GENERAL INFORMATION
TITLE: Going the Distance LEAD CAST: Drew Barrymore, Justin Long, Jason Sudeikis, Charlie Day, Christina Applegate DIRECTOR: Nanette Burstein EDITOR: MUSICAL DIRECTOR: GENRE: Romance/Comedy DISTRIBUTOR: Warner Bros RUNNING TIME: 97 minutes LOCATION: USA
Erin and Garrett meet in a Manhattan watering hole on the very night when Garrett's girlfriend has broken up with him, citing his insensitivity and commitment phobia. He just hasn't met the right girl yet. Enter Erin, a Stanford graduate student in New York for a summer internship at a daily newspaper. They sleep together, but in the morning realize something more meaningful than a one-night stand is possible. After a six-week idyll, she must head back out West and they agree to attempt a bicoastal relationship. Over the better part of a year, when they aren't texting or saying goodbye in the airport after brief visits, Garrett banters with pals Box (Jason Sudeikis) and Dan (Charlie Day), while Erin fields advice from her protective older sister Corinne (Christina Applegate). Erin has been burned before after dropping everything for a guy. Garrett, who works as a talent scout for a record company, tries to find a job in San Francisco without success. Unless something gives, they're doomed. In addition to whining about being apart, Erin and Garrett lament the beleaguered state of the newspaper and music industries—a plaint that will resonate most with so-called media elites. Lacking authenticity, the graphic language and unsavory situations overlaying the plot, by contrast, will ring false to a cross-section of viewers. For two educated, presumably intelligent people, Erin and Garrett have limited vocabularies and imaginations. Ditto their cohorts. The copious amount of alcohol everybody consumes may be a contributing factor.
One positive element of Going the Distance is that it implicitly endorses committed, monogamous relationships. Still, there's no indication Erin and Garrett will marry in the end. (From the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting)
Technical: 3 Moral: 2 For viewers 18 and above.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Two Funerals
LEAD CAST: Tessie Tomas, Benjie Felipe, Xtian Lim, Robert Arevalo, Epy Quizon, Mon Confiado. DIRECTOR: Gil Portes. SCREENWRITER: Eric Ramos. PRODUCER: Teamwork Productions. GENRE: Drama, Social/Political Commentary. DISTRIBUTOR: Cinemalaya RUNNING TIME: 80 minutes. LOCATION: Tuguegarao, Nueva Ecija, Bicol Region
Technical: 3 Moral: 2 Rating: For viewers aged 14 and above
Following a fatal bust accident, a funeral home mixes up two of the bodies, sending them to the wrong places. In Nueva Ecija, the Buensuceso family receives the body of criminal Dodong. Meanwhile in Sorsogon, Mulong Buenviaje (Benjie Felipe) receives the body of the Buensuceso daughter, Charm. Charm’s fiancée Gerry (Xtian Lim) and her mother, Pilar (Tessie Tomas) take the road trip to Sorsogon, rushing to get Charm’s body back before the Holy Week is over. Mulong, on the other hand, has been convinced by his con man buddy that they can use the body as a means to make money.
Two Funerals caricatures our country’s ills: corrupt policemen, warring politicians and philandering priests, but neither develops nor suggests solution to societal problems. Perhaps it merely wants to call attention certain practices like our lack of solemnity in the observance of Holy Week, our disrespect for the dead, etc.
Technical: 3 Moral: 2 Rating: For viewers aged 14 and above
Following a fatal bust accident, a funeral home mixes up two of the bodies, sending them to the wrong places. In Nueva Ecija, the Buensuceso family receives the body of criminal Dodong. Meanwhile in Sorsogon, Mulong Buenviaje (Benjie Felipe) receives the body of the Buensuceso daughter, Charm. Charm’s fiancée Gerry (Xtian Lim) and her mother, Pilar (Tessie Tomas) take the road trip to Sorsogon, rushing to get Charm’s body back before the Holy Week is over. Mulong, on the other hand, has been convinced by his con man buddy that they can use the body as a means to make money.
Two Funerals caricatures our country’s ills: corrupt policemen, warring politicians and philandering priests, but neither develops nor suggests solution to societal problems. Perhaps it merely wants to call attention certain practices like our lack of solemnity in the observance of Holy Week, our disrespect for the dead, etc.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Splice
By Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS
Cast: Adrien Brody; Sarah Polley; Delphine Chanéac; David Hewlett; Brandon McGibbon; Simona Măicănescu; Abigail Chu as Young Dren. Director: Vincenzo Natali. Writers and screenplay: Vincenzo Natali, Antoinette Terry Bryant and Doug Taylor. Genre: Sci-Fi/Horror
Technical: 3.5 Moral: 2.5 Rating: R 14
Genetic engineers and live-in partners Clive (Adrien Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley) specialize in creating new life forms by splicing genes from different animal species, in the hope that the results would contain new nutrients that will solve ills (like hunger) and cure illnesses (like cancer). They work for Nucleic Exchange Research and Development (NERD), which takes pride in the couple’s creations, Fred and Ginger, “designer species” that look like blobs of raw animal fat but which, being male and female, are expected to procreate.
Clive and Elsa want to take their experiments to the next level—splicing human genes—but NERD prohibits them, fearing backlash from morality groups. The couple proceed in secrecy, however, working nights and using an artificial womb, and in time their “baby” is born. The new species looks like a sweet, helpless hatchling but is as agile and untamed as a wild monkey. Extremely difficult to restrain, the little animal wreaks havoc in the laboratory, prompting Clive and Elsa to smuggle it out and confine it in their old barn. They name it “Dren”—“nerd” spelled backwards—and treat it like their own offspring although they would not take it home to live with them.
Elsa (who lost her daughter some years back) lavishes attention on Dren who has grown up looking like a bald but comely little girl with kangaroo legs and webbed feet. Elsa dresses her up with her own daughter’s clothes retrieved from the attic, gives her dolls and stuffed toys, puts up with her tantrums and eating problems, but also disciplines her as she would her own child. Clive thinks Elsa is getting dangerously devoted to the indefinable creature whom they have seen devour a live squirrel; he suggests they put her away, but Elsa’s reawakened maternal instinct would render her deaf to it.
Dren (Delphine Chaneac) develops alarmingly fast and blooms into adolescence. She shows good mimetic skills but possessing no power of speech, she can only chirp like a bird. Elsa the mother continues to dote on her, applying make-up on her face and clothing her with jewelry to match, but when Dren starts to exhibit rebellious teen tendencies and kills a cat, Elsa the scientist punishes her creation as only a spurned creator can. Clive is torn between pity and fear: particularly when the increasingly attractive Dren poses a bigger menace, having sprouted retractable wings and a deadly blade at the tip of her tail. Meanwhile, Dren, now outgrowing Barbie dolls and teddy bears, begins to get bored indoors and sets her eyes on Clive who is in turn unnerved to discover the reason behind his strange attraction to Dren: in creating Dren, Elsa had used her own DNA.
It is not known whether the makers of Splice had intended the movie to be a warning against human cloning and procreation, but it certainly delivers a strong message to genetic engineers to stop “playing God”. More of a sci-fi than a horror film, Splice may be seen as a timely challenge to scientists, lawmakers, priests, teachers and parents—people who are bound by ethics and morality to moderate thought, reason and decision affecting the creation of life in laboratories.
Splice would have been another B movie were it not for the elements that elevate it from the mundane. Brody and Polley give A-class performances , matching director Vincenzo Natali’s mature handling of what in lesser hands would have been obscene episodes. The CGI of Dren—from its endearing guinea-pig like appearance in infancy to its wickedly seductive teen form—also suggests such a species may in fact already be existing.
Far from being another shriek movie, Splice is of a genre which is in reality counter-cultural. While governments and “forward looking” citizens the world over laud the advances of genetic science and the advantages of stem cell research, movies with genetic engineering and human cloning themes, from Frankenstein onward, flash a red light warning to scientists, “Hands off!” Is it because movies are the mouthpiece of the human conscience that sees what science cannot?
While the whole movie proffers no clear ethical or moral resolution on the timely issue of human cloning, the fate that Elsa suffers in the end validates the Catholic Church’s teaching that creating life outside of what Mother Nature has intended is none of man’s business. The script contains gems that alert individuals would recognize as fertile grounds for debates or discussions on good and evil, for they reflect the ambiguity of man when it comes to the limits of experimenting with the creation of life in test tubes.
Listen well to the arguments of Elsa and Clive, delivered with conviction by Polley and Brody, and you might find yourself asking questions like: Being their creation, is Dren the child of Elsa and Clive? If so, would copulation then between Clive and Dren constitute incest? Is the live entity resulting from genetic engineers’ experiments theirs to do as they please? If human cloning is illegal, would splicing animal with human DNA be considered human cloning? Would such cloning be justified to give hope and wellness to the hungry and the dying?
If you missed it in the theatres, try to get a DVD copy, but watch it only when you’re in the thinking mode. Splice may not entertain but it can provoke deep thought about the meaning of creation.
Cast: Adrien Brody; Sarah Polley; Delphine Chanéac; David Hewlett; Brandon McGibbon; Simona Măicănescu; Abigail Chu as Young Dren. Director: Vincenzo Natali. Writers and screenplay: Vincenzo Natali, Antoinette Terry Bryant and Doug Taylor. Genre: Sci-Fi/Horror
Technical: 3.5 Moral: 2.5 Rating: R 14
Genetic engineers and live-in partners Clive (Adrien Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley) specialize in creating new life forms by splicing genes from different animal species, in the hope that the results would contain new nutrients that will solve ills (like hunger) and cure illnesses (like cancer). They work for Nucleic Exchange Research and Development (NERD), which takes pride in the couple’s creations, Fred and Ginger, “designer species” that look like blobs of raw animal fat but which, being male and female, are expected to procreate.
Clive and Elsa want to take their experiments to the next level—splicing human genes—but NERD prohibits them, fearing backlash from morality groups. The couple proceed in secrecy, however, working nights and using an artificial womb, and in time their “baby” is born. The new species looks like a sweet, helpless hatchling but is as agile and untamed as a wild monkey. Extremely difficult to restrain, the little animal wreaks havoc in the laboratory, prompting Clive and Elsa to smuggle it out and confine it in their old barn. They name it “Dren”—“nerd” spelled backwards—and treat it like their own offspring although they would not take it home to live with them.
Elsa (who lost her daughter some years back) lavishes attention on Dren who has grown up looking like a bald but comely little girl with kangaroo legs and webbed feet. Elsa dresses her up with her own daughter’s clothes retrieved from the attic, gives her dolls and stuffed toys, puts up with her tantrums and eating problems, but also disciplines her as she would her own child. Clive thinks Elsa is getting dangerously devoted to the indefinable creature whom they have seen devour a live squirrel; he suggests they put her away, but Elsa’s reawakened maternal instinct would render her deaf to it.
Dren (Delphine Chaneac) develops alarmingly fast and blooms into adolescence. She shows good mimetic skills but possessing no power of speech, she can only chirp like a bird. Elsa the mother continues to dote on her, applying make-up on her face and clothing her with jewelry to match, but when Dren starts to exhibit rebellious teen tendencies and kills a cat, Elsa the scientist punishes her creation as only a spurned creator can. Clive is torn between pity and fear: particularly when the increasingly attractive Dren poses a bigger menace, having sprouted retractable wings and a deadly blade at the tip of her tail. Meanwhile, Dren, now outgrowing Barbie dolls and teddy bears, begins to get bored indoors and sets her eyes on Clive who is in turn unnerved to discover the reason behind his strange attraction to Dren: in creating Dren, Elsa had used her own DNA.
It is not known whether the makers of Splice had intended the movie to be a warning against human cloning and procreation, but it certainly delivers a strong message to genetic engineers to stop “playing God”. More of a sci-fi than a horror film, Splice may be seen as a timely challenge to scientists, lawmakers, priests, teachers and parents—people who are bound by ethics and morality to moderate thought, reason and decision affecting the creation of life in laboratories.
Splice would have been another B movie were it not for the elements that elevate it from the mundane. Brody and Polley give A-class performances , matching director Vincenzo Natali’s mature handling of what in lesser hands would have been obscene episodes. The CGI of Dren—from its endearing guinea-pig like appearance in infancy to its wickedly seductive teen form—also suggests such a species may in fact already be existing.
Far from being another shriek movie, Splice is of a genre which is in reality counter-cultural. While governments and “forward looking” citizens the world over laud the advances of genetic science and the advantages of stem cell research, movies with genetic engineering and human cloning themes, from Frankenstein onward, flash a red light warning to scientists, “Hands off!” Is it because movies are the mouthpiece of the human conscience that sees what science cannot?
While the whole movie proffers no clear ethical or moral resolution on the timely issue of human cloning, the fate that Elsa suffers in the end validates the Catholic Church’s teaching that creating life outside of what Mother Nature has intended is none of man’s business. The script contains gems that alert individuals would recognize as fertile grounds for debates or discussions on good and evil, for they reflect the ambiguity of man when it comes to the limits of experimenting with the creation of life in test tubes.
Listen well to the arguments of Elsa and Clive, delivered with conviction by Polley and Brody, and you might find yourself asking questions like: Being their creation, is Dren the child of Elsa and Clive? If so, would copulation then between Clive and Dren constitute incest? Is the live entity resulting from genetic engineers’ experiments theirs to do as they please? If human cloning is illegal, would splicing animal with human DNA be considered human cloning? Would such cloning be justified to give hope and wellness to the hungry and the dying?
If you missed it in the theatres, try to get a DVD copy, but watch it only when you’re in the thinking mode. Splice may not entertain but it can provoke deep thought about the meaning of creation.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Sa 'Yo Lamang
Cast: Lorna Tolentino, Bea Alonzo, Christopher de Leon, Coco Martin, Enchong Dee, Miles Ocampo ; Director: Laurice Guillen; Story and Screenplay: Ricky Lee; Producer: Star Cinema; Running Time: 120 minutes; Genre: Drama; Location: Manila
Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Matapos mawala ng sampung taon, si Franco (Christopher de Leon) ay magbabalik sa pag-asang siya’y muling tatanggapin at patatawarin ng kanyang pamilyang iniwan at pinabayaan niya. Ang asawa niyang si Amanda (Lorna Tolentino) ay nakahandang patawarin siya at tanggapin alang-alang sa kanilang mga anak. Ngunit hindi magiging madali para sa kanila na tanggapin muli si Franco. Ang panganay na si Dianne (Bea Alonzo) ang may pinakamalalim na hinanakit sa ama. Si Coby (Coco Martin) naman ay pilit na lalapit sa kanyang ama dahil lamang sa nagrerebelde ito sa ate niyang si Dianne. Sina James (Enchong Dee) at Lisa (Miles Ocampo) naman ay halos hindi na makilala ang ama dahil mga bata sila nang sila’y iwan nito. Sa kabila ng pagpupursigi ni Amanda na ilapit si Franco sa mga anak, magsasanga-sanga naman ang kani-kaniyang problema ng mga ito na pilit pang maglalayo sa kanila at magpapalala sa kanilang pagkakawatak-watak. May pag-asa pa kayang muli silang mabuo bilang pamilya?
Isang makabagbag-damdaming kuwento ang Sa ‘Yo Lamang. Sa gitna ng dalisay at relihiyoso nitong tema ay nagawa nitong ipakita ang lahat ng aspeto ng isang pamilya – ang maganda’t ang pangit, mga kalakasan at mga kahinaan, mga tagumpay at mga kabiguan. Nagawa nitong magpakita hindi ng isang “banal” na pamilya kundi ng isang ordinaryong pamilyang nagsusubok at nagpipilit magpakabanal sa gitna ng maraming unos at pagsubok. Mahusay ang pagkakasulat at pagkaka-tagni-tagni ng iba’t-ibang kuwento na umiikot lamang sa iisang tema—pagpapahalaga sa pamilya. Mahusay ang pagkakadirehe at kitang nais ipalutang ang puso ng kuwento. Walang itulak kabigin ang pag-arte ng lahat ng tauhan lalo na si Tolentino at Alonzo na pawang mahuhusay na aktres. Sina de Leon at Martin ay pawang mahuhusay na aktor din. Akma rin ang tunog at musika sa bawat eksena at sa bawat pagtaas ng emosyon ay sadyang nakakaantig sa damdamin ng manonood.
Sa gitna ng makabagong panahon ng teknolohiya, sa kabila ng nagbabagong pagtingin sa mga relasyon at pananaw sa buhay, narito ang isang pelikulang nagsasabing walang pinakamahalaga kundi ang pagmamahal na magmumula sa pamilya na itinatag ng Diyos at Simbahan. Ipinakita ng Sa ‘Yo Lamang ang tunay na kalagayan ng maraming pamilya sa panahon ngayon: magulo, watak-watak, walang pagkakaisa at abala sa kani-kanilang buhay. Tulad ng maraming pamilya, ang pamilya ni Amanda ay hindi perpekto. Sa kabila ng nakamit nitong kaunting karangyaaan bunga ng pagsisikap, marami itong itinatagong madilim na lihim. Ngunit sapagkat may matibay na pananalig sa Diyos, nagagawa ni Amandang pagbuklurin at itaguyod ang kanyang pamilya. Sa panahon man ng hirap o ginhawa, hindi siya nakakalimot tumawag sa Diyos. Kahanga-hanga ang ipinakitang pananampalataya ni Amanda na sa kabila ng mga pagsubok ay hindi bumitaw sa pagdarasal at paghahangad ng mabuti para sa kanyang pamilya. Ang kanyang mga anak, katulad din nila ng kaniyang asawang si Franco ay hindi rin mga perpekto. Nagkakamali sila at nadarapa. Ngunit ang mahalaga’y natututo silang bumangon at nagagawa nilang itama ang kanilang mga pagkakamali. Ito rin ang nagpatibay sa kanila bilang mga tao at bilang isang pamilya. Higit sa lahat, ipinakita ng Sa ‘Yo Lamang ang kahulugan at kahalagahan ng pagpapakasakit at pag-aalay ng sarili ukol sa ikabubuti ng marami. Sa panahon ng labis na kalungkutan at kahirapan, tunay na walang ibang malalapitan ang tao kundi ang Diyos at tanging Siya lamang ang dapat kapitan sa oras ng pighati upang ito’y maging mas makahulugan at makabuluhan.
Maaaring makita ng mga pamilya ang kanilang mga sarili sa mga tauhan ng Sa ‘Yo Lamang. Sa gayon, iminumungkahi ng CINEMA na magsama-sama ang mga kabilang ng pamilya sa panonood nito pagkat mayaman sa mga paksang maaaring pag-usapan ang pelikula, tulad ng: Maganda ba ang ibinubunga sa pamilya ng pagtataksil ng isang magulang? Maaari bang sabihing makatuwiran ang nangyari sa pinagtaksilan? Tumpak ba ang naging damdamin ng panganay na anak laban sa pagbabalik ng ama? Kailangan bang mabingit muna sa kamatayan ang isang magulang upang matutong magpatawad ang mga anak? Pawang susudan ng “Bakit?” ang mga katanungang iyan, bagay na makatutulong sa pang-unawa ng mga kabataan sa sakramento ng kasal. May ilan lamang tema at eksena sa pelikula na hindi angkop sa mga bata at kailangan ng patnubay ng mga magulang upang maipaliwanag ang dala nitong aral.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Vampires Suck
By Teresa R. Tunay
Cast: Jenn Proske, Matt Lanter, Chris Riggi, Ken Jeong, Dave Foley, Diedrich Bader, Anneliese Van Der Pol, David DeLuise, Kelsey Ford
Writers and Directors: Jason Friedberg and Aaron Selzer
Studio: Twentieth Century Fox
Technical: 3 Moral: 3 For 14 years and up
Being a lampoon of the vampire genre, Vampires Suck does not bother to have an original plot. Instead it recycles Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight Saga whose impact on the general public is gauged by its 91 weeks of being in the New York Times Bestseller List since the book’s release in 2005.
Twentieth Century Fox summarizes the comedy as being “about contemporary teen angst and romance movies. Becca, an anxious non-vampire teen, is torn between two boys. Before she can choose, Becca must get around her controlling father, who embarrasses Becca by treating her like a child. Meanwhile, Becca’s friends contend with their own romantic issues—all of which collide at the prom.”
Many film critics tear Vampires Suck to pieces, saying it bears the characteristic crass humor of the same team that made Date Movie, Disaster Movie, Epic Movie and Meet the Spartans—directors and writers Jason Friedberg and Aaron Selzer. But if taken as an independent unit, minus the track record of its creators and the accompanying bias against it, Vampires Suck bears a message that deserves to be heard no matter how crudely it is delivered.
Vampires Suck’s significance derives from its guts in putting a reality check on a fast growing vampire cult rekindled by Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight Saga. The Twilight franchise has reaped phenomenal success worldwide, not only in ticket sales, but also in engaging viewers to regard it as a credible love story, intriguing and much like mythical romances where gods and mortals fall for each other. When female fans are getting polarized—when sisters, best friends, mothers and daughters fight over fictitious heroes (Team Edward or Team Jacob?)—it’s high time they were roused to the fact that their idols are simply figments of someone’s imagination. And what better way to do this than to expose the vampire movies to public ridicule?
The movie poster says it’s made for boyfriends unwilling to sit through another vampire movie. Vampires Suck certainly does a good job of lampooning Edward, Jacob and Bella, among other things. This is not to say the movie is a witty or stylish spoof, for many of its sight gags are cheap, flat, slapstick, violent, farcical, in bad taste, or downright unfunny, but it certainly succeeds in satirizing most of all the virtuous vampire, the exhibitionist werewolf, and the virginal victim of raging teen hormones.
Jacob’s clone (Chris Riggi) is exposed in all his hairy glory, complete with five sets of nipples and a yen for chasing household cats. No wonder—Jacob is actually a Chihuahua in werewolf’s clothing, so you see why he can’t ever run around without the pack, all shirtless like himself, flaunting their biceps and laundry board abs while dressed (down) like macho dancers in a gay bar!
On the other hand, Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter), the virtuous vampire who refuses sex outside of marriage, shrieks when excited, powders his face in public, and sleeps with his hair in curlers. While he tries his damned best to out-Edward Edward in glowering like a flesh-starved vampire, he doesn’t look emaciated enough to convince anyone. And speaking of starvation, watch what this Edward does when the sex-starved Becca straddles him in bed. Could Edward the chaste lover be… gay?
Becca Crane (Jenn Proske), not only parodies the angst-ridden Bella Swan in her constant hair-tucking, lip-biting mannerisms but also in lines that suggest she has an IQ of 40. Of all three lead actors, Proske is funniest in spoofing her model heroine, not only because she actually can pass for Stewart’s sister in looks and physique, but also because she seems to have sincerely psyched herself into Bella Swan’s mindset.
Loyal fans who take the Twilight Saga seriously will not find Vampires Suck funny. Jealous boyfriends and people who have seen the movies but were not pleased with them may find some LOL moments in Vampires Suck’s ribbing. Those who have not seen the Twilight movies will not know what Vampires Suck is all about. Better watch Splice instead.
Cast: Jenn Proske, Matt Lanter, Chris Riggi, Ken Jeong, Dave Foley, Diedrich Bader, Anneliese Van Der Pol, David DeLuise, Kelsey Ford Writers and Directors: Jason Friedberg and Aaron Selzer
Studio: Twentieth Century Fox
Technical: 3 Moral: 3 For 14 years and up
Being a lampoon of the vampire genre, Vampires Suck does not bother to have an original plot. Instead it recycles Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight Saga whose impact on the general public is gauged by its 91 weeks of being in the New York Times Bestseller List since the book’s release in 2005.
Twentieth Century Fox summarizes the comedy as being “about contemporary teen angst and romance movies. Becca, an anxious non-vampire teen, is torn between two boys. Before she can choose, Becca must get around her controlling father, who embarrasses Becca by treating her like a child. Meanwhile, Becca’s friends contend with their own romantic issues—all of which collide at the prom.”
Many film critics tear Vampires Suck to pieces, saying it bears the characteristic crass humor of the same team that made Date Movie, Disaster Movie, Epic Movie and Meet the Spartans—directors and writers Jason Friedberg and Aaron Selzer. But if taken as an independent unit, minus the track record of its creators and the accompanying bias against it, Vampires Suck bears a message that deserves to be heard no matter how crudely it is delivered.
Vampires Suck’s significance derives from its guts in putting a reality check on a fast growing vampire cult rekindled by Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight Saga. The Twilight franchise has reaped phenomenal success worldwide, not only in ticket sales, but also in engaging viewers to regard it as a credible love story, intriguing and much like mythical romances where gods and mortals fall for each other. When female fans are getting polarized—when sisters, best friends, mothers and daughters fight over fictitious heroes (Team Edward or Team Jacob?)—it’s high time they were roused to the fact that their idols are simply figments of someone’s imagination. And what better way to do this than to expose the vampire movies to public ridicule?
The movie poster says it’s made for boyfriends unwilling to sit through another vampire movie. Vampires Suck certainly does a good job of lampooning Edward, Jacob and Bella, among other things. This is not to say the movie is a witty or stylish spoof, for many of its sight gags are cheap, flat, slapstick, violent, farcical, in bad taste, or downright unfunny, but it certainly succeeds in satirizing most of all the virtuous vampire, the exhibitionist werewolf, and the virginal victim of raging teen hormones.
Jacob’s clone (Chris Riggi) is exposed in all his hairy glory, complete with five sets of nipples and a yen for chasing household cats. No wonder—Jacob is actually a Chihuahua in werewolf’s clothing, so you see why he can’t ever run around without the pack, all shirtless like himself, flaunting their biceps and laundry board abs while dressed (down) like macho dancers in a gay bar!
On the other hand, Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter), the virtuous vampire who refuses sex outside of marriage, shrieks when excited, powders his face in public, and sleeps with his hair in curlers. While he tries his damned best to out-Edward Edward in glowering like a flesh-starved vampire, he doesn’t look emaciated enough to convince anyone. And speaking of starvation, watch what this Edward does when the sex-starved Becca straddles him in bed. Could Edward the chaste lover be… gay?
Becca Crane (Jenn Proske), not only parodies the angst-ridden Bella Swan in her constant hair-tucking, lip-biting mannerisms but also in lines that suggest she has an IQ of 40. Of all three lead actors, Proske is funniest in spoofing her model heroine, not only because she actually can pass for Stewart’s sister in looks and physique, but also because she seems to have sincerely psyched herself into Bella Swan’s mindset.
Loyal fans who take the Twilight Saga seriously will not find Vampires Suck funny. Jealous boyfriends and people who have seen the movies but were not pleased with them may find some LOL moments in Vampires Suck’s ribbing. Those who have not seen the Twilight movies will not know what Vampires Suck is all about. Better watch Splice instead.
Despicable Me
TITLE: Despicable Me RUNNING TIME: 95 minutes
LEAD CAST: Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Julie Andrews (VOICES)
DIRECTOR: Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud
GENRE: Animation, Comedy, Kids & Family
CINEMATOGRAPHER DISTRIBUTOR: Universal Pictures
Assisted by a small army of minions, Gru (voiced by Steve Carell), plans the biggest heist in the history of the world: to steal the moon. With an arsenal of shrink rays, freeze rays, and battle-ready vehicles for land and air, he vanquishes all who stand in his way, until the day he encounters three little willful orphaned girls see in him something that no one else has ever seen: a potential Dad. Funny, clever, warmly animated with memorable characters, the movie says no heart is hard enough for innocence to touch.
Technical: 3 Moral: 3 Rating: General Patronage
Mamarazzi
TITLE: Mamarazzi RUNNING TIME: 105 minutes
LEAD CAST: Eugene Domindo, Andi Eigenmann, Carla Abellana, Diether Ocampo, John Lapus, JC Tiuseco, Xian Lim and Carl Guevarra.
DIRECTOR: Joel Lamangan
SCREENWRITER: Ricky Lee
PRODUCER:
EDITOR: MUSICAL DIRECTOR:
GENRE: Comedy
CINEMATOGRAPHER DISTRIBUTOR: Regal Films
Violy (Eugene Domingo) the mother of triplets Dingdong (AJ Perez), Strawberry and Peachy (Andi Eigenmann) is loving and hardworking in her funeraria business but finds difficulty connecting with her son. The children demand to know the identity of their father whom Violy keeps as secret with her gay best friend Mandy (John Lapus). The genre makes light of the theme—becoming a biological mother outside of marriage—which is morally unacceptable.
Technical: 3 Moral: 2 Rating: R 18
LEAD CAST: Eugene Domindo, Andi Eigenmann, Carla Abellana, Diether Ocampo, John Lapus, JC Tiuseco, Xian Lim and Carl Guevarra.
DIRECTOR: Joel Lamangan
SCREENWRITER: Ricky Lee
PRODUCER:
EDITOR: MUSICAL DIRECTOR:
GENRE: Comedy
CINEMATOGRAPHER DISTRIBUTOR: Regal Films
Violy (Eugene Domingo) the mother of triplets Dingdong (AJ Perez), Strawberry and Peachy (Andi Eigenmann) is loving and hardworking in her funeraria business but finds difficulty connecting with her son. The children demand to know the identity of their father whom Violy keeps as secret with her gay best friend Mandy (John Lapus). The genre makes light of the theme—becoming a biological mother outside of marriage—which is morally unacceptable.
Technical: 3 Moral: 2 Rating: R 18
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore
Cast: Bette Midler, James Marsden, Nick Nolte, Christina Applegate, Michael Clarke Duncan, Neil Patrick Harris, Sean Hayes, Joe Pantoliano, Katt Williams, Chris O'Donnell
Director: Brad Peyton
Writer: Ron J. Friedman, Steve Bencich
Genre: Action/Adventure, Comedy, Family
Running Time: 82 min.
Technical: 3.5 Moral: 3 Rating: PG 13
Hairless cat Kitty Galore (voiced with gusto by Bette Midler) is an ex-MEOWS agent who is pushed by a dog into a vat filled with permanent hair remover. She is also kicked out of the house by her former masters and left out in the snow on Christmas day. She then vows to take revenge on dogs and their best friends—humans—wearing various body wigs, disguising herself as a helpless abandoned animal and a harmless house pet to secretly unleash her plan, a weapon of mass destruction. Kitty Galore’s plan, called “The Call of the Wild” is meant to be activated via an orbiting satellite to make all the dogs on the planet go mad, making her gain dominion over all cats who will then enslave humanity. But DOG, the canine counterpart of MEOWS, recruits Diggs (voiced by James Marsden), a German shepherd who loathes cats. He and partner and mentor Butch (voiced by Nick Nolte) join forces to find feisty pigeon called Seamus (voiced by Katt Williams), who alone holds vital clues to Kitty's plan. But the cats are also concerned for humanity, thus MEOWS top cat Tab Lazenby (voiced by Roger Moore) proposes a peace pact with DOG to thwart Kitty Galore’s evil scheme. Soon canine agents Diggs and Butch and MEOWS special agent Catherine (voiced by Christina Applegate) agree to set aside their natural differences in order to hunt down Kitty.
Although the target audience of this spy adventure Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore is children below 12, it’s thoughtful enough to offer something enjoyable for the youngsters’ chaperones as well. The plot and the visuals—clever and seamless CGI—make for an entertaining fable, combined with takes on other movies that grown ups easily recognize. The story and its telling is engaging enough for the young viewers who couldn’t care less who’s voicing which character, or whether or not it’s in 3D, but the oldies accompanying them certainly could make a lively game of spotting which character, line or scene is reflecting bits of James Bond, Batman, Silence of the Lambs, and others. (The title character’s name itself is a baby-talk derivative of James’ Bond’s Pussy Galore).
Judging from the cheers and the general response of the children in the audience, his Brad Peyton-directed movie will certainly enthrall the below-12 crowd who may just “see” their own household pets in the cute characters. Even though its plot is capitalizes on the old good-versus-evil formula that adults may find clicheic, Cats & Dogs: Revenge of Kitty Galore can still be mined for the valuable life lessons it envelopes—lessons on anger, revenge, hunger for power and control, and… uh… animals’ inhumanity to animals (so to speak) may be downsized to for children’s consumption.
In Your Eyes
Cast: Claudine Baretto, Anne Curtis, Richard Gutierrez Director: Mac Alejandre;Story and Screenplay: Keiko Aquino; Producer: Viva Films and GMA Films; Running Time: 100 minutes; Genre: Drama; Location: Los Angeles (California, USA) and Manila.
Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 2
Rating: For viewers 18 and above
Ibinigay ni Ciara (Claudine Baretto) ang kanyang buong buhay sa pag-aaruga na nakababatang kapatid na si Julia (Anne Curtis) magmula nang mamatay ang kanilang mga magulang. Inambisyon nilang magpunta ng Amerika upang doon buuin ang kanilang pangarap na mas magandang buhay. Makakarating si Ciara sa Amerika at magtatrabaho bilang physical therapist habang inaayos ang papeles ni Julia upang kanyang maipetisyon at sumunod sa kanya. Samantala, makikilala at magiging kasintahan ni Julia si Storm (Richard Gutierrez). Nang minsang manakawan ang tinitirhang bahay ni Julia, nagmadali itong sumunod kay Ciara sa takot na balikan siya ng mga magnanakaw. Hindi pa tapos ang kanyang papeles kung kaya't student visa lamang ang kanyang nakuha. Hindi naman makakatiis si Storm at sasama ito sa kanya papuntang Amerika. Mahihirapang makahanap ng trabaho si Storm sa Amerika at minsan ay magpapasya itong bumalik na lang ng Pilipinas. Pipigilan naman siya ni Julia at maiisip nitong kumbinsihin si Ciara na pakasalan si Storm para mapadali ang pagiging legal ng papeles nito sa Amerika. Pumayag kaya si Ciara? Paano kung tuluyang mahulog ang loob ni Ciara at Storm sa isa’t isa sa kanilang pagpapanggap bilang mag-asawa?
Isang kakatwang kuwento ng mga kakatwang posibilidad ang In Your Eyes. Bagama't maaring nangyayari ito sa tunay na buhay, hindi naging kapani-paniwala o kapuri-puri ang pagkakalahad nito. Nagkulang ang pelikula sa maraming bagay katulad ng tamang hagod ng emosyon at malalim na karakterisasyon. Paanong napaibig ng isang lalaking walang kabuhay-buhay na gaya ni Storm ang dalawang babae? (Maliban na lamang kung ang hanap ng magkapatid na ito’y isang lalaking mayabang, mainitin ang ulo, isip bata, at “bagyo” kung magalit? Akma ngang “Storm” ang pangalan niya: pa-sumpong-sumpong, walang direksiyon, at mapanira.) At paano rin magiging malalim ang pagmamahalan ng isang babae’t isang lalaki kung wala man lang matibay na pundasyon at matinding pagsubok na pagdadaanan? Lumalabas na ang pagmamahalan sa pelikula ay nag-uugat lamang sa tawag ng laman.
Nakapanghihinayang ang husay nina Barreto at Curtis na nahaluan ng walang husay na pag-arte ni Gutierrez na sa kabila ng itinagal sa industriya ay kagandahang lalaki lamang ang bentahe. Puwede din naming ipikit ang mga mata namin sa pag-arte ng mga ekstrang walang ibubuga, ngunit hindi maaaring palusutin namin na ang batikang aktor na si Joel Torre na bilang doktor ay pasulpot sulpot lamang sa eksenang parang kidlat upang sa pamimilosopo niya’y maliwanagan ang landas ni Ciara.
Walang makabuluhang kurot sa damdamin ang kabuuan ng pelikula at higit pang naging katawa-tawa ito dahil sa masagwa nitong musika na ubod ng lakas at bigla na lang papasukin ang iyong pandinig habang wala naman itong kinalaman sa eksenang dumaraan sa iyong paningin. Pilit mo mang abangan sa bawat dibdibang eksena ay hindi mo makikita ang koneksiyon ng pamagat (“In Your Eyes” na pamagat din ng isang popular na awitin) ng pelikula sa takbo ng kuwento na lumaylay nang husto sa bandang dulo at pumalpak nang labis sa kabuuan.
Puno rin ng nakababahalang mensahe ang pelikula. Nariyan ang lantarang pagtatalik ng mga tauhan sa labas ng kasal; ang “safe sex” na umaasa sa nakagawiang paggamit ng condom. Nagkindatan lamang sa bar ay nauwi na sa paggawa ng mga bagay na dapat lamang ay sa mag-asawa. Pinawawalang halaga nito ang nararapat na proseso ng pag-iibigan, at sa halip na magsimula sa panunuyo, ay inuuna nito ang tawag ng laman. Ginagawa nitong makatuwiran ang maling paniniwala at gawain. Hindi ito magiging magandang halimbawa lalo na sa mga kabataan na maaaring magpadala sa mga luha ni Curtis, sa pagka “martir” ni Barretto, at sa tulis ng ilong (ahem!) ni Gutierrez.
Higit na nakababahala ay ang pinaka-sentro ng kuwento kung saan ang dalawang tao ay nagpapakasal sa kung ano-anong dahilan maliban sa pagmamahalan sa isa’t isa. Bagama't maaaring talamak na ang praktis na ito sa mga kababayan nating nasa Amerika, hindi pa rin ito dapat ginawang napaka-kaswal at kaakit-akit na gawain. Nauuwi ito sa maraming komplikasyon sa relasyon at pamilya na siya namang sinikap na ipakita ng pelikula ngunit hindi ito naging epektibo pagkat walang tunay na pagsisising naganap sa mga nagkamali upang maging sanhi ng kanilang malalim na pagbabago. Sa kabila ng kanilang sinapit, bulag pa rin sila sa katotohanang itinulak nila ang kanilang mga sarili upang masadlak sa mga sitwasyong kanilang kinahinatnan.
Maliban sa pagmamalahan ng magkapatid—na hindi rin naman matatawag na dalisay dito pagkat ang pundasyon nito ay pangangailangan at hindi tunay na paghahandog ng sarili—walang ibang uri ng karapat-dapat na pagmamahalan ang isinasaad sa pelikula. Maaaring sa mababaw manood ng pelikula o sa mga ayaw mag-isip, naging wasto na ang ipinakitang “pagmamahalan” ni Ciara at Julia, ngunit sa mga masusing manonood, butas-butas ang In Your Eyes. Pinalalabo nito ang guhit na naghihiwalay sa tama at mali. Dito ang mga tauhan ay nagtatalik, nagsasakitan at napapariwara nang walang ibang dahilan kundi ang makasariling kasiyahan at “pagmamahal”. Ang mga butas nga bang naturan ay nasa pelikula o nasa mga mata lamang ng tumitingin?
Hindi ang lahat ng nanonood ng sine ay naghahanap lamang ng libangan—mayroon sa kanilang nangangailangan ng gabay, mayroon ding hinog ang isip at mapagtanong. Tulad noong nakaupo sa likuran namin na malakas na nagwika, sabay hagikgikan, matapos ang pelikula, “Ano ba yan! Pagkatapos nyong guluhin ang buhay ng mga tao, magsasalubong lang kayo sa ibabaw ng tulay, ayos na naman?”
Ang CINEMA rin, magtatanong: “Ano nga ba talaga, direk, ang punto mo?” Ito ba’y para pukawin ang isip ng mga Pilipinong nasa Amerika? Para kumita lang ang pelikula? Para panatiliin lang na nasa eksena ang mga artista? Pero may pag-asa pa, direk. Puwede pang gumawa ng sequel ang In Your Eyes para iwasto ang mga pagkakamaling ikinakalat nito ngayon, pero pamagatan mo naman kaya ng “In God’s Eyes”?
Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 2
Rating: For viewers 18 and above
Ibinigay ni Ciara (Claudine Baretto) ang kanyang buong buhay sa pag-aaruga na nakababatang kapatid na si Julia (Anne Curtis) magmula nang mamatay ang kanilang mga magulang. Inambisyon nilang magpunta ng Amerika upang doon buuin ang kanilang pangarap na mas magandang buhay. Makakarating si Ciara sa Amerika at magtatrabaho bilang physical therapist habang inaayos ang papeles ni Julia upang kanyang maipetisyon at sumunod sa kanya. Samantala, makikilala at magiging kasintahan ni Julia si Storm (Richard Gutierrez). Nang minsang manakawan ang tinitirhang bahay ni Julia, nagmadali itong sumunod kay Ciara sa takot na balikan siya ng mga magnanakaw. Hindi pa tapos ang kanyang papeles kung kaya't student visa lamang ang kanyang nakuha. Hindi naman makakatiis si Storm at sasama ito sa kanya papuntang Amerika. Mahihirapang makahanap ng trabaho si Storm sa Amerika at minsan ay magpapasya itong bumalik na lang ng Pilipinas. Pipigilan naman siya ni Julia at maiisip nitong kumbinsihin si Ciara na pakasalan si Storm para mapadali ang pagiging legal ng papeles nito sa Amerika. Pumayag kaya si Ciara? Paano kung tuluyang mahulog ang loob ni Ciara at Storm sa isa’t isa sa kanilang pagpapanggap bilang mag-asawa?
Isang kakatwang kuwento ng mga kakatwang posibilidad ang In Your Eyes. Bagama't maaring nangyayari ito sa tunay na buhay, hindi naging kapani-paniwala o kapuri-puri ang pagkakalahad nito. Nagkulang ang pelikula sa maraming bagay katulad ng tamang hagod ng emosyon at malalim na karakterisasyon. Paanong napaibig ng isang lalaking walang kabuhay-buhay na gaya ni Storm ang dalawang babae? (Maliban na lamang kung ang hanap ng magkapatid na ito’y isang lalaking mayabang, mainitin ang ulo, isip bata, at “bagyo” kung magalit? Akma ngang “Storm” ang pangalan niya: pa-sumpong-sumpong, walang direksiyon, at mapanira.) At paano rin magiging malalim ang pagmamahalan ng isang babae’t isang lalaki kung wala man lang matibay na pundasyon at matinding pagsubok na pagdadaanan? Lumalabas na ang pagmamahalan sa pelikula ay nag-uugat lamang sa tawag ng laman.
Nakapanghihinayang ang husay nina Barreto at Curtis na nahaluan ng walang husay na pag-arte ni Gutierrez na sa kabila ng itinagal sa industriya ay kagandahang lalaki lamang ang bentahe. Puwede din naming ipikit ang mga mata namin sa pag-arte ng mga ekstrang walang ibubuga, ngunit hindi maaaring palusutin namin na ang batikang aktor na si Joel Torre na bilang doktor ay pasulpot sulpot lamang sa eksenang parang kidlat upang sa pamimilosopo niya’y maliwanagan ang landas ni Ciara.
Walang makabuluhang kurot sa damdamin ang kabuuan ng pelikula at higit pang naging katawa-tawa ito dahil sa masagwa nitong musika na ubod ng lakas at bigla na lang papasukin ang iyong pandinig habang wala naman itong kinalaman sa eksenang dumaraan sa iyong paningin. Pilit mo mang abangan sa bawat dibdibang eksena ay hindi mo makikita ang koneksiyon ng pamagat (“In Your Eyes” na pamagat din ng isang popular na awitin) ng pelikula sa takbo ng kuwento na lumaylay nang husto sa bandang dulo at pumalpak nang labis sa kabuuan.
Puno rin ng nakababahalang mensahe ang pelikula. Nariyan ang lantarang pagtatalik ng mga tauhan sa labas ng kasal; ang “safe sex” na umaasa sa nakagawiang paggamit ng condom. Nagkindatan lamang sa bar ay nauwi na sa paggawa ng mga bagay na dapat lamang ay sa mag-asawa. Pinawawalang halaga nito ang nararapat na proseso ng pag-iibigan, at sa halip na magsimula sa panunuyo, ay inuuna nito ang tawag ng laman. Ginagawa nitong makatuwiran ang maling paniniwala at gawain. Hindi ito magiging magandang halimbawa lalo na sa mga kabataan na maaaring magpadala sa mga luha ni Curtis, sa pagka “martir” ni Barretto, at sa tulis ng ilong (ahem!) ni Gutierrez.
Higit na nakababahala ay ang pinaka-sentro ng kuwento kung saan ang dalawang tao ay nagpapakasal sa kung ano-anong dahilan maliban sa pagmamahalan sa isa’t isa. Bagama't maaaring talamak na ang praktis na ito sa mga kababayan nating nasa Amerika, hindi pa rin ito dapat ginawang napaka-kaswal at kaakit-akit na gawain. Nauuwi ito sa maraming komplikasyon sa relasyon at pamilya na siya namang sinikap na ipakita ng pelikula ngunit hindi ito naging epektibo pagkat walang tunay na pagsisising naganap sa mga nagkamali upang maging sanhi ng kanilang malalim na pagbabago. Sa kabila ng kanilang sinapit, bulag pa rin sila sa katotohanang itinulak nila ang kanilang mga sarili upang masadlak sa mga sitwasyong kanilang kinahinatnan.
Maliban sa pagmamalahan ng magkapatid—na hindi rin naman matatawag na dalisay dito pagkat ang pundasyon nito ay pangangailangan at hindi tunay na paghahandog ng sarili—walang ibang uri ng karapat-dapat na pagmamahalan ang isinasaad sa pelikula. Maaaring sa mababaw manood ng pelikula o sa mga ayaw mag-isip, naging wasto na ang ipinakitang “pagmamahalan” ni Ciara at Julia, ngunit sa mga masusing manonood, butas-butas ang In Your Eyes. Pinalalabo nito ang guhit na naghihiwalay sa tama at mali. Dito ang mga tauhan ay nagtatalik, nagsasakitan at napapariwara nang walang ibang dahilan kundi ang makasariling kasiyahan at “pagmamahal”. Ang mga butas nga bang naturan ay nasa pelikula o nasa mga mata lamang ng tumitingin?
Hindi ang lahat ng nanonood ng sine ay naghahanap lamang ng libangan—mayroon sa kanilang nangangailangan ng gabay, mayroon ding hinog ang isip at mapagtanong. Tulad noong nakaupo sa likuran namin na malakas na nagwika, sabay hagikgikan, matapos ang pelikula, “Ano ba yan! Pagkatapos nyong guluhin ang buhay ng mga tao, magsasalubong lang kayo sa ibabaw ng tulay, ayos na naman?”
Ang CINEMA rin, magtatanong: “Ano nga ba talaga, direk, ang punto mo?” Ito ba’y para pukawin ang isip ng mga Pilipinong nasa Amerika? Para kumita lang ang pelikula? Para panatiliin lang na nasa eksena ang mga artista? Pero may pag-asa pa, direk. Puwede pang gumawa ng sequel ang In Your Eyes para iwasto ang mga pagkakamaling ikinakalat nito ngayon, pero pamagatan mo naman kaya ng “In God’s Eyes”?
Monday, August 16, 2010
Salt
Salt: Look beyond the action to get the message
By Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS
* Cast: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Alex Pettyfer, Gaius Charles, Victor Slezak, Marion McCorry, Jonah Keyes
Genre: Suspense/Thriller
* Running Time: 99 min.
* Director: Phillip Noyce
* Writer: Kurt Wimmer, Brian Helgeland
Salt is a curious amalgam of James Bond, Bourne Identity, McGyver and Spiderman—and because the lead character is a woman, anything the guys can do she can do better.
Salt opens with with a near naked Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie) being tortured in a North Korean dungeon to talk, but all she says, in tears, is “I am not a spy…” Actually she’s really a spy, one of CIA’s toughest and brightest A colleague, Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber) fetches her out of captivity, saying Salt owes her freedom to her admirer Mike (August Diehl), a German scientist whose forte is arachnid research and who soon after becomes her husband.
The chase begins when a Russian defector, Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski), who at interrogation pins down Salt as a KGB agent in deep cover whose mission is to assassinate Russian president Matyveyev (Olek Krupa), currently in the United States to attend the funeral of the American vice-president. The lie detector test registers truth in everything Orlov claims, leading Salt’s other colleague, Agent Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to believe Salt is really a Russian spy. Ted doesn’t believe it, however, but joins Peabody in the hunt for the elusive Salt whose main concern now is to reach her husband while evading pursuers.
Salt is one thriller you can see three times and not tire of. Jolie as the action star is at her elusive best, reportedly doing 95 percent of her stunts and exuding mystique that combines toughness and fragility. If you’ve ever seen one of those gold-plated real orchids from Singapore, you’ll know what Salt’s persona is in this film.
Originally meant for Tom Cruise (as Edwin Salt), this action masterpiece would have been generic, but because the role went to a woman, and the intriguing Angelina Jolie at that, the movie Salt took on a spicier flavor. We agree with one American film critic who says Jolie is a fine-looking woman whose lips, eyes, profile, nose, boobs, butt and indeed the whole of her enigmatic beauty has been celebrated on celluloid, but this time, Salt celebrates her ankles.
She jumps from one moving truck to another, traverses a high rise window ledge with bare hands and feet, rolls off a flyover and lands on a moving van, and descends an elevator shaft by just jumping from level to lower level—doing all those and more, the character could have died from a fractured skull, internal hemorrhage or a snapped spine, but here Salt survives without as much as spraining an ankle. Indeed, much like a grain of salt on a free fall from the shaker but defies the laws of physics and manages to escape the frying pan. (Boy, that can only happen in the cartoons!)
Salt is a curious amalgam of James Bond, Bourne Identity, McGyver and Spiderman—and because the lead is a woman, anything the guys can do she can do better. Makes you wonder if real life spies can be that good or indestructible but you don’t care for answers and instead go along with the chase because it’s advancing the story, and a good story to boot. The story is really about sleeper spies in the US, orphans trained from childhood by the Russians, to one day patriotically wreak havoc on American society and then the whole world. Evelyn Salt is supposed to be one of those orphans.
Viewers of Salt are enjoined to look beyond all the media sizzle generated by Jolie’s exceptional stunts and dive deeper into Evelyn Salt’s conflicted character. Without second thoughts and second glances she kills everyone who gets in her way but risks life and limb to save the life of her pet puppy. Aware that as a spy she can’t offer a future to the man who offers her marriage, she believes in love and marries him anyway. Brainwashed from age 12 to believe in the nobility of her murderous mission, she grows up as the compleat spy, and yet look what happens when everything is taken away from her.
If there is one very important thing Salt is leading us to examine, it is how we adults have come to regard our children. Salt may not be consciously doing it but it’s making us see what happens when children are used as pawns in vicious adult games, when their native intelligence is hewn to serve inhuman purposes, and when their innocence is sacrificed at the altar of ideology.
It’s adults with warped values who lead children into the dark to suite their destructive schemes, in the process destroying their souls. In Salt, the setting is espionage; in real life, the stakes are higher. Mothers push their children into prostitution and mendicancy. Fathers lure their daughters into incest. Governments and schools inculcate in children the culture of death attractively veneered as “reproductive health”. In Salt, orphans are programmed like dogs to kill for their masters’ own shining goal, and yet, can all the evil in the world really kill the human spirit? You might find the answer in Salt.
CINEMA RATING: Technical: 3.5 Moral: 3 R 14
END
By Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS
* Cast: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Alex Pettyfer, Gaius Charles, Victor Slezak, Marion McCorry, Jonah Keyes
Genre: Suspense/Thriller
* Running Time: 99 min.
* Director: Phillip Noyce
* Writer: Kurt Wimmer, Brian Helgeland
Salt is a curious amalgam of James Bond, Bourne Identity, McGyver and Spiderman—and because the lead character is a woman, anything the guys can do she can do better.
Salt opens with with a near naked Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie) being tortured in a North Korean dungeon to talk, but all she says, in tears, is “I am not a spy…” Actually she’s really a spy, one of CIA’s toughest and brightest A colleague, Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber) fetches her out of captivity, saying Salt owes her freedom to her admirer Mike (August Diehl), a German scientist whose forte is arachnid research and who soon after becomes her husband.
The chase begins when a Russian defector, Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski), who at interrogation pins down Salt as a KGB agent in deep cover whose mission is to assassinate Russian president Matyveyev (Olek Krupa), currently in the United States to attend the funeral of the American vice-president. The lie detector test registers truth in everything Orlov claims, leading Salt’s other colleague, Agent Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor) to believe Salt is really a Russian spy. Ted doesn’t believe it, however, but joins Peabody in the hunt for the elusive Salt whose main concern now is to reach her husband while evading pursuers.
Salt is one thriller you can see three times and not tire of. Jolie as the action star is at her elusive best, reportedly doing 95 percent of her stunts and exuding mystique that combines toughness and fragility. If you’ve ever seen one of those gold-plated real orchids from Singapore, you’ll know what Salt’s persona is in this film.
Originally meant for Tom Cruise (as Edwin Salt), this action masterpiece would have been generic, but because the role went to a woman, and the intriguing Angelina Jolie at that, the movie Salt took on a spicier flavor. We agree with one American film critic who says Jolie is a fine-looking woman whose lips, eyes, profile, nose, boobs, butt and indeed the whole of her enigmatic beauty has been celebrated on celluloid, but this time, Salt celebrates her ankles.
She jumps from one moving truck to another, traverses a high rise window ledge with bare hands and feet, rolls off a flyover and lands on a moving van, and descends an elevator shaft by just jumping from level to lower level—doing all those and more, the character could have died from a fractured skull, internal hemorrhage or a snapped spine, but here Salt survives without as much as spraining an ankle. Indeed, much like a grain of salt on a free fall from the shaker but defies the laws of physics and manages to escape the frying pan. (Boy, that can only happen in the cartoons!)
Salt is a curious amalgam of James Bond, Bourne Identity, McGyver and Spiderman—and because the lead is a woman, anything the guys can do she can do better. Makes you wonder if real life spies can be that good or indestructible but you don’t care for answers and instead go along with the chase because it’s advancing the story, and a good story to boot. The story is really about sleeper spies in the US, orphans trained from childhood by the Russians, to one day patriotically wreak havoc on American society and then the whole world. Evelyn Salt is supposed to be one of those orphans.
Viewers of Salt are enjoined to look beyond all the media sizzle generated by Jolie’s exceptional stunts and dive deeper into Evelyn Salt’s conflicted character. Without second thoughts and second glances she kills everyone who gets in her way but risks life and limb to save the life of her pet puppy. Aware that as a spy she can’t offer a future to the man who offers her marriage, she believes in love and marries him anyway. Brainwashed from age 12 to believe in the nobility of her murderous mission, she grows up as the compleat spy, and yet look what happens when everything is taken away from her.
If there is one very important thing Salt is leading us to examine, it is how we adults have come to regard our children. Salt may not be consciously doing it but it’s making us see what happens when children are used as pawns in vicious adult games, when their native intelligence is hewn to serve inhuman purposes, and when their innocence is sacrificed at the altar of ideology.
It’s adults with warped values who lead children into the dark to suite their destructive schemes, in the process destroying their souls. In Salt, the setting is espionage; in real life, the stakes are higher. Mothers push their children into prostitution and mendicancy. Fathers lure their daughters into incest. Governments and schools inculcate in children the culture of death attractively veneered as “reproductive health”. In Salt, orphans are programmed like dogs to kill for their masters’ own shining goal, and yet, can all the evil in the world really kill the human spirit? You might find the answer in Salt.
CINEMA RATING: Technical: 3.5 Moral: 3 R 14
END
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Hating Kapatid
Cast: Judy Ann Santos, Sarah Geronimo, Luis Manzano, Vice Ganda, JC de Vera, Cherry Pie Picache, Ms. Gina Pareño; Director: Wenn Deramas; Screenwriter: Mel Mendoza-del Rosario; Genre: Drama/ Comedy; Distributor: Viva Films; Location: Philippines; Running Time: 110 min.;Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
Umalis ang mga magulang nina Rica (Judy Ann Santos) at Cecilia (Sarah Geronimo), noong sila’y mga bata pa upang maghanap-buhay sa ibang bansa. Naiwan sila sa kanilang lola (Gina Pareno) at sa loob ng halos 20 taon ay si Rica na ang tumayong ama at ina para kay Cecilia. Dahil sa isang aksidente noong bata pa si Cecilia, napilitan si Rica na isakripisyo ang kanyang buhay-pag-ibig. Itinuon na lamang niya ang buo niyang lakas sa pag-aalaga at pagbibigay proteksiyon sa kapatid habang wala ang kanilang mga magulang. Unti-unti’y napapalayo na ang loob ni Rica sa kanyang ina (Cherie Pie Picache) at ama (Tonton Gutierrez) dahil sa matagal nilang hindi pag-uwi sa bansa. Kaya’t nang makatapos si Cecilia sa kolehiyo at magbalik-bayan ang kanilang mga magulang ay matabang na ang pakikisama nito sa kanila. Si Cecilia naman ay masaya sa pagbabalik ng kanyang mga magulang at sa wakas ay buo na silang pamilya. Hindi ito magugustuhan ni Rica at magsisimula nang magkalamat ang relasyon nila ni Cecilia. Lalo pa itong lalala, nang malalaman ni Rica na may manliligaw (Luis Manzano) na ang kapatid.
Marami sanang magandang nais sabihin ang Hating Kapatid patungkol sa pamilya at relasyon ngunit pawang napako ang mga ito sa lantarang kakulangan ng sinseridad ng pelikula sa kabuuan. Gaano man kahusay ang mga talinong nasa likod nito, pati na ang mga di matatawarang galing ng mga aktor, semplang pa rin ang pelikula dahil sa walang pakundangan nitong komersiyalismo na labis na naka-agaw ng pansin sa daloy ng kuwento. Masyadong ginamit ang pelikula upang maisulong ang interes ng mga kalakal at serbisyong ine-endorso na ng mga artista. Tuloy, pawang naglaho ang mga tauhan at pawang mga artista na lamang ang napapanood sa isang pinalawak na patalastas sa telebisyon. Kakatwa rin sa maraming pagkakataon na ang mga patawa, kung hindi luma, ay kapos naman sa hagod o sobrang bagal ng pagkaka-bitaw. Nawawala tuloy ang dapat sana’y magandang epekto sa manonood. Hindi rin nabigyan ng pansin ang paghagod sa karakter, emosyon at kuwento. Pawang minadali ang lahat. Sayang ang manaka-nakang aliw sa mga eksena, pati na rin ang ilang eksenang may kurot sa puso na maari sana'y napalawig pa.
Sa kabila ng mga kakulangang teknikal, hitik sa mensahe ng pagmamahal at pagpapahalaga sa pamilya ang Hating Kapatid. Sinasalamin nito ang maraming pamilyang napipilitang mabuhay nang magkakahiwalay dala ng matinding pangangailangan na mangibang-bayan. Totoo ang sakripisyo ng mga magulang na umaalis mabigyan lamang ng magandang kinabukasan ang mga anak. Kaakibat din nito ang maraming suliraning dala ng paghihiwa-hiwalay. Nariyang malayo ang loob ng mga anak sa magulang dahil sa tagal ng panahong hindi pagkikita. Hindi nga naman mapupunan ng anumang materyal na bagay ang init ng presensya at pagiging nariyan para sa mga anak sa oras ng pangangailangan. Sinubukan namang punuan ng mga magulang ni Rica ang mga pagkukulang na ito sa pamamagitan ng pagtawag sa telepono at paggamit sa makabagong teknolohiya, ngunit sadyang di pa rin sapat. Sa bandang huli’y nagsubok naman ang mga magulang niyang bumawi sa kanilang pagbabalik. Nakakabahala nga lang ang malabis na poot na naitanim ni Rica sa kanyang mga magulang na wala namang hinangad na hindi maganda para sa kanilang magkapatid. Kahanga-hanga naman ang ipinakitang pagmamahalan ng magkapatid sa pelikula. Pati ang aral na ang tao, gaano mo man kahusay alagaan, ay hindi mo kailanman magiging pag-aari. At ang pagmamahal ay ibinabahagi at hindi sinasarili. May mangi-ngilan nga lang na patawang eksena sa pelikula na maaring maka-sakit sa damdamin ng ilan tulad na lamang nang gawing katawa-tawa ang isang matanda. Pati na rin ang pag-iingat sa paggamit ng mga paputok ay dapat na mabigyang-pansin. Kaya nararapat pa ring gabayan ang mga batang manonood na 13 gulang pababa.
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Cast: Nicholas Cage, Jay Baruchel, Alfred Molina, Teresa Palmer, Toby Kebbell; Director: John Turtletaub; Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer; Screenwriters: Lawrence Konner, Mark Rosenthal; Music: Trevor Rabin; Editor: William Goldenberg; Genre: Fiction/Fantasy, Comedy, Action/Adventure, Drama, Kids/Family; Cinematography: Bojan Bazelli; Distributor: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; Location: New York, USA; Running Time: 111 min.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice opens with a flashback to the Middle Ages, when wizard Balthazar Blake (Nicholas Cage), a pupil of Merlin, the legendary medieval wizard, has been tasked to watch for the emergence of the prophesied successor of Merlin Year 2000, grade schooler Dave Stutler (Jake Cherry) accidentally discovers a store called Arcana Cabana, which is actually more of a museum housing the sorcerer Balthazar’s treasures. The treasures Balthazar guards in Arcana Cabana include a matrioshka (Russian nesting doll) imprisoning another medieval sorcerer, Maxim Horveth (Alfred Molina), Balthazar’s contemporary as pupil of Merlin who had flipped over to black sorcery. Subjecting the 9-year old Dave to a test, Balthazar discovers the boy is the person he has been looking for through the centuries. However, the boy is scared and incredulous, especially when his story about his encounter with Balthazar is seen as hallucination by people who hear of it. Year 2010, 19-year-old Dave (Jay Baruchel) is now a socially-awkward physics geek at New York University and his humdrum existence is about to be punctuated by his encounter with the evil Maxim who has been newly freed from his doll-prison and is doggedly after the magical ring in Dave’s possession.
Like movies of this genre, director Jon Turtletaub’s The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is meant to be a fantasy-adventure. It will be compared—perhaps unfairly and unfavorably—to a Harry Potter movie, but this doesn’t mean it can’t stand on its own. Due to the proliferation of such magic-driven flicks, the viewer can’t help but recognize in this movie elements from other kindred-creations, particularly in the display of sorcerous powers. Because it has its own fantastic story to tell (authored by Lawrence Konner, Mark Rosenthal and Matt Lopez), advanced by CGI and special effects, it has enough energy and splash to entertain the audience, mostly the young ones. Happily, the script (by screenwriters Matt Lopez, Doug Miro and Carlo Bernard) is devoid of vulgar language albeit slightly tinged with toilet humor. Molina’s villain is the kind audiences love to hate, while Cage is a surprise, a departure from his usually morose characters, he is quite lighthearted here and smiles a lot in spite of his bad hairpiece.
Disney’s The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, with all its bloodless stylized violence, is inoffensive enough for pre-teens, but parents and educators guiding young viewers should arm themselves with convincing explanations in case the latter ask about the probability of people being imprisoned in dolls and coming back to life after centuries. The movie’s hero is a young person, so expect young people to resonate with it, and maybe affirm its values without question, so do be forewarned. Older teen and other viewers will benefit from discussions on the topics of power, destiny, and sexual attraction as portrayed in the movie. (Note that school kids here are shown attracted to the opposite sex at age 9). Perhaps one exercise would be to ask “What would you do if you had Dave’s powers and you are asked to save the world?” While CINEMA may give this movie PG 13 rating, parents are advised to bring only older children as some of the scenes might prove too scary for very young children.--TRT
Predators
Cast: Adriene Brody, Topher Grace, Alice Braga, Walton Goggins, Oleg Taktarov; Director: Nimrod Antal; Producers: Elizabeth Avellan, John Davis, Robert Rodriguez; Screenwrites: Alex Litvak, Michael Finch; Music: John Debney; Editor: Dan Zimmerman; Genre: Action/ Adventure/ Sci-Fi; Cinematography: Gyula Pados; Distributor: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Location: USA; Running Time: 107 min.;Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
One by one, they drop down from the sky and into the jungle, giving the impression that they are all part of a parachuting outing gone wrong. Are they trainees in a jungle survival exercise? It seems no, because each of them is ready to kill man or beast in order to save his own neck. Soon they learn that they are all killers. They are Royce (Adriend Brody), a dyed to the wool mercenary; Isabelle (Alice Braga), an Israeli army sniper; Cuchillo (Danny Trejo), an Hispanic drug-gang enforcer; Stans (Walter Goggins), a death-row convict; Nikolai (Oleg Taktarov), a Russian Special Forces operative; an African warlord (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali); a Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien); and Edwin (Topher Grace), a mild-mannered doctor who’s the only one among them who is not a killer. With survival as their main concern, they realize it’s much better to have bad company than to be alone in such a menacing environment. And later, they discover they are on another planet, and while the vegetation closely resembles Earth’s, the animals are an entirely different matter. The truth soon dawns on them: they have been brought there in order to be hunted for sport by unknown predators.
The main hitch about attack movies such as Predators is its predictability. You are sure the lead characters will in the end prevail over their predators, so that the suspense is in guessing the order in which the others will be eliminated. Punctuating the rather slow first half hour of Predators are escapes from booby traps and metallic monsters that look like warthogs. By the middle of the movie the tension stems from the identity of the invisible hunters: who are they, and what do they want from the humans? The casting is good, lending credibility to each character; and the actors prove their respectability by giving serious performance despite the implausible plot. The steamy jungle and its strange creatures keep audience attention level high, while cinematography blends well with CGI.
Predators offers many opportunities for mixed group discussions on ethics and life values. One question to throw would be “Would you kill people for a living?” It could also tease minds by asking “Why is it that the only one who seems to have a conscience in the movie is the woman? Are women more moral than men?” Science teachers should also enlighten their students about a breathtaking scene where the planet is surrounded by four moons too big and too close to be real: remember this is science fiction. Those with queasy stomachs and delicate ears are warned: bodies are impaled and guts spill out in this movie; obscenities and other unprintable words are uttered as well. Remember these characters are mercenaries, not diplomats.--TRT
Friday, July 23, 2010
The Last Airbender
ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Noah Ringer, Dev Patel, Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone, Shaun Toub; Director: M. Night Shyamalan; Producers: Frank Marshall, Sam Mercer, M. Night Shyamalan; Screenwriter: M. Bight Shyamanalan; Music: James Newton Howard; Editor: Conrad Buff IV; Genre: Action/ Adventure; Cinematography: Andrew Lesnie; Distributor: Paramount Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 103 mins.;
Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
Based on the hugely successful Nickelodeon animated TV series, the live-action feature film is set in a world where human civilization is divided into four nations: Water, Earth, Air and Fire (www.Rottentomatoes.com)
The four nations used to live in harmony until the Fire Nation launches a brutal war against the others. A century has passed with no hope in sight to change the path of this destruction. Caught between combat and courage, Aang (Noah Ringer) discovers he is the lone Avatar with the power to manipulate all four elements. Aang teams with Katara (Nicola Peltz), a Waterbender, and her brother, Sokka (Jackson Rathbone), to restore balance to their war-torn world.
OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF THE FILM: Very good visual effects but poor development of plot and shallow dialogue.
Cast: Noah Ringer, Dev Patel, Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone, Shaun Toub; Director: M. Night Shyamalan; Producers: Frank Marshall, Sam Mercer, M. Night Shyamalan; Screenwriter: M. Bight Shyamanalan; Music: James Newton Howard; Editor: Conrad Buff IV; Genre: Action/ Adventure; Cinematography: Andrew Lesnie; Distributor: Paramount Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 103 mins.;Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
Based on the hugely successful Nickelodeon animated TV series, the live-action feature film is set in a world where human civilization is divided into four nations: Water, Earth, Air and Fire (www.Rottentomatoes.com)
The four nations used to live in harmony until the Fire Nation launches a brutal war against the others. A century has passed with no hope in sight to change the path of this destruction. Caught between combat and courage, Aang (Noah Ringer) discovers he is the lone Avatar with the power to manipulate all four elements. Aang teams with Katara (Nicola Peltz), a Waterbender, and her brother, Sokka (Jackson Rathbone), to restore balance to their war-torn world.
OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF THE FILM: Very good visual effects but poor development of plot and shallow dialogue.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Inception
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao, Cilaian Murphy, Tom Berenger, Marion Cotillard, Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Caine, Lukas Haas; Director: Christopher Nolan; Producers: Christopher Nolan, Emma Thomas; Screenwriter: Christopher Nolan; Music: Hans Zimmer; Editor: Lee Smith; Genre: Suspense-Sci-Fi, Drama; Cinematography: Wally Pfister; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: US; Running Time: 148 minutes; Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) leads a team of spies/ thieves who illegally and unethically extracts the most treasured secrets of a person through intruding into their dreams using sophisticated technology. This and some details of his past, involving a dark secret about his deceased wife (Marion Cottilard), has made him a fugitive, and unable to return home to his two young children for quite a long while. So when an influential Japanese business magnate, Saito (Ken Watanabe), offers him to clean his legal records in exchange for a dangerous, nearly impossible mission, Cobb accepts. Instead of extracting, Cobb's mission would be “inception” - that is, he would plant an idea into the mind of Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), heir to a rival business which threatens Saito's empire. To be able to do this, Cobb and his team must intrude into Fischer's subconscious that lies in the deepest of his dreams. However, Cobb's professionalism is always hindered by his personal inability to control his own distracting -subconscious brought about by his dark past.
Inception is an out-of-the box spectacle that is able to exploit the limitless possibilities of visual storytelling. The premise dwells on a subject matter usually thought of as implausible for the cinema arts. At the onset, the audience is predisposed with another sci-fi flick but it turns out that Inception is more than that. There's a lot of genius at work in the story that borders in the absurd and the insane but the writer-director, Christopher Nolan, is able to synchronize all the plot elements in a cohesive whole. Things happen so fast in the film though, stories and complications of various layers pile up simultaneously which tend to make the audience breathless and sometimes, at a lost if they are unable to keep up with the film's rapid pace. DiCaprio and the rest of the cast are at their best. They make a tremendous ensemble given the demands of the film's convoluted plots, subplots and more subplots. For having pulled-off such a ridiculous, ambitious concept into a seamless, memorable cinematic experience, the Inception is more than exceptional. It is phenomenal.
In today's technological advancement and domination, everything seems possible. Eversince people have allowed technology to enter into their private spaces, they have already subjected themselves into public scrutiny. In Inception, even one's subconscious can no longer be a secret. Much worse, one's deepest secret can now be extracted and stolen just like everything else. In effect, everything is commodified. Hacking and piracy is no longer limited to ideas, computers and copyrights --- it now extends to one's secrets, even those that lie in the deepest parts of their dreams and subconscious. It is now a dangerous world indeed. There's no question that Cobb's business is illegal and unethical. Their skills and genius went a little too far and they are all aware of it. The film, with all its spectacular technical magnificence, manages to consistently put into play the rudiments of Cobb's emotional and psychological turmoil with the kind of life and livelihood he has chosen. That in itself is punishment enough. No one would ever aspire for a life filled with guilt and resentments. In the blurring of lines between fantasy and reality, there's still nothing worse than to be left in a limbo where love and meaningful relationships do not exist. Inception would make the audience look at dreams and realities in a different light. However, some scenes of violence, themes of suicide, and vulgar language (although in context) may not be suitable for viewers below 14 years of age.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Street Dance 3D
Cast: Charlotte Rampling, Patrick Baladi, Nichola Burley, Chris Wilson, Eleanor Bron; Directors: Max Giwa, Dania Pasquini; Producers: Allan Niblo, James Richardson; Screenwriter: Jane English; Editor: Tim Murrell; Genre: Drama/ Dance: Cinematography: Sam McCurdy; Distributor: Viva International Pictures; Location: UK; Running Time: 98 mins;Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
Street Dance 3D features winners from the reality show Britain’s Got Talent and heavily borrows themes from previous dance movies: competition, fusion of styles and determination. The movie begins with Carly faced with putting together her dance crew after Jay, the leader and her boyfriend, announces that he is leaving. The crew also loses their rehearsal space and is to find alternative spaces which at times prove to be insufficient. The crew dreams of winning a dance off finals and make it to New York but things look impossible without an appropriate rehearsal space. Fortunately, Carly meets Helena, a ballet instructor running her own studio with a lot of talented but passionless dancers, in one of her deliveries. She manages to invite Helena to her crew's rehearsal. Helena is impressed with the group's vibrance and offers Carly free use of the ballet studio on condition that Carly would teachstreet dance to the ballet students. The task is difficult at first as the two dance disciplines clash with each other but in the end, the ballerinas and the street dancers become friends and come up with a unique dance choreography. The plot thickens as Carly falls for Thomas, one of the ballet students, while Jay tries to get back to her.
Very seldom do we see a dance movie with a serious plot other than trying to win in a competition or pass an audition. Street Dance is not different. You’ve seen the storyline once too often that at the very first dance sequence, you already know the last one. The performances are a little too flat – a common dilemma in trying to cast real non-acting dancers. The dance disciplines are a bit type-casted. Ballet need not be stiff and snooty and street dance need not be carefree and crude. The choreography is good and entertaining but nothing really memorable that will be a signature move in the years to follow. However, Street Dance has one trick up its sleeves – the use of 3D technology. With a lot of stop-motions, intricate leaps and footwork and powerful music, the movie is very entertaining and enjoyable.
There are two important lessons one can pick up from the movie. One is determination to succeed. In life, we always have a competition to win and a goal to accomplish. The movie reminds us that along the way to success are heartaches and challenges and we need not only a strong character but also resourcefulness and flexibility. There are times you have to work with people or circumstances that are completely the opposite of what you are used to. And learning to deal with such adversities strengthens your person and improves your creativity. Another lesson deals with unity as a fruit of respect and acceptance. People need to acknowledge the beauty and brilliance of another no matter how good he or she may be in one area. Learning to do so opens people up to cooperation and collaboration, thus leading to more refined and profound output.
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
Cast: Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner, Ashley Greene, Peter Facinelli, Elizabeth Reaser, Kellan Lutz, Nikki Reed, Jackson Rathbone, Bryce Dallas Howard, Xavier Samuel; Director: David Slade; Producers: Wyck Godfrey, Greg Mooradian, Karen Rosenfelt; Screenwriters: Stephanie Meyer, Melissa Rosenberg; Music: Howard Shore; Editor: Art Jones, Nancy Richardson; Genre: Fantasy/ Romance/ Thriller; Cinematography: Javier Aguirresarobe; Distributor: Summit Entertainment; Location: Vancouver, Canada; Running Time: 124 mins;Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
The message of Eclipse
By Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS
Jacob is hot about Bella, Bella is hot about Edward, Edward is keeping his cool until he marries Bella. Champions of chastity should know how to use the movie to advance their cause.
SYNOPSIS. The police are perplexed by inexplicable disappearance of otherwise ordinary and peaceful citizens from several counties around Forks, Washington. They suspect that these people have been attacked by wolves. The truth is they’re being “recruited”. The redhead vampire Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard) and her new vampire-lover Riley (Xavier Samuel) are creating an army of “newborns”—freshly bitten humans-turned-vampires—by abducting and ambushing these mortals and sinking their fangs into their victims’ necks. Victoria wants to wipe out the Cullens and the mortal teenager Bella (Kristen Stewart) to avenge the death of her true love James. Newborns are supposedly much stronger than vampires who’ve been around for decades, thus the Cullens admit that even in number alone they are no match against the plasma-thirsty newborns. Bella’s sweetheart Edward (Robert Pattinson) and her admirer Jacob (Taylor Lautner) are left with no choice but to make a truce and combine forces to protect Bella from Victoria and her neophyte but plasma-hungry recruits.
REVIEW. Now it’s not just vampires against werewolves. It’s bad vampires against good vampires collaborating with werewolves while the inscrutable Volturi, the vampires’ ruling council, watch from the bleachers. Interesting? You bet.
The action is Eclipse’s edge over the first two movie versions of Stephanie Meyer’s saga, Twilight and New Moon. With no mean thanks to CGI (computer generated images) wolves the size of well-fed lions battle lightning-quick vampires—that’s a novelty, but there are way too many swish-pan shots and quick cuts to close ups for the viewer to clearly see how the fight progresses. You see who survives the encounter but how it happens is left to your imagination; after the initial collision between werewolf and vampire, you just see one or the other dead. (Jackie Chan offers infinitely better choreography!)
Vampire to vampire combat, however, isn’t that bad; action is sustained until one emerges as victor. One thing about this movie: the carnage is bloodless. When a werewolf is killed, you just see a dead animal, period—a slaughterhouse is definitely bloodier. Even when a vampire is decapitated, no blood flows out of the wound—just crushed ice, like that which spills out of your freezer when you clumsily empty it. (That can’t be said of Ninja movies where blood flows like a leaking fire hydrant.)
So, if only for the stylized and bloodless violence, maybe some would rate Eclipse like a cartoon—funny enough for young children—but if you examine the primary storyline, perhaps you might see it’s dangerous for teenagers. And immature adults.
The story, plain and simple, is a dime-a-dozen romance involving two males and a female. But the Meyer mythos lends the love-triangle a different coloration—one male is a vampire, the other is a werewolf and since according to the novelist vampires and werewolves are by instinct (im)mortal enemies, the rivalry between the two over the human female consequently offers more dynamic interaction than if all three belonged to species homo sapiens.
Minus the vampire-werewolf backdrop, Eclipse is but a story of lust—suppressed and unrequited lust. Putting it nicely in teen lingo, Jacob is hot about Bella, Bella is hot about Edward, Edward is keeping his cool until he marries Bella. One male teenage viewer coming out of the theater was overheard, “Puro Bella, Bella, Bella, nakaka-irita!” (It’s all about Bella, it’s irritating!) But that can’t be helped, considering that novelist Meyer’s intention is really to focus on chastity—and what better way to make chastity shine than to set it deep against a swirling mass of dark, overpowering emotions?
Bella is a self-absorbed teen-ager searching for her identity, a virgin who has fallen in love with a vampire and wants to give herself totally to him, now. But Edward is pat on his principles so he tells Bella: marry me first. Gripped by incomprehensible passions, she rejects Edward’s stand as “ancient” but hangs on to him anyway, while remaining ambivalent about Jacob, her muscular, shirtless admirer. She says she’s in love with Edward but wouldn’t let go Jacob—what a tease. Bella may be in love with Edward, but she’s also in love with the idea of being in love with a vampire, and is beguiled by the prospect of being forever 18.
What Bella doesn’t seem to realize—let alone be willing to admit—is that it is lust controlling her this time. She keeps Jacob around to boost her ego which is repeatedly bruised by Edward’s constant refusal to yield to her sexual availability. When Bella kisses Jacob in plain view of Edward, she probably has in mind, “Look, Eddie Boy, if you don’t want me, somebody else badly does!” When Edward says, “You love him (Jacob)”, and she answers “I love you more”, she could be thinking, “Yeah, Jake’s got gorgeous pecs, but yours glisten in the sun!” So, what is Bella really after?
Jacob is after Bella—has always been since Twilight, through New Moon—though it’s doubtful whether he wants Bella for her own good. Cocksure about Bella’s covert feelings for him, he’s much too wrapped up in his desires to even begin to know what Bella really wants. His consistent sales pitch to Bella is You’re-a-fool-for-wanting-him-when-I’m-better-for-you, uttered in various versions but almost always with a wolfish growl. Jacob’s smugness borders on the ridiculous when he says to Edward, “I’m hotter than you!” Yeah, we know it’s because werewolves are supposed to be warm-blooded while vampires are made of ice inside, but, Attention, please!—his close-up shot here reveals Lautner really meant it for Pattinson, not for Edward. Hot and hotter—such is the name of the showbiz game.
If Meyer’s point in her saga is upholding chastity, she uses the century-old vampire Edward to advance her cause. His decisions and actions show it, and his lines are unequivocal. Edward, despite multiple graduations from high school through the decades, still ticks with the mores of his times—when a man courted a woman, asked her father for her hand in marriage, and kept the fire in his loins under control until the wedding night. Of the three characters in the love triangle, Edward is the one who loves most selflessly, putting the welfare of his beloved above his own. As Jacob is to realize in time, Edward is a gentleman’s gentleman, willing to let Bella go should she opt to be with another man.
Before you decide whether to align yourself with Team Edward or Team Jacob, remember it’s only a movie. Engaging though it is, like a telenovela to many people, this vampiric business is still fiction. At the rate Eclipse is drawing crowds (eight out of 12 movie theaters in a popular mall is showing Eclipse, with the 2D version selling tickets at 400 pesos each), a reality check is in order. To prevent yourselves from getting carried away by this Gothic romance, ponder these silly concerns:
--If vampires are made of ice inside, does it follow that whatever they eat become frozen in there?
--If these bloodsuckers don’t bleed, what has happened to all that blood they’ve swallowed for eons?
--If vampires and werewolves can come to a truce for the sake of a loved one, does this mean there’s hope for the war freaks of our world?
--Since vampires claim being a vampire is a curse they don’t want, then why do they still defend themselves when attacked? Why not just allow themselves to be killed? Or is suicide a no-no for vampires?
--On what day of creation did God create vampires and werewolves?
--Is this movie safe for young children? Answer: Parents who let their 3-year-old watch Twilight on DVD with them were aghast when guests asked the child, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” and the kid gleefully replied, “I wanna be a vampire!”
Eclipse offers much to discuss at home or in school; church workers, take note. Fiction though it is, the fact that young people are trooping to the theaters to watch Eclipse means they resonate somehow with the movie’s content. They may identify with the characters, or recognize their own demons in the tug-of-war between the characters.
The tug-of-war is not between Jacob and Edward, but between Bella and Edward (lust and chastity), between Bella and herself (to want or to wait), and between the two brats Bella and Jacob—(I want what I want now!). The message in Eclipse is, really, “True love waits.” It is Edward’s stand. Isn’t it ironic that it should come from a vampire? Young people pay over and over again to hear that message—if champions of chastity see that as the factor behind Robert Pattinson’s instant stardom, they should know how to use it to advance their cause. Bella may have said Edward’s spiel for chastity is “ancient” without realizing she spoke the truth. The virtue is “ancient” because it has survived generations of vice; and it has survived because deep within the human heart, chastity is the desire of all ages.
(The author is Founding Board Member of the CBCP/CINEMA)
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Predators
Cast: Adriene Brody, Topher Grace, Alice Braga, Walton Goggins, Oleg Taktarov; Director: Nimrod Antal; Producers: Elizabeth Avellan, John Davis, Robert Rodriguez; Screenwrites: Alex Litvak, Michael Finch; Music: John Debney; Editor: Dan Zimmerman; Genre: Action/ Adventure/ Sci-Fi; Cinematography: Gyula Pados; Distributor: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Location: USA; Running Time: 107 min.;Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above
One by one, they drop down from the sky and into the jungle, giving the impression that they are all part of a parachuting outing gone wrong. Are they trainees in a jungle survival exercise? It seems no, because each of them is ready to kill man or beast in order to save his own neck. Soon they learn that they are all killers. They are Royce (Adriend Brody), a dyed to the wool mercenary; Isabelle (Alice Braga), an Israeli army sniper; Cuchillo (Danny Trejo), an Hispanic drug-gang enforcer; Stans (Walter Goggins), a death-row convict; Nikolai (Oleg Taktarov), a Russian Special Forces operative; an African warlord (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali); a Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien); and Edwin (Topher Grace), a mild-mannered doctor who’s the only one among them who is not a killer. With survival as their main concern, they realize it’s much better to have bad company than to be alone in such a menacing environment. And later, they discover they are on another planet, and while the vegetation closely resembles Earth’s, the animals are an entirely different matter. The truth soon dawns on them: they have been brought there in order to be hunted for sport by unknown predators.
The main hitch about attack movies such as Predators is its predictability. You are sure the lead characters will in the end prevail over their predators, so that the suspense is in guessing the order in which the others will be eliminated. Punctuating the rather slow first half hour of Predators are escapes from booby traps and metallic monsters that look like warthogs. By the middle of the movie the tension stems from the identity of the invisible hunters: who are they, and what do they want from the humans? The casting is good, lending credibility to each character; and the actors prove their respectability by giving serious performance despite the implausible plot. The steamy jungle and its strange creatures keep audience attention level high, while cinematography blends well with CGI.
Predators offers many opportunities for mixed group discussions on ethics and life values. One question to throw would be “Would you kill people for a living?” It could also tease minds by asking “Why is it that the only one who seems to have a conscience in the movie is the woman? Are women more moral than men?” Science teachers should also enlighten their students about a breathtaking scene where the planet is surrounded by four moons too big and too close to be real: remember this is science fiction. Those with queasy stomachs and delicate ears are warned: bodies are impaled and guts spill out in this movie; obscenities and other unprintable words are uttered as well. Remember these characters are mercenaries, not diplomats.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Toy Story 3
Cast: (Voice only) Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Don Rickles, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Estelle Harris, Michael Keaton; Director: Lee Unkrich; Producers: ; Screenwriters: Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich; Genre: Animation/ Comedy/ Adventure: Distributor: Pixar/ Walt Disney; Running Time: 102 mins;Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewrs age 13 and below with parental guidance
Andy, the owner of the toys is now grown-up and is leaving for college. His mother asked him to sort his things and decide which goes to the boxes labeled ‘college’, ‘attic’, ‘donation’ or the garbage bag. This is such a heart-wrenching moment for his toys that have not been played for a long time and have been kept in the toy chest for years. Andy decides to put Woody in the box “going to college” while his other toy friends are put in a trash bag but Andy intends to put them at the attic. His choice of container leads to a near rendezvous of the toys to the garbage truck. Afraid that they may end up in the landfill, the toys managed to climb back and decide to go to the ‘donation’ box headed to a day care center. Woody knows the garbage truck incident was a mistake and he tries to convince them to come back home. The group did not believe Woody and they find themselves in the day care center and welcomed by a strawberry scented bear named Lotso. They are convinced that they have found their new home in the day care center and are assured by Lotso that they will be played there. Woody is still not convinced so they decided to part ways. Woody later on learns that Lotso is not the friendly teddy bear he appears to be and his toy friends are now in danger.
Toy Story 3 could be the most anticipated family movie of the year. Being the third installment of a successful franchise, it has to at least be at par with its earlier versions or better. And it never failed in this respect. The creators of the movie managed to thicken the plot with its new premise and additional villain characters which are far more evil-like and frightening than the previous villains in earlier movies, making Toy Story 3 the darkest film of the franchise. This time, the fun and laughs are lesser, but the sentiments are more or less the same. The movie is still as imaginative and the “great escape” adventure of the toy characters is very engaging. The voice actors are great as they have always been. All in all, Toy Story 3 remains to be both fun and heart-warming experience that brings out the child in all of its audience no matter what age.
The Toy Story has been working on its original premise, what if toys are like humans with feelings and emotions. This makes the children, and even the child-at-heart, appreciate all things around, both living and non-living, especially those that make them happy however temporary. The film successfully conveys this idea and achieves such effect to a great extent. For most times, audiences forget that they are actually watching toys. In the movie, toys are actually more human than other humans. How does it really feel to be abandoned? Or left alone? Or betrayed? It is almost always easier to escape and evade but the toys in the story has taught its audience loyalty, courage, perseverance and far more importantly, hope. Against all odds, they stick together and their friendship and camaraderie make them survive any ordeal, making things work for them in the process including a peaceful turnover, a meaningful goodbye and a sentimental letting go. The evil ones get their punishment and the good ones are rewarded. However, the ‘prison break’ and ‘great escape’ plots and some degree of violence in the movie may be a bit dark for the very young so CINEMA recommends that parents supervise their children below 13 years old while watching.
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Karate Kid
ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan, Taraji P. Henson, Wenwen Han, Shenwei Wang; Director: Harald Zwart; Producers: Will Smith, Jada Pinkett Smith, Ken Stovitz, Jerry Weintraub, James Lassiter; Screenwriter: Christopher Murphey; Genre: Action/Drama/Family/Sport: Cinematography: Rodger Pratt; Distributor: Columbia Pictures; Location: USA/ China; Running Time: 140 mins;
Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) is a 12-year old living in Detroit, USA when his mother Sherry (Traraji P. Henson) gets a job in China. Once in China, Dre misses home and wants to go back to the USA. His mother tells him that China is home now, and he must learn to accept his new home. Dre begins to like China when he falls for his classmate Mei Ying (Wenwen Han). Dre’s feelings for Mei Ying are seen by Cheng (Shenwei Wang) the class bully who is out to stop it. Cheng puts Dre to the ground with ease using his Kung Fu training. Dre doesn’t have a chance of using the little karate that he knows, and Cheng proves it the next time he sees Dre. Dre is getting beaten badly when Mr. Han (Jackie Chan) the maintenance man, secretly a Kung Fu Master, stops the fight. Dre persuades Mr. Han to teach him Kung Fu. With this knowledge, Dre must now face down Cheng in a fight to win his respect in a Kung Fu tournament.
Cast: Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan, Taraji P. Henson, Wenwen Han, Shenwei Wang; Director: Harald Zwart; Producers: Will Smith, Jada Pinkett Smith, Ken Stovitz, Jerry Weintraub, James Lassiter; Screenwriter: Christopher Murphey; Genre: Action/Drama/Family/Sport: Cinematography: Rodger Pratt; Distributor: Columbia Pictures; Location: USA/ China; Running Time: 140 mins;Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance
BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS
Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) is a 12-year old living in Detroit, USA when his mother Sherry (Traraji P. Henson) gets a job in China. Once in China, Dre misses home and wants to go back to the USA. His mother tells him that China is home now, and he must learn to accept his new home. Dre begins to like China when he falls for his classmate Mei Ying (Wenwen Han). Dre’s feelings for Mei Ying are seen by Cheng (Shenwei Wang) the class bully who is out to stop it. Cheng puts Dre to the ground with ease using his Kung Fu training. Dre doesn’t have a chance of using the little karate that he knows, and Cheng proves it the next time he sees Dre. Dre is getting beaten badly when Mr. Han (Jackie Chan) the maintenance man, secretly a Kung Fu Master, stops the fight. Dre persuades Mr. Han to teach him Kung Fu. With this knowledge, Dre must now face down Cheng in a fight to win his respect in a Kung Fu tournament.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)