
There’s no doubt that Avatar, director James Cameron’s spectacular opus that’s wowing critics all over, is a comment on the greed of contemporary society, but it’s amusing to see how well-known film critics are spotting “hidden messages” in the movie.
Due perhaps to the profusion of symbols in the film, Avatar lends itself to so many interpretations. Times of London’s Ben Hoyle writes that the movie “contains heavy implicit criticism of America’s conduct in the War on Terror.” Roger Ebert of Chicago Sun-Times gives Avatar a perfect 4/4 score and says in his review that this “allegory on contemporary politics”… “has a flat-out Green and anti-war message (that is) predestined to launch a cult.” Will Heaven of the Daily Telegraph laments the film’s “racist subtext” as being “nauseatingly patronizing” because it is a white man who becomes the virtual savior of a colored people who wear “tribal jewelry” with long Rastafarian hairstyles.
It is not surprising that critics would read messages into the movie if they knew that its director James Cameron (of the Titanic fame) is himself a known environmental activist who publicly points an accusing finger at the industrial society as the chief culprit behind the purported global climate change. Cameron would say that Avatar does make overt references to certain points in American history to underline the greed of humans who shamelessly take what they want from nature and indigenous people without giving anything back in return.
What the critics seem to miss in Avatar and which CINEMA notes with almost tongue-clucking delight is its focus on the role of the feminine and the spiritual as the real savior of creation.
The message is strong though subtly articulated in the little details that the more intellectual, rational, masculine mind would overlook: respect for nature (don’t we call nature our “mother”?); the planet’s name Pandora (Mother Pandora, as in Mother Earth?); the value of waiting for and obedience to the will of the divine (passive, feminine, very Marian, in fact); the ability to see the divine in palpable phenomena (intuition, a woman’s domain); and the fact that it’s the female characters who are noble, intelligent, strong-willed, and who do the real thinking while the tempestuous, impulsive, bloodthirsty males smugly engage themselves in mindless destruction.
Princess Neytiri ( Zoe Saldana), is the personification of Woman as teacher—superior to her male pupil, of course—anointed to educate and train the earthling-avatar in the ways of the Na’vi. Without losing her femininity she displays the integrity and self-sufficiency of a strong woman, telling the man she likes, “You have a strong heart, but you are stupid and do stupid things; you’re like a baby!” She stands on her own, holds her own—a fearless female who won’t take sh*t from a wishy-washy man, and that’s why she’s beguiling despite her flat chest.
Neytiri’s mother, the queen, is the Na’vi’s version of the high priestess—she alone is entrusted the role of interpreting signs from their deity. She presides at gatherings in the hallowed ground where the Tree of Souls stands like a gigantic and luminous weeping willow tenderly guiding believers in the right path.
There’s the daring woman scientist Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) who at first seems as driven and exacting as the marines she works with but who gradually mellows as repeated interaction with the Na’vi stirs and allows her superior self to justify her efforts and redeem her towards the end. This character shows conversion, an act of grace in the Christian universe of discourse. (Mr. Cameron, does this explain her name Grace Augustine?)
The aviatrix Trudy (Michelle Rodriguez) is another valiant woman whose tough go-go-go exterior belies a maternal conscience that would not tolerate the destruction of the peace-loving and innocent Na’vi.
Even the name of the race, Na’vi, sounds too close to “navel” or “bellybutton” as it’s popularly called: that hollow in the surface of the stomach where the umbilical cord is tied after being cut at birth. We wonder whether writer-director James Cameron intended this. The navel symbolizes the connectedness of the baby to its mother. Might the name “Na’vi” also symbolize the Na’vi’s connectedness to their “mother planet” Pandora? The Na’vi respect and protect their environment; they are aware that they owe their life to it.
Come to think of it, is there anything Na’vi-made on Pandora? Skyscrapers, automobiles, shopping malls, roads, like the man-made things on Earth? It seems only their clothing and jewelry and bows and arrows are Na’vi-made—for protection from elements, aesthetics, hunting and self-defense? Everything else is natural, even the monstrous but graceful flying dragons each Na’vi adult uses for mobility which must be tamed before they can be mounted.
I did not notice Na’vi-made dwellings, for the whole planet—despite the presence of elephant-size rhinoceri with snouts like a hammerhead shark—looks like a generous, hospitable and beneficent home where communities do meet and mate outdoors. So what are they fleeing from when their land is under attack from the gung-ho earthlings? I need to see the movie again.
The Na’vi’s connectedness to nature is made manifest in their bodies, too—they have glitters on their faces, as though they sweat mercury—just like the numerous things bred and nurtured by their land: flora and fauna that mesmerize one with their glow.
The ground from which the Tree of Souls rises shines with a luminosity that seems to issue from the planet’s womb (there again, a feminine thing!). And where healing takes place (if the Divine so wills), life-giving energy comes in the form of light, creeping like veins or tentacles out of the ground and reviving the near-dead. Even the sign demonstrating the anointing of the avatar uses light-emitting creatures—insects or flowers (?) materializing from thin air and alighting like milkweed seed on the chosen one until he dazzles with a white light that burns but neither burns nor blinds. (Talk about the Burning Bush and Jesus’ Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor!) Everywhere on Pandora there is light, light, light!
So, isn’t light a quality of the enlightened? And isn’t enlightenment the desire and work of the Spirit? Avatar is more than just a political statement, a battle-cry to save the environment, or (as some other film-critics see it) a sci-fi movie with a clunky, clicheic script. More than anything else it’s a call to restore our sense of the sacred, a tribute to the primacy of the spirit, and a paean to the power of the feminine to revive the spirit to save a decaying world.
Teresa R. Tunay
CBCP Office on Women/CINEMA
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Wapakman
Cast: Manny Pacquiao, Krista Ranillo, Rufa Mae Quinto, Bianca King; Director: Topel Lee; Producers: Wilson Tieng; Music: Von de Guzman; Genre: Action/ Drama/ Sci-Fi; Distributor: Solar Entertainment Corporation; Location: Philippines;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Ulirang ama si Magno Meneses (Manny Pacquiao) sa kanyang apat na anak at isang ampon, nagtatrabaho naman sa Italya bilang isang DH ang kanyang maybahay na si Magda (Ruffa Mae Quinto) sa internet lamang nila ito nakakausap. Sa kanyang debosyon at sipag na itaguyod ang mga bata, anupa’t siya’y ama’t ina na rin ng mga ito, datapwa’t hindi alam ng mga ito ang kanyang hanapbuhay sa kompanya ng poso negro. Sa isang hindi inaasahang pangyayari, malalanghap ni Magno ang isang imbensiyong kemikal na ipinapanakaw ni Dr. Rex (Jojo Alejar), isang mad scientist, mula sa imbentor nito. Nakapagbibigay ng kakaibang lakas ang kemikal na ito. Darating ang pagkakataong kakailanganin ang pagtulong ni Magno sa isang kahip[itan, at doon niya matutuklasan ang kanyang di pangkaraniwang lakas, hanggang sa siya’y taguriang “Wapakman”
Kapuna-punang pinakamahina sa takilya ang Wapakman noong Manila Film Festival. Nag-iisa po sa sinehan ang CINEMA reviewer noong siya ay manood, at ayon din sa mga takilyera, pinaka-kaunti daw ang benta nito. Marahil, higit na gusto ng madla na panoorin ang tunay na lakas ni Manny Pacquiao bilang boksingero kaysa sa pantasya niyang lakas bilang isang superhero. Kung tutuusin, hindi naman magpapahuli ang Wapakman sa iba pang mga pelikulang tampok sa Manila Film Festival. May pagka-spoof pa nga ito, pinaghalong komedya at drama, at nasa lugar naman ang anumang matatawag nitong “toilet humor” pagkat ang trabaho mismo ng karakter ni Pacquiao ay, sa kanyang sariling salita, “Taga-sep-sep ng ebak.” Kapuri-puri pa nga na sa kabila ng ganitong trabaho, ay hindi kinapital ito ng direktor upang gawing totoong “toilet humor” ang mga patawa dito. Sana lamang ay hindi masaktan ang mga Bisaya sapagkat ang kanilang kakatwang pananalita ang isa sa mga lumutang na puhunan upang mapatawa ang nanonood. Mahusay ang interpretasyon ni Alejar bilang mad scientist; sa kabilang dako, gasgas na plaka na ang arte at pananalita ni Quinto bilang isang sexpot. Mayroon ding nagsasabing tuyot ang pagganap ni Pacquiao, subalit totoo man yon, akma naman sa pagkatao ng papel niya na kimi, siryoso sa buhay, at pasensyosong lalaking na-“torotot” ng kanyang seksing maybahay.
Mapapatawa na marahil ng madla ang ilang teknikal na kakulangan ng Wapakman, sapagkat sadyang hitik naman ito sa mga values na dapat ay itaguyod natin sa mga panahong ito—tulad ng pagmamahal sa gawain gaano mang kahamak ito sa mata ng tao; ng pagiging tapat sa asawa at ulirang ama sa kabila ng kataksilan ng babae; ng paggamit ng kapangyarihan tungo sa ikabubuti ng balana; ng pagiging mapagkumbaba sa kabila ng katanyagan; ng takot sa Diyos at pagiging tapat sa sarili, at iba pa. Ito’y mga aral na mapapakinabangan ng mga “marunong bumasa” sa ating lipunan. Maraming mapapag-usapan ang mga guro at kabataan, ang mga anak at mga magulang, sa pelikulang Wapakman—mga katanungang humihingi ng kasagutang hindi pagtuunan ng pansin ng mga “bingi” sa ating mga tagapamuno. Kailangan ba natin talagang magtrabaho sa labas ng bansa sa kabila ng mga panganib na dulot nito sa pamilya? Ang mga nakatapos lamang ba ng kolehiyo at nagtatrabaho sa malilinis na opisina ang may karapatang ipagmalaki ang kanilang trabaho? Hindi ba sapat nang maging tapat, marangal at malinis ang puso ng ating mga magulang upang sila ay ating ikaligaya at ipagmalaki? May hanggahan bang kinikilala ang pagpapatawad sa nagkasala? Bagama’t may masamang ipinakikita ang pelikula (ang hantarang pagtataksil ni Magda), sa dulo’y mamamasid naman ang tagumpay ng kabutihan sa pagbabagong-loob ng kanyang panganay na anak. Sayang at hindi gasinong pinapansin ng mga manonood ang Wapakman. Lata man ang kuwento nito, tanso man ang pagkakaganap, tunay na ginto ang mensahe ng pelikula. Higit pa sa sulit sa halaga ng tiket.
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Ulirang ama si Magno Meneses (Manny Pacquiao) sa kanyang apat na anak at isang ampon, nagtatrabaho naman sa Italya bilang isang DH ang kanyang maybahay na si Magda (Ruffa Mae Quinto) sa internet lamang nila ito nakakausap. Sa kanyang debosyon at sipag na itaguyod ang mga bata, anupa’t siya’y ama’t ina na rin ng mga ito, datapwa’t hindi alam ng mga ito ang kanyang hanapbuhay sa kompanya ng poso negro. Sa isang hindi inaasahang pangyayari, malalanghap ni Magno ang isang imbensiyong kemikal na ipinapanakaw ni Dr. Rex (Jojo Alejar), isang mad scientist, mula sa imbentor nito. Nakapagbibigay ng kakaibang lakas ang kemikal na ito. Darating ang pagkakataong kakailanganin ang pagtulong ni Magno sa isang kahip[itan, at doon niya matutuklasan ang kanyang di pangkaraniwang lakas, hanggang sa siya’y taguriang “Wapakman”
Kapuna-punang pinakamahina sa takilya ang Wapakman noong Manila Film Festival. Nag-iisa po sa sinehan ang CINEMA reviewer noong siya ay manood, at ayon din sa mga takilyera, pinaka-kaunti daw ang benta nito. Marahil, higit na gusto ng madla na panoorin ang tunay na lakas ni Manny Pacquiao bilang boksingero kaysa sa pantasya niyang lakas bilang isang superhero. Kung tutuusin, hindi naman magpapahuli ang Wapakman sa iba pang mga pelikulang tampok sa Manila Film Festival. May pagka-spoof pa nga ito, pinaghalong komedya at drama, at nasa lugar naman ang anumang matatawag nitong “toilet humor” pagkat ang trabaho mismo ng karakter ni Pacquiao ay, sa kanyang sariling salita, “Taga-sep-sep ng ebak.” Kapuri-puri pa nga na sa kabila ng ganitong trabaho, ay hindi kinapital ito ng direktor upang gawing totoong “toilet humor” ang mga patawa dito. Sana lamang ay hindi masaktan ang mga Bisaya sapagkat ang kanilang kakatwang pananalita ang isa sa mga lumutang na puhunan upang mapatawa ang nanonood. Mahusay ang interpretasyon ni Alejar bilang mad scientist; sa kabilang dako, gasgas na plaka na ang arte at pananalita ni Quinto bilang isang sexpot. Mayroon ding nagsasabing tuyot ang pagganap ni Pacquiao, subalit totoo man yon, akma naman sa pagkatao ng papel niya na kimi, siryoso sa buhay, at pasensyosong lalaking na-“torotot” ng kanyang seksing maybahay.
Mapapatawa na marahil ng madla ang ilang teknikal na kakulangan ng Wapakman, sapagkat sadyang hitik naman ito sa mga values na dapat ay itaguyod natin sa mga panahong ito—tulad ng pagmamahal sa gawain gaano mang kahamak ito sa mata ng tao; ng pagiging tapat sa asawa at ulirang ama sa kabila ng kataksilan ng babae; ng paggamit ng kapangyarihan tungo sa ikabubuti ng balana; ng pagiging mapagkumbaba sa kabila ng katanyagan; ng takot sa Diyos at pagiging tapat sa sarili, at iba pa. Ito’y mga aral na mapapakinabangan ng mga “marunong bumasa” sa ating lipunan. Maraming mapapag-usapan ang mga guro at kabataan, ang mga anak at mga magulang, sa pelikulang Wapakman—mga katanungang humihingi ng kasagutang hindi pagtuunan ng pansin ng mga “bingi” sa ating mga tagapamuno. Kailangan ba natin talagang magtrabaho sa labas ng bansa sa kabila ng mga panganib na dulot nito sa pamilya? Ang mga nakatapos lamang ba ng kolehiyo at nagtatrabaho sa malilinis na opisina ang may karapatang ipagmalaki ang kanilang trabaho? Hindi ba sapat nang maging tapat, marangal at malinis ang puso ng ating mga magulang upang sila ay ating ikaligaya at ipagmalaki? May hanggahan bang kinikilala ang pagpapatawad sa nagkasala? Bagama’t may masamang ipinakikita ang pelikula (ang hantarang pagtataksil ni Magda), sa dulo’y mamamasid naman ang tagumpay ng kabutihan sa pagbabagong-loob ng kanyang panganay na anak. Sayang at hindi gasinong pinapansin ng mga manonood ang Wapakman. Lata man ang kuwento nito, tanso man ang pagkakaganap, tunay na ginto ang mensahe ng pelikula. Higit pa sa sulit sa halaga ng tiket.
Mano Po 6; A Mother's Love
Cast: Sharon Cuneta, Zsa Zsa Padilla, Heart Evangelista, Ciara Sotto, Christopher de Leon, Kris Aquino, Boots Anson-Roa; Director: Joel Lamangan; Screenwriter: Roy Iglesias; Genre: Drama; Distributor: Regal Films; Location: Manila; Running Time: 120 mins;
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Si Melinda (Sharon Cuneta) ay bunga ng pagmamahalan ng dalawang lahi. Ang kanyang ina (Boots Anson-Roa) ay isang purong Tsino habang ang kanyang ama naman ay isang Pilipino. Ito ang dahilan kung bakit itinakwil sila Melinda ng pamilya ng kanyang asawang purong Tsino (Christopher de Leon). Malas daw ang kanilang pagsasama dahil hindi puro ang pagka-Tsino ni Melinda. Magkakaron sila ng apat na anak pero ang pangalawa sa panganay na si Stephanie (Heart Evangelista) ay mapapalapit ng husto sa pamilya ng asawa ni Melinda, at dahil hindi gusto ng mga ito si Melinda ay sisiran siya ng mga ito sa kanyang anak. Nangunguna sa paninira kay Melinda ang kanyang hipag na si Olive (Zsa Zsa Padilla). Tuluyang mapapalayo si Stephanie sa kanyang ina nang mamatay ang kanyang ama at palabasin nila Olive na si Melinda ang dahilan. Aangkinin nina Olive ang mga anak ni Melinda at maiiwan lamang sa kanya ang kanyang panganay na si Carol (Ciara Sotto). Gagawin lahat ni Melinda ang paraan upang mabawi ang kanyang mga anak ngunit sadyang makapangyarihan at maimpluwensiya ang pamilya ni Olive. Nang mamatay ang ina ni Melinda, pansamantala niyang ititigil ang pakikipaglaban para makuha ang mga anak. Magsusumikap siyang umangat sa buhay upang maging mayaman at makapangyarihan nang sa gayon ay magkaron siya ng lakas na mabawi ang mga anak. Magawa pa kaya niya ito gayong tuluyan nang lumayo ang loob sa kanya ng kanyang mga anak lalo na si Stephanie?
Muling ipinakita ng Mano Po 6 ang pagsasanib ng kulturang Tsino at Pilipino. Naging epektibo ito sa ilang aspeto ngunit hindi pa rin matagumpay sa kabuuan. Sa dami ng tauhan, madalas malihis ang kuwento sa kung sino-sino at kung anu-ano. Masyadong abala ang kuwento sa maraming bagay at nalilimutan nitong pagtuunan ng higit na pansin ang nararapat na daloy ng damdamin. Naging karikatura lahat ng tauhan sa kuwento. Walang totoong tao sa kanila. Maliban sa mga tunay na Tsinong nagsiganap, hindi kapani-paniwala ang pagiging Tsino ng marami sa tauhan. Walang gaanong maramdaman sa mga eksena dahil hindi binusisi ang pag-arte maging ang kabuuang kwento. Sayang ang ilang magagandang kuha ng kamera at malinis na musika at tunog. Ang mada-drama sanang eksena ay nagiging komedya dahil sa maling pag-trato ng direktor. Sa halip na magbigay ng makabago at angkop na larawan ng mga Tsino sa Pilipinas, pinaigting pa ng Mano Po 6 ang anumang masamang imahe meron ang mga Tsino sa Pilipinas.
Pinaka-sentro ng kuwento ng Mano Po 6 ang dalisay at walang maliw na pagmamahal ng isang ina sa anak. Maliwanag itong naipakita sa dalawang henerasyon ng ina sa pelikula na ipinaglaban ang kani-kanilang mahal sa kabila ng pagtutol ng ilan. Kahanga-hanga ang ipinamalas na pagmamahal ni Melinda sa kanyang mga anak. Yun nga lang, may ilan pa ring pag-abuso sa kapangyarihan na ipinakitang katanggap-tanggap sa pelikula katulad ng pakikipag-sabwatan sa pulis upang idiin sa maling krimen ang isang tao. Hindi man ito ang pangunahing kuwento, nakaapekto pa rin ito sa dapat sana’y dalisay na katauhan ni Melinda. Nabahiran na rin siya kahit papaano ng kaunting kasamaan dahil sa kanyang pag-angat sa buhay nang gawin niya ito. Naging malabis naman ang pagrerebelde ng anak sa magulang sa pelikula. Ipinakita pang isa itong paraan upang mapansin ng magulang. Nariyan din ang pagtatalik sa labas ng kasal. Ngunit sa kabuuan ay lumutang naman ang magagandang mensahe ng pelikula ukol sa pagpapahalagang moral, pagmamahalan at pagpapatawad. Sa bandang huli’y nagwawagi pa rin ang mga inaapi at ang masasamang-loob ay napaparusahan kundi man ng batas ng tao ay ng batas ng Diyos. Pinahalagahan din ng pelikula ang pagtitiyaga at pagtitiis bilang mahalagang parte ng kabuuan ng isang pagkatao. Nariyan din ang aral ng pelikula ukol sa mga pamihiin ng suwete o malas. Na ang tao ang gumagawa ng kanyang kapalaran at hindi ang ano pa mang kaugalian o maling paniniwala. At sa Diyos nanggagaling ang anumang biyaya. Higit sa lahat, binigyang halaga ng Mano Po 6 ang kahalagahan ng pamilya sa lipunan, anumang lahi ang pinagmulan.
Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Si Melinda (Sharon Cuneta) ay bunga ng pagmamahalan ng dalawang lahi. Ang kanyang ina (Boots Anson-Roa) ay isang purong Tsino habang ang kanyang ama naman ay isang Pilipino. Ito ang dahilan kung bakit itinakwil sila Melinda ng pamilya ng kanyang asawang purong Tsino (Christopher de Leon). Malas daw ang kanilang pagsasama dahil hindi puro ang pagka-Tsino ni Melinda. Magkakaron sila ng apat na anak pero ang pangalawa sa panganay na si Stephanie (Heart Evangelista) ay mapapalapit ng husto sa pamilya ng asawa ni Melinda, at dahil hindi gusto ng mga ito si Melinda ay sisiran siya ng mga ito sa kanyang anak. Nangunguna sa paninira kay Melinda ang kanyang hipag na si Olive (Zsa Zsa Padilla). Tuluyang mapapalayo si Stephanie sa kanyang ina nang mamatay ang kanyang ama at palabasin nila Olive na si Melinda ang dahilan. Aangkinin nina Olive ang mga anak ni Melinda at maiiwan lamang sa kanya ang kanyang panganay na si Carol (Ciara Sotto). Gagawin lahat ni Melinda ang paraan upang mabawi ang kanyang mga anak ngunit sadyang makapangyarihan at maimpluwensiya ang pamilya ni Olive. Nang mamatay ang ina ni Melinda, pansamantala niyang ititigil ang pakikipaglaban para makuha ang mga anak. Magsusumikap siyang umangat sa buhay upang maging mayaman at makapangyarihan nang sa gayon ay magkaron siya ng lakas na mabawi ang mga anak. Magawa pa kaya niya ito gayong tuluyan nang lumayo ang loob sa kanya ng kanyang mga anak lalo na si Stephanie?
Muling ipinakita ng Mano Po 6 ang pagsasanib ng kulturang Tsino at Pilipino. Naging epektibo ito sa ilang aspeto ngunit hindi pa rin matagumpay sa kabuuan. Sa dami ng tauhan, madalas malihis ang kuwento sa kung sino-sino at kung anu-ano. Masyadong abala ang kuwento sa maraming bagay at nalilimutan nitong pagtuunan ng higit na pansin ang nararapat na daloy ng damdamin. Naging karikatura lahat ng tauhan sa kuwento. Walang totoong tao sa kanila. Maliban sa mga tunay na Tsinong nagsiganap, hindi kapani-paniwala ang pagiging Tsino ng marami sa tauhan. Walang gaanong maramdaman sa mga eksena dahil hindi binusisi ang pag-arte maging ang kabuuang kwento. Sayang ang ilang magagandang kuha ng kamera at malinis na musika at tunog. Ang mada-drama sanang eksena ay nagiging komedya dahil sa maling pag-trato ng direktor. Sa halip na magbigay ng makabago at angkop na larawan ng mga Tsino sa Pilipinas, pinaigting pa ng Mano Po 6 ang anumang masamang imahe meron ang mga Tsino sa Pilipinas.
Pinaka-sentro ng kuwento ng Mano Po 6 ang dalisay at walang maliw na pagmamahal ng isang ina sa anak. Maliwanag itong naipakita sa dalawang henerasyon ng ina sa pelikula na ipinaglaban ang kani-kanilang mahal sa kabila ng pagtutol ng ilan. Kahanga-hanga ang ipinamalas na pagmamahal ni Melinda sa kanyang mga anak. Yun nga lang, may ilan pa ring pag-abuso sa kapangyarihan na ipinakitang katanggap-tanggap sa pelikula katulad ng pakikipag-sabwatan sa pulis upang idiin sa maling krimen ang isang tao. Hindi man ito ang pangunahing kuwento, nakaapekto pa rin ito sa dapat sana’y dalisay na katauhan ni Melinda. Nabahiran na rin siya kahit papaano ng kaunting kasamaan dahil sa kanyang pag-angat sa buhay nang gawin niya ito. Naging malabis naman ang pagrerebelde ng anak sa magulang sa pelikula. Ipinakita pang isa itong paraan upang mapansin ng magulang. Nariyan din ang pagtatalik sa labas ng kasal. Ngunit sa kabuuan ay lumutang naman ang magagandang mensahe ng pelikula ukol sa pagpapahalagang moral, pagmamahalan at pagpapatawad. Sa bandang huli’y nagwawagi pa rin ang mga inaapi at ang masasamang-loob ay napaparusahan kundi man ng batas ng tao ay ng batas ng Diyos. Pinahalagahan din ng pelikula ang pagtitiyaga at pagtitiis bilang mahalagang parte ng kabuuan ng isang pagkatao. Nariyan din ang aral ng pelikula ukol sa mga pamihiin ng suwete o malas. Na ang tao ang gumagawa ng kanyang kapalaran at hindi ang ano pa mang kaugalian o maling paniniwala. At sa Diyos nanggagaling ang anumang biyaya. Higit sa lahat, binigyang halaga ng Mano Po 6 ang kahalagahan ng pamilya sa lipunan, anumang lahi ang pinagmulan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)