Eat Pray Love

A review by Peter Malone

For the many readers who liked Elizabeth Gilbert’s book, they will know that the title refers to the twelve months that the writer took out of her life to take stock, enjoy and marvel at the world, and to come kind of self-forgiveness and acceptance. She spent four months in Rome (eat), four months in India (pray) and four months in Bali (love). For those who did not read the book, the film is an opportunity for them to accompany Liz on her geographical, psychological and spiritual journey.

What makes the film easier for many audiences is the fact that Julia Roberts plays Liz Gilbert. Twenty years ago, she was the glamorous Pretty Woman. Ten years ago, she was the feisty saviour of victims, Erin Brockovich. Now she offers a character for women in mid-life who want to take an initiative to discover their better selves. Julia Roberts, looks beautiful at all times, but harried at first, becoming more radiant and then, without make up, her older, even plainer, self. Though we are conscious that it is Julia Roberts we are watching, she does transform herself into Elisabeth Gilbert making the journey credible.

Though the film is long, the first episodes are rather hurried, too hurried to really grasp the personalities of her husband who loves her (Billy Crudup) but whom she divorces, of her younger, actor partner (James Franco). We get glimpses (and during the journey some flashbacks) of the relationships and why they failed. Viola Davis is solid as her best friend.

Then the film settles down to indulge us with the vistas of Rome and plenty of food, glorious food, Italian-style. With good friends and learning the difference between entertainment and real pleasure (Italians pointing out that this is a mistake that busy Americans make), Liz puts on the kilos with happy abandon. And, then she is in India.

At the ashram in India, Liz assumes the dress styles, the rituals, the manual work of service (yes, that is Julia Roberts scrubbing floors), the silences, the hospitality and the meditative space that leads her to a conclusion that ‘God is within me, as me’, a reflection worth some more reflection. The film captures the colours of India, even at a wedding, and should entice happy visitors to Italy to take a second look at their affluent world in comparison with the poverty and hardships of India.

There is a standout sequence in the Indian episode, a clip that could stand alone for use in seminars on alcoholism and self-improvement. The writing of the film takes off and is brought to dramatic power by the performance of Richard Jenkins.

What do you do when you have purged yourself of some spiritual ailments? Go to Bali, seek the help of a wise man and some alternative healing – and allow yourself to fall in love. That requires inner freedom, an acknowledgement of past failures but, most importantly, discovering self-forgiveness. In the beauty of Bali and with Javier Bardem on hand, it is, after many difficulties, possible.

The trouble with Eat Pray Love is that one wants to respond to the character and how she handles her journey rather than sit back and accept the film and Liz Gilbert. This is very much a First World story, the aftermath of New Age fashions and the discovery of Eastern mystic practices if not Eastern religion. Very few (very few) women can take the time, let alone afford the time and expenses for such a journey. This is the spiritual trek of a wealthy woman. While holiday and break are necessary, and Liz is introduced to some mysticism and asceticism in India, we ask, ‘to what purpose?’. By the time she has come to terms with herself and found love, we wonder what the moral bases of her life consist of, what is the nature of her integrity and the tension between some absolutes she has discovered and the relative importance of principles to be held on to or discarded.

Many men in the audience have found sharing this journey a tedious movie experience. Many women will be encouraged to follow Elizabeth Gilbert in her search in as much as their means allow them. Her story, book and film, is at least an attempt, in a pluralist world that has become even more pluralist, to attempt a search for life values.

CINEMA RATING: Technical: 3 Moral: 2.5 R 14

White House

Cast: Gabby Concepcion, Iza Calzado, Joem Gascon, Lovi Poe, Angel Jacob, Maricar Reyes; Director: Topel Lee; Screenplay: Lamberto Casas, Jr; Running Time:100 minutes; Location: Baguio; Genre: Horror

Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 2.5
Rating: For Viewers 14 years old and above

Isang kilalang ispiritista si Jet Castillo (Gabby Concepcion) na aalukin ng trabaho ng isang malaking estasyon ng telebisyon na gagawa ng isang “horror reality show” kung saan ang mga kalahok ay ikukulong sa isang haunted house at ang makakatagal ng tatlong araw ay mag-uuwi ng isang milyon. Pinuntahan ni Jet ang sinasabing haunted house sa Baguio na kilala bilang white house. May mararamdaman siyang di kanais-nais- mayroong nagmumulto sa bahay na nagbabadya ng panganib dahil maaari itong makapanakit. Tatanggihan ni Jet ang trabaho at pagsasabihan ang executive producer (Maricar Reyes) na huwag nang ituloy ang programa. Ngunit magiging mapilit ito at itutuloy ang pagpapa-audition sa mga nais maging kalahok. Samantala, ang nag-iisang anak na babae ni Jet ay magkakaroon ng kakaibang karamdaman. Mapagtatanto niyang kinuha ng isang masamang espiritu ang kaluluwa ng kanyang anak. Dahil ang hinala niya ay isa itong espritu mula sa white house, kakailanganin niyang bumalik doon upang mabawi ang kaluluwa ng anak. At dahil wala siyang oras na dapat sayangin, masasabay ang paghahanap niya sa espiritu sa pagsho-shooting ng reality horror show. Dito masasaksihan nilang lahat ang malalagim na pambibiktima ng multong tinatawag na black lady (Iza Calzado).

Sinubok ng White House na magpakita ng kakaibang pelikulang katatakutan sa pamamagitan ng paghahalo ng tinatawag na reality TV show na usong-uso sa panahong ito. Nakakaintrigang panoorin ang pelikula dahil dito. Dagdag pa diyan na pinagbibidahan ito ng mga kilala at respetadong mga artista sa industriya. Ngunit sa simula pa lang ng pelikula ay pawang magiging malaking pagsisisi ang panonood nito. Karamihan sa mga sitwasyon na kinahantungan ng mga tauhan sa kuwento ay pawang bunga ng kani-kanilang katangahan at kabalintunaan. Lahat ng ninais ng pelikulang iparating sa manonood ay bigo. Bigo itong magtanim ng takot at misteryo sa manonood.. Nakabulatlat antimano ang anumang nais itago ng pelikula kung kaya’t wala na itong gulat sa bandang huli. Maganda sana ang mga special effects na mukha namang pinagbuhusan ng talino ngunit dahil palpak ang pagkukuwento, ay pumalpak nang todo ang pelikula sa kabuuan. Mababaw ang karakterisasyon ng mga tauhan na hindi man lamang pinalawig, tuloy, walang kakampihan o kakaawaan man lang ang manonood. Marami pa sanang pwedeng iganda ang pelikula ngunit sinayang nila ang pagkakataong ito. Marahil nagkulang sila oras sa paghahabol na maipalabas ito sa panahon ng Undas.

May ilang malilinaw na puntong nais sabihin ang White House sa kabila ng kakulangan nitong teknikal. Una ay ang dalisay na pagmamahal ng isang ama sa kanyang anak na gagawin ang lahat, susuungin ang panganib mailigtas lamang ang anak sa kapahamakan. Ganyan ang ipinakita sa katauhan ni Jet. Pangalawang ipinakita sa pelikula ang pagsasalarawan ng kung paanong ang mass media ay ginagamit at pinagkakakitaan ang kasawian ng iba. Ipinakita ring pinarurusahan ang sinumang naglalagay sa buhay ng tao sa alanganin maging ito man ay isang taong may mataas na katungkulan. Pangatlo ay pinaigting ng pelikula ang kapangyarihan ng kabutihan laban sa kasamaan. Naging matagumpay man si ‘black lady” sa simula ay hindi pa rin ito nanaig sa bandang huli. Yun nga lang, marami nang buhay ang nasayang at nawala nang ganun-ganun na lamang. May mangilan-ngilan lamang tanong at nakakabahala sa kuwento. Tulad halimbawa ng hindi paglilinaw kung bakit ganoon na lamang kasama ang tinaguriang “black lady”. Saan nanggagaling ang kanyang poot at galit? Tila yata hindi ito masyadong napalawig sa pelikula. Pinalabas na sadya lamang siyang masama at may makitid na pag-iisip. O marahil, may diprensiya siya sa pag-iisip? Maging yun ay hindi malinaw. Hindi rin maganda ang mga ipinakitang larawan ng kababaihan sa pelikula. Ang isa ay kaladkarin, ang isa nama’y ubod ng hina, at ang isa nama’y labis ang kasamaan. Ang karamihan sa mga tauhan sa pelikula ay isteryotipikal. Ang lalaking bida naman ay tila lumalabas na bayani at tagapag-sagip. Hindi rin gaanong ipinakita ang kalakasan ng pagdarasal sa pelikula dahil hinayaan nitong maraming buhay ang mawala. Para bang walang silbi ang mga dasal at orasyon laban sa masamang espiritu. Hindi napalawig ang kapangyarihang taglay ng panalangin sa kabuuan ng pelikula. May mga ilang eksesan pang nakababahala tulad ng lantarang pagtatalik sa labas ng kasal isinasapubliko pa sa kamera, at paggamit ng ipinagbabawal na gamot na pinalabas na katawa-tawang gawain sa halip na ipakitang ito ay masama. --By Rizalino R. Pinlac, Jr.

Life as we know it

CAST: Katherine Heigle, Josh Duhamel, Josh Lucas, Christina Hendricks, Hayes MacArthur, Jean Smart, Melissa McCarthy, Majandra Delfino, Faizon Love, Will Sasso. DIRECTOR: Greg Berlanti. WRITERS: Ian Deitchman, Kristin Rusk Robinson GENRE: Comedy-Drama. RUNNING TIME: 115 minutes. LOCATION: United States. DISTRIBUTOR: Warner Bros.

CBCP-CINEMA Ratings: TECHNICAL: 3 MORAL: 2.5
R 14 (For viewers aged 14 and above)

Holly Berenson (Katherine Heigl) is an up-and-coming caterer and Eric Messer (Josh Duhamel) is an aspiring network sports director. After a disastrous first (blind) date arranged by their best friends Peter and Alison Novack (Hayes MacArthur and Christina Hendricks) the only thing they have in common in their dislike for each other and their love for their goddaughter Sophie, the child of Peter and Alison. When Sophie’s parents die in a car accident, Holly and Messer find themselves the unwilling surrogate parents as stated in the Novacks’ will. Messer and Holly are oil and water forced to live under the same roof in raising a child not their own. When they realize Sophie is an orphan and has nobody else in the world, they agree to put aside their differences. Parenting is done in earnest as Holly and Messer juggle career ambitions and competing social calendars to honor their best friends’ wish. (Warner Bros.)

Fans of Katherine Heigl will love this movie—besides being easy on the eyes, Heigl has good comic timing, which explains why she is so much in demand for rom-coms. It’s good to remember that Life As We Know It is a romantic comedy, a genre that may include the facts of life and living but which also may capitalize on these facts as props to justify the improbable plot. The most factual thing about this movie is its portrayal of details where it concerns the experience of sharing a home with a baby: the sleepless nights, poop-and-vomit management, feeding time tantrums, and god-knows-what-other tragedies that can be caused by an unattended toddler.

Like most rom-coms, Life As We Know It comes across as formulaic and in many instances may feel like an expanded television 30-minuter; but unlike most rom-coms, it is premised on love for others, concern for the helpless, trust and loyalty among friends, and goodwill of neighbors. Points for reflection are: 1) having to care for a baby when one is not prepared for it, and 2) what a shared experience of raising an orphan can do to erstwhile enemies. While being surrogate parents to a toddler helps them mature as persons, proximity accelerates physical intimacy between the pair, leading them to skip courtship—which is what happens in so many Hollywood movies, when boy and girl bed even before they get to know each other’s name. Despite the laughs and the artifice, Life As We Know It may still move you to be involved—especially as Sophie begins to call her surrogate mother “mama”—to be concerned about the future of so many Sophies in our midst.--Teresa R. Tunay

The Town

CAST: Ben Affleck, Rebecca Hall, Jeremy Renner, Blake Lively, Pete Postlethwaite, Chris Cooper. DIRECTOR: Ben Affleck. SCREENPLAY: Ben Affleck, Peter Craig and Aaron Stockard, based on the novel “Prince of Thieves” by Chuck Hogan. CINEMATOGRAPHY: Robert Elswit. MUSIC: David Buckley, Harry Gregson-Williams. GENRE: Drama-thriller. RUNNING TIME: 124 minutes. LOCATION: United States. DISTRIBUTOR: Warner Bros.

CBCP-CINEMA ratings: TECHNICAL: 3.5 MORAL: 2.5 R 18 (Restricted to viewers aged 18 and above)

Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck) is an unrepentant criminal, the de facto leader of a group of ruthless bank robbers who pride themselves in stealing what they want and getting out clean. With no real attachments, Doug never has to fear losing anyone close to him. But, that all changes on the gang's latest job, when they briefly take a hostage, bank manager, Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall). They let her go unharmed, but sometime later she meets an unassuming and rather charming man named Doug... not realizing that he is the same man who only days earlier had terrorized her. The instant attraction between them gradually turns into a passionate romance that threatens to take them both down a dangerous, and potentially deadly, path. (Warner Bros).

Director and co-writer Affleck's screen version of Chuck Hogan's 2004 novel "Prince of Thieves" is meant to be a serious film , yet it is able to cater to the crowd that finds thrills in car chases and bloody bank heists. The story is clear and is enhanced by good direction and tight editing. Cinematography is well-conceived, imbuing a sense of urgency and tension to high- action footage and an intimate feel to close ups that capture the depth of each character’s portrayal. Casting couldn’t have been better, as proven by the flawless acting of the lead characters. Affleck has done a good directing job in that he is able to pull together otherwise ordinary elements into a fresh, cohesive whole.

Can a man commit crimes with impunity and still love anyone else but himself? Can a lifetime of violence be reversed by an uttered intention to change? It seems a tribute to the good in man that one who has been brought up in violence and crime—inheriting his bank-robbing “career” from his father as part of a warped but accepted cultural tradition, much like in the olden days when fathers and grandfathers molded their progeny to their trade—still has a modicum of human goodness in him to resolve to turn his back on evil and take the road to decency. But the will to change is tested and tried through time. There are people who have been killed, abused, betrayed and denied—may the offender simply dispose of them in the new world he wants to create? In this film, time and the future are left to the viewer. Nonetheless, The Town gains merits in painfully trying to depict the effect of the “sins of our fathers” on us and in giving hope to those who yearn for a better world. A sensitive and morally weighty film, but its theme won’t interest young teens, and its well-intended message may be missed, if not misconstrued, by immature viewers.-By Teresa R. Tunay

Petrang Kabayo

Cast: Vice Ganda, Eugene Domingo, Luis Manzano, Candy Pangilinan, Gloria Romero, John Arcilla; Director: Wenn Deramas; Screenplay: Mel-Mendoza Del-Rosario ; Producer-Distributor: Viva Films; Running Time:120 minutes; Location: Manila; Genre: Comedy

Technical Assessment: 3 Moral Assessment: 3
Rating: For viewers ages 13 and below with parental guidance

Nakaranas ng malabis na kalupitan si Peter (Vice Ganda) sa kamay ng kanyang ama (John Arcilla) nung siya’y bata pa.Dahilan upang siya’y maglayas. Mabuti na lamang at natagpuan siya ng isang haciendera (Eugene Domingo) na kinupkop siya at itinuring na sariling anak. Subalit lalaking malupit si Peter sa mga tao man o hayop lalo na sa mga kabayo dahil na rin sa dinanas niyang hirap sa kanyang ama na ginawa siyang panghalili sa kabayo sa kalesa nito. Nang mamatay ang itinuring na ina at ipinamana sa kanya ang hacienda, lalong naging malupit si Peter sa mga tauhan nila. Dahil sa malabis na kalupitang ito ni Peter sa mga hayop ay isusumpa siya ng diyosa ng mga kabayo na sa tuwing siya ay magagalit o magmamalupit sa hayop man o tao ay magiging isang kabayo siya kung kaya’t siya'y magiging si Petrang Kabayo. Magawa kaya ni Peter na magbago dala ng sumpang ito?

Bagama’t hindi maiiwasang maihambing ang Petrang Kabayo na ito sa orihinal na bersyon ni Roderick Paulate noon, masasabi namang nagawa ng pelikulang punuan ang inaasahan ng manonood na maaliw. Salamat sa napakahusay na pagganap ni Ganda bilang Petrang Kabayo at nagawa nitong palutangin ang katatawanan sa kabila ng mangilan-ngilang kabagalan ng pelikula sa pagkukuwento. Dahil kay Ganda, nabigyang buhay ang kabuuan ng tauhan at kuwento ni Petrang Kabayo. Pawang mahuhusay din naman ang kanyang mga kasamang tauhan ngunit dahil siya ang bida at ito ang kauna-unahan niyang pagbibida sa pelikula, ay malaki ang inaasahan sa kanya. Nagampanan naman niya ng buong husay ito at walang humpay sa kakatawa ang mga manonood. Ang sunod na lamang sigurong aabangan ay kung makaya pa kaya niyang masundan o mahigitan ang nagawa niya sa Petrang Kabayo. Hindi kaya maglaon ay maumay rin ang manonood sa kanya at sa kanyang mga patawa?

Maganda ang pangunahing mensahe ng pelikula ukol sa pakikipag-kapwa tao at pakikitungo sa iba pang nilalang ng Diyos tulad ng hayop, na sa pelikula ay naka-sentro sa kabayo. Ang hayop, tulad ng tao ay dapat ding inaaruga, pinagmamalasakitan at binubusog ng pagmamahal. Inakala ni Peter sa simula na makatarungan ang kanyang pagiging malupit , gawa ng mga naranasan niyang kalupitan mula sa ama, ngunit nagkamali siya at natauhan din naman sa bandang huli na hindi ito nararapat. Napagtanto din niyang sa kabila ng lahat ng kalupitan at kasamaang dinanas sa ama ay pawang kabutihan naman ang ginawa sa kanya ng nag-ampon sa kanya. Matagal bago naghilom ang sugat ni Peter na siya sigurong magiging tanong ng mga manonood. Una, bakit ang tagal pa rin naalis ng poot sa kanyang puso gayong nagkaroon na siya ng magandang buhay? Pangalawa, kinakailangan pa bang magkasakit ang isang tao upang siya ay magbago? Pangatlo, bakit naging mahirap kay Peter na maging mabuti sa mga taong hindi naman naging malupit sa kanya? May ilan pa ring diskriminasyon sa pelikula sa mga itinuturing na pangit at maging sa mga bakla bagama’t ito ang pangunahing tauhan. Hindi rin naging malinaw kung paanong si Peter ay lumaking bakla. Dahil nga ba ito sa pagmamalupit ng kanyang ama? Bunga ng impluwensiya? Sinasabi bang ito ay nangyayari na lamang at hindi ginugusto ninuman? (O ginawa ba lamang bakla ang bida dahil mas nakakatawa ito kaysa kung ang gaganap na Peter ay si Cesar Montano, halimbawa, o kahit si Vhong Navarro?) Hindi naman ito pinalawig ng pelikula pero kahanga-hanga pa rin ang ipinapahiwatig nitong mensahe ukol sa pantay-pantay na pagtingin sa tao: mayaman man o mahirap, maganda man o pangit, ano pa man ang kasarian. –Ni RizalinoR. Pinlac, Jr.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

CAST: Michael Douglas, Shia LeBeouf, Carey Mulligan, Josh Brolin, Frank Langella, Susan Sarandon. DIRECTOR: Oliver Stone. GENRE: Drama. WRITERS: Allan Loeb and Stephen Schiff, based on characters created by Stanley Weiser and Stone. RUNNING TIME: 130 minutes. LOCATION: United States. PRODUCTION: 20th Century-Fox

CINEMA Ratings: TECHNICAL: 3 MORAL: 3 For viewers 14 and above.

Imprisoned for stuffing his pockets while bankrupting his firm, Wall Street trader Gordon “Greed is Good” Gekko (Michael Douglas) is released from behind bars in 2001. Seven years later, he’s the author of “Is Greed Good?” and is back in the limelight as a lecturer to the business community. In one of his lectures promoting his book, he meets up and coming trader Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf) who catches his attention only when he introduces himself as being in love with Gekko’s daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan). Winnie hasn’t spoken to her father for years since the death of her brother which he blames on him. Gekko sees in the young man a way to reconcile with his daughter. Winnie remains distrustful, but Jake is convinced of Gekko’s repentance and sincere concern for Winnie’s future.

Gordon Gekko is definitely the most colorful character in the movie, played with convincing abandon by Douglas. Indeed, the most interesting footages in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps are those with Douglas in them. Frank Langella also plays a brief but memorable role as Jake’s mentor Louis Zabel who finds an instant solution to the dire financial state he is in. LeBeouf perhaps looks too wholesome to be credible as an ambitious young man—there’s not enough glimmer of covetousness in his pretty boy looks, but that’s more casting’s fault than his. Mulligan does her role in earnest, and while she’s crying half of the time, she does her best to project the anguish and firmness of her character. Despite a somewhat routine dialogue, it’s a good movie, actually—fast paced, informative in a way, appeals to both intelligence and emotions, and provides a twist towards the end that shifts the story’s center to an unexpected axis.

Not only is Gordon Gekko the most colorful character in this movie; he is also its moral center. He is the repentant sinner upon his release from federal prison, a remorseful father who has realized what he has missed in those long years, but when an opportunity presents itself, he drools and backslides like any other money-monger whose motto is “In Greed We Trust”. How does Gordon Gekko end up? We’re not about to spoil your fun—suffice it to say that the conclusion is a home run for pro-lifers.

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

Technical: 3.5
Moral: 3
Rating: PG 13 (Aged 13 and below with parental guidance).

Brothers Soren and Kludd may look the same outside but inside these barn owlets are worlds apart. Soren (voiced by Jim Sturgess) won’t get tired of the bedtime story their father tells about the Guardians of Ga’Hoole, a noble band of warriors who vanquished the evil army named the “Pure Ones”. For Kludd (voiced by Ryan Kwanten), however, such are silly stories only daydreamers like his brother could buy.
Sneaking out of the family nest one night to try their wings at “flying”, barn owlets Soren and Kludd tumble off a branch to the ground. But before they are captured by a hungry wild boar, they are swooped away in the talons of huge mean-looking owls. Their captors turn out to be the minions of the Pure Ones who run an “orphanage”—in reality a training camp that brainwashes abducted owlets to serve their wicked purposes.

Aware of their captors’ nefarious activities to annihilate the owls of the “lesser species” (meaning those outside of the Pure Ones’ dominion) but deceived by the promises of their evil Queen Nyra (voiced by Helen Mirren), Kludd accepts to be a future soldier while Soren is sent to the camp’s slave labor area when he defends a tiny elf owl Gylfie (voiced by Emily Barclay). Soren and Gylfie think the owldom must be warned of the Pure Ones’plan to wipe them out, but who will escape the camp to do it? An old warrior from the ranks of the Pure Ones, Grimble (voiced by Geoffrey Rush) trains the young pair to fly so that they may one day escape the camp and warn the unsuspecting owls.

Directed by Zack Snyder and brought to the screen by Animal Logic, the same studio that made that penguin movie, Happy Feet, this owl film is definitely something worth hooting about. It’s a visual treat, right from the start. The animators certainly created a magical world—forest, sea, sky—that one could only wish to be real in its majesty and beauty.

This is one time you’ll forget about those plastic 3D glasses you’re wearing as you note the fine details, colors and textures that the film is never short of: the subtle lighting shifts on the owls’ feathers ruffling in the breeze, on the scenic backdrops of sea or storm, on Soren’s flight through a nasty funnel cloud, or on the clouds made translucent by their gliding across the sun. Such gorgeous photo-realism takes Legend of the Guardians several notches higher than even the better animation films so far made, especially with the impressive rendering of the owls’ eyes.

From childhood we know that owls, with their wide, intelligent looking eyes, have traditionally symbolized wisdom, but being nocturnal, they can hardly be scrutinized at the zoos, so we have never really seen how they move their eyes. But now, Legend of the Guardians gives us owls with eyes as expressive as humans’. We know a bit about CGI and how difficult artists find it to capture the eyes in animation, but here we have owls’ eyes so realistically conveying human emotions about equally human concerns, like their family’s future or vanquishing evil, that we could come to think they’re not really owls, much less animated owls, but actually human beings in owls’ clothing!

Preposterous though that may sound, Legend of the Guardians depicts laudable ideals and most assuredly delivers a message on the human condition. Perhaps the story and the script are rather familiar to adults, but to preteens in search of heroes a tale of bravery like this would be uplifting, inspiring us to self-confidently keep our head and heart in the right place in the face of adversity.

The movie is definitely worth a peek for viewers of all ages, but please keep the younger children (below primary school age) and nervous 10-year olds out of the audience. Although it’s a worthy story about the quest toward self-awareness, the dark story is generously spiked with intense situations, and startling fierce encounters between good and bad owls—the stuff nightmares are made of.

You’d never think that owls would be concerned with heroism, honor, adventure, peace, legends, power, family, orphans and class distinction but Legend of the Guardians says they are, indeed. Well, as we have said, these owls to us feel like humans. The only thing that will probably jolt you out of this “humanowled” world is the warriors’ intricately crafted combat masks. Appreciating the craftsmanship you’d think, “Gee, how could owls make such exquisite metal masks?” Then you’ll realize: it’s only a movie! --By Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS

I do

Cast: Erich Gonzalez, Enchong Dee, Dennis Padilla, Pokwang, Isay Alvarez ; Director: Veronica Velasco; Producer: Malu Santos; Screenwriter: Veronica Velasco; Distributor: Star Cinema; Genre: Comedy/ Drama; Location: Manila; Running Time: 100 minutes
Cast: Steve Time: 88

Technical: 3 Moral: 2.5 Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Si Yumi (Erich Gonzalez) ay naniniwala sa kapalaran at nangangarap na balang araw ay makikilala niya ang kanyang Prince Charming at sila’y ikakasal sa kanyang dream wedding. Nang makilala niya si Lance (Enchong Dee), aakalain niyang ito na ang kanyang hinihintay. Magiging mabilis ang pangyayari sa kanilang dalawa at makalipas lamang ang ilang buwan ay magugulat na lamang si Yumi na siya ay nabuntis na pala. Sa takot ni Yumi sa kanyang pamilya ay agad niyang niyaya si Lance na magpakasal kahit hindi pa ito handa, bukod sa hindi rin matanggap ng pamilya ni Lance na ikakasal ito sa isang hindi nila katulad na Tsino. Magiging malabis ang kalituhan ni Lance at hindi nito itutuloy ang pagpapakasal kay Yumi. Maraming beses silang mag-uurong-sulong sa pagpapakasal dala ng maraming aberya, pati ang komplikasyon sa kani-kanilang pamilya, damay na rin ang kanilang anak. Matupad pa nga kaya ang inaasam ni Yuming dream wedding?

Bagama’t kung tutuusin ay gasgas na ang kwento ng I do, nagawa nitong bigyan ng bagong bihis ang tila palasak nang konsepto. Maraming nakakaaliw na eksena na binigyang buhay at kulay ng mga batikang komedyante at aktor. Ang mga bida naman, bagama’t halatang mga pa-cute pa ay nagawa namang umarte sa mga eksenang kinakailangan at sadyang ibinagay sa kanila ang kani-kaniyang papel. Pero nagkulang pa rin sa hagod ang pelikula. Bukod sa kakulangan ng hagod ang pag-arte ng mga pangunahing tauhan lalo na si Dee, kulang din sa lalim ang kabuuang pagkukuwento ng pelikula. Hindi gaanong napalalim ang mga tunay na isyung dapat tinalakay. Sa halip, nasobrahan ng pagkaka-sentro sa kasalan ang kwento, kaya’t halos mawalan na ito ng saysay. Maaring ito rin ang gustong palabasin ng pelikula sa kabuuan ngunit nabigo ito dahil sa mahinang pundasyon ng kuwento. Sa kabuuan tuloy ay madali ring makakalimutan ang pelikulang ito.

Ang kuwento ng mga kabataang mapupusok na nauuwi sa di-inaasahang pagbubuntis ay palasak na rin sa lipunan. Isa itong problemang dapat pagtuunan ng pansin at hindi magkakaroon ng solusyon kung dadaanin na lamang sa tawa. Ito ang ginawa ng I Do – ang gawing katatawanan ang isang napakaseryoso, at maging mga sagradong sitwasyon. Walang nakakatawa sa maagang pagbubuntis nang wala pang kasalan. Magiging sanhi ito ng marami pang komplikasyon na dapat sanang ipinakita sa pelikula upang maging halimbawa sa mga kabataang manonood. Oo nga’t mabigat na ang buhay at hindi na dapat lalo pang pabigatin ngunit sa ginawang pagpapagaan ng I Do sa sitwasyon ay lalo itong naging nakakabahala. Wala ngang matinding halikan o hubaran na ipinakita ngunit ang pagkauwi ng isang bubot na relasyon sa pagbubuntis ay hindi dapat ipinagsa-walang bahal ng perlikula. Wala man lang matapat na pagsisisi mula sa sinumang tauhan. Bagkus, nakatuon pa rin ang babaeng tauhan sa maraming ilusyon— ilusyon ng pag-ibig at pagpapakasal. Hindi dahil sa isa itong mahalagang sakramento kundi dahil, isa itong magandang palabas. Hanggang sa huli’y parang hindi naman nabago ang pagtingin na ito. Para bang ninais pa nitong sabihin na, basta’t mahal mo’y, yun na. Hindi isina-alang-alang ang kahalagahan ng sakramento at ang malalim na inspirasyong kaugnay dito. Sa malaking bahagi ng pelikula, naging insidental at tila palamuti na lamang ang naging anak ng dalawang tauhan. Kahit paano mo ito tingnan, ito’y isang kamalian. --By Rizalino Pinlac, Jr.

Charlie St. Cloud

GENERAL INFORMATION

LEAD CAST: Zac Efron, Amanda Crew, Charlie Tahan, Augustus Prew, Donal Logue, Kim Basinger, Ray Liotta DIRECTOR: Burr Steers SCREENWRITER: Craig Pearce, Lewis Colick PRODUCER: Marc Platt GENRE: Drama RUNNING TIME: 109 minutes DISTRIBUTOR: Universal Pictures LOCATION: New England, USA

Technical: 4 Moral: 3 For viewers 14 years and above

Overcome by grief at the death of his younger brother, Charlie St. Cloud takes a job as caretaker of the cemetery in which his brother is buried. Charlie has a gift and special bond with his brother (Sam) whom he can see. Charlie meets up with his deceased brother each night to play catch and talk, but when a girl walks into Charlie’s life, he must choose between keeping his promise to Sam, or going after the girl he loves. The movie presents life after death in a realistic way: the dead are still alive though in a different form.

Muli

Cast: Sid Lucero, Cogie Domingo, Rocky Salumbides; Director: Adolf Alix, Jr. Screenplay: Jerry Gracio; Running Time:100 minutes; Location: Baguio; Genre: Drama/ Adult

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 1
Rating: For Viewers 18 years old and above



Magsisimula ang kuwento nang dekada 70. Pagkalabas ng seminaryo, si Jun (Sid Lucero) na ang namahala ng kanilang inn at humalili sa yumao niyang ina. Mahihikayat si Jun na sumali sa isang komunistang kilusan na naghahangad ng pagbabago mula sa diktadurya, at dito ay magkakaroon siya ng relasyon sa kapwa lalaki nilang lider. Sa kasamaang palad ay masasawi ang kasintahan niyang ito at ibubunton sa kanya ang sisi kung kaya’t siya’y ilalaglag ng samahan. Makikilala naman niya ang abugadong si Errol (Cogie Domingo). Magsisimula sila sa kaswal na pagkakaibigan na hahantong sa isang sekswal na relasyon. Lilipas ang panahon at makakapag-asawa si Errol at magkakaroon ng dalawang anak. Minsan isang taon ay umaakyat si Errol ng Baguio upang makipagkita kay Jun kahit pa ito’y may iba na ring kinakasama. Sa pagdaan ng mga taon ay hindi malilimot nina Jun at Errol ang isa’t-isa ngunit may kani-kaniya na rin silang buhay pamilya at pag-ibig, at ang kanilang relasyon ay hindi rin tanggap sa lipunan. Magawa pa kaya nilang mapanindigan ang kanilang pagmamahalan?

Ang Muli ay uminog sa iba’t-ibang panahon ng kasaysayan ng Pilipinas mula dekada 70 hanggang sa kasalukuyan. Maganda sanang panimula ito at tila isang bagong bihis para sa isang kuwentong pag-ibig na namamagitan sa dalawang lalaki. Ninais ng pelikula na pagsabayin ang paghahayag ng kalayaan ng bansa mula sa diktadurya at ng kalayaan sa paghahayag ng piniling kasarian o sekswalidad. Ngunit hindi ito naging maliwanag sa kabuuan ng pelikula dahil hindi gaanong naipakita ang malinaw na koneksyon ng dalawa. Pawang lumalabas na nagkataon lamang na naganap ang kanilang kuwento sa nasabing panahon. Ilagay man ito sa ibang panahon o lugar, hindi pa rin magbabago ang takbo nito. Hindi naman matatawaran ang husay ng mga nagsiganap lalo na si Lucero na naging kapani-paniwala sa kanyang papel. Maging is Domingo at iba pa ay pawang mahuhusay din. Nabigyang buhay nila ang kani-kanilang ginampanang tauhan. Yun nga lang ay nagkulang ng kaunti sa hagod ang karakterisasyon kaya lumabas na napakababaw ng kanilang mga pagkatao. Mahusay naman ang kuha ng camera at paglalapat ng musika.

Maraming ibinatong argumento ang pelikula sa lipunan at simbahan. Pilit nitong inilalarawan ang namamayaning kaapihan ng mga mamamayan, sa larangang ekonomiya man o sekswal, na nag-uugat sa gobyerno at lalo na sa simbahang Katoliko. Naging talamak , tahasan at talaga namang lantaran ang ginawa nitong pagkukuwestiyon sa turo ng simbahan ukol sa relasyon at sekswalidad. Pinalabas nitong makitid at sarado ang isipan ng simbahan sa usaping homosekswalidad. Hindi isina-alang-alang ng pelikula ang kahalagahan ng pamilya. Bagkus, malabis nitong binigyang pansin ang sekswal na relasyon ng dalawang lalaki na wala namang lalim kundi nakaugat lang sa pagluluto ng isa ng kaldereta. Bukod dito, wala nang makitang dahilan kung bakit nila minamahal at inaantay ang bawat isa. Sa tuwing sila’y magkikita, pagtatalik lang naman ang inaatupag nila. Walang malalim na kumustahan, walang matinding pinag-uugatan ang kanilang pag-iibigan. Naipakita naman kung gaano katindi ang naging epekto kay Errol ng ginawa niyang pagsisinungaling sa asawa ngunit sa bandang huli’y niromansa pa rin ang pag-iibigan nina Jun at Errol. Kung magiging ganito ang basehan ng wagas na pag-ibig, wala nang pamilyang mabubuo at ang lahat ng pagkakaibigan ay parati na lamang mag-uugat sa kababawan o tawag ng laman. Hindi marahil nauunawan o natatanto ng mga gumawa ng pelikula na ang simbahan ay sadyang maunawain at maawain sa sinumang nagkakasala. Ngunit ang kanilang isipin at palabasin sa pelikula na walang masama sa relasyong homoseksuwal ay siyang tunay na nakakabahala. --Rizalino R. Pinlac, Jr.

Resident Evil: After Life

LEAD CAST: Milla Jovovich, Ali Larter, Kim Coates, Shawn Roberts DIRECTOR: Paul W.S. Anderson SCREENWRITER: Paul Anderson PRODUCER: Paul Anderson RUNNING TIME: 97 minutes LOCATION: Tokyo & LA

Technical: 2.5 Moral: 2 For viewers 18 and above


Resident Evil opens with gripping scene showing umbrellas on a rainy day in Tokyo. In the middle of all this hustle and bustle stands a girl, dripping wet and apparently stoned. Soon she sinks her teeth into the neck of an innocent passerby—aaah, so she’s “one of them,” a newly converted zombie, one of those that will engage Alice (Milla Jovovich) in her battle to save the world from the bad guys.

Real life fashion model Milla Jovovich slips back into her black tights as Alice for this fourth entry in the series based on the video game. In post-apocalyptic Los Angeles, Alice is armed with an arsenal of high-powered guns and flying knives to fight off zombies infected with a virus developed by the Umbrella Corporation (with headquarters in Tokyo). Whatever the zombies’ role is in the bad guys’ attempt at world domination is obscured by their clicheic participation—mobbing after humans, waving their arms and sputtering monosyllables which together may be taken to mean they want the humans as snacks, just as moviegoes crave popcorn and soda.

Clearly, Resident Evil relies on its main attraction Jovovich to make a story out of a video game. If there is an attempt to make a moral pronouncement, it is pitifully overshadowed by the stylish presence of its main star, shown throwing flying knives are people in an obviously choreographed way, and in all-too-often close-up shots that distract from the story with her parted lips. Even if you didn’t know that Jovovich is a five-star fashion model whose face and figure has appeared in so many high-end advertisements, you’d wonder here if she’s a heroine out to save humankind or an endorser selling guns. One question pops up: is it okay to be killing so many people on the way to finding the real culprits? What happens to the families of those killed? But what do you expect when a video game is given flesh and blood via a full length feature film? Forget about the justice and the value of human life and the consequences of killing. The lesson Resident Evil: After Life incidentally teaches is: if you want your kids to grow up smart, cut down their video game playing.

Going the Distance

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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”?