The Adventures of Pureza: Queen of the Riles

CAST: Milai Canteveros, Jason Francisco, Martin Del Rosario, Bianca Manalo, Bekimon, Nico Antonio, Joem Bascom, Ms, Gina Pareno; DIRECTOR: Soxie Topacio; PRODUCER: Star Cinema & Cine Screen; DISTRIBUTOR: Star Cinema; GENRE: Romantic Comedy; LOCATION: Manila; RUNNING TIME: 115 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3

Moral Assessment: 2.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

Nakatira si Pura (Melai Cantiveros) sa gilid ng riles kasama ang itinuturing niyang nakababatang kapatid na si Ulam (Martin del Rosario). Lahat ng trabaho ay pinapasok ni Pura para maipantustos sa pangangailangan nilang magkapatid at lalo na para sa pag-aaral ni Ulam. Sa gitna ng kabi-kabilang mga raket ay pinakamataas na pangarap pa rin ni Pura ang maging isang modelo. Ang matalik na kaibigan naman ni Pura na si Ruben (Jason Francisco) ay nagta-trabaho bilang driver ng isang sindikato. Magpupumilit si Pura nang minsang utusan si Ruben ng sindikato na sunduin ang isang paparating na modelo galing Brazil. Sa di sinasadyang pangyayari ay mawawala sa kanilang paningin ang Brazilian model at manganganib ang kanilang buhay sa sindikato kung kaya’t susubukan ni Pura na humalili sa mga dapat sana’y gagampanan ng modelo tulad ng pagrampa, pag-pose sa pictorial at iba pa. Pero mas magiging simula pa lamang ito ng mga nakaambang panganib sa buhay ng magkaibigang Pura at Ruben.

Hindi malinaw ang takbo ng kuwento ng pelikula. Lumiko-liko ito sa maraming direksyon ngunit hindi pa rin nagkaroon ng malinaw na patutunguhan. Bagama’t nakasentro ang kuwento sa buhay ni Pura, sumasanga-sanga ito sa kung saan-saan. Resulta tuloy ay pawang sabog at peilkula at di nito gaanong naaliw ang manononood. Nasayang ang husay ng mga nagsiganap lalo na ang bida na si Cantiveros at Francisco. Nagkulang sa hagod ang mga esksena na pawang minadali lang lahat. Labas tuloy ay nagkulang sa pagiging komedya ang pelikula. Sa dami rin ng gusto nitong sabihin ay hindi pa rin siya nakarating sa nais nitong paroonan. Karamihan din sa mga sangkap ng patawa na ihalo sa pelikula ay gasgas na kundi man muling ibinabalik ang ‘toilet: humor.”

Ang bidang si Pura ay larawan ng isang uliran kapatid at kaibigan.  Bagama’t  sumasabog ang kuwento ng The Adventures of Pureza: Queen of the Riles ay maliwanag naman ang mensahe nito ukol sa paggawa ng kabutihan at pag-iwas sa gawaing masama. Sa kabila ng pagkapit ni Pura sa patalim sa panahon ng kagipitan, nakuha pa rin nitong ipaglaban ang mga kaibigan at isakripisyo ang kaligtasan ng kanyang buhay alang-alang sa kapatid at mga kaibigan. Yun nga lang, nakababahala ang ginawang pagsisinungaling ng ilang tauhan sa oras ng pangangailangan. Baka isipin ng mga mas nakababatang manonood na ang pagsisinungaling ay tama. Nariyan din ang nakababahalang paggamit ng pelikula ng sinaunang “toilet humor” na ginagawang kasangkapan sa pagpapatawa ang mga bagay na dapat sana’y sa pribadong pagkakataon lamang ginagawa at pinag-uusapan. Sa kabila nito, nariyan pa rin ang pamamayani ng pakikipag-kapwa-tao, pagkiling sa mabuti, paggawa ng kabutihan at pagmamalasakit sa kapwa maging kadugo man ito o hindi. At sa pagkakaroon nito ng bidang katulad ni Cantiveros, mabibigyan ng pag-asa ang maraming mga katulad niya na kadalasan ay agad nahuhusgahan dahil sa panlabas na anyo. Pwede rin palang maging bida sa pelikula kahit hindi mestiza at ang lahat ay may karapatang mangarap, umibig at ibigin. 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 2)

CAST: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Gary Oldman, Ralph Fiennes, Jamie Campbell Bower, Helena Bonham Carter, Jason Isaacs, Tom Felton, Alan Rickman; DIRECTOR: David Yates; WRITERS: J.K. Rowling, Steve Kloves; GENRE: SciFi/Fantasy, Action/Adventure; RUNNING TIME: 130 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 3.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) takes possession of the Elder Wand, the most powerful wand in the world that can render its wielder invincible.  Meanwhile, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint), determined to put down Voldemort, pursue their search for the remaining Horcruxes containing pieces of Voldemort’s soul—the destruction of which would lead to his death.  The trio learn that one of them is in a vault at the goblin bank, and to find the others they need to go to Hogwarts.  But the Deatheaters and the Dementors are hovering over the place; besides, master-of-treachery Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) is now Hogwarts headmaster.  In the somber atmosphere of Hogwarts which is now on lockdown, everybody is pinning their hopes on Harry Potter who has grown from terrified lad to a powerful, self-assured wizard. 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 2) crowns the ten-year saga involving eight films helmed by four directors.  The series also made its leads Radcliffe, Watson and Grint among the youngest child star millionaires in film history.  The series seems to have evolved along with the maturing of its three young lead characters—with the childish Quidditch games gradually giving way to wizardry employed in earnest by the characters who have recognized their destiny as champions of good versus evil. The film provides a satisfying conclusion to the Harry Potter series that has thrilled audiences of all ages on a magical roller coaster ride and earned over six billion dollars from box office sales alone.

What is so potent about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 2) is not so much the pyrotechnics (although the movie is far from short on that department) but the subtler ways through which the drama and the tension between good and evil are portrayed through an interweaving of magic and reality.  Sure there are spells and wands and goblins and giants plus one rabid dragon coming into play but when the smoke clears the glory of the human spirit shines.  Those who have read the book would know what we are alluding to, but those who have followed only the movie version may be in for startling revelations.

 

We do not mean to spill out spoilers but something must be said about this story that has taken a whole decade and almost 20 hours of screen time to tell.  For some it could present a lesson in rash judgment.  Just as CINEMA refrains from critiquing a film before we see it—that’s why what we write are called “reviews”: first we view the film, then re-view it with a more critical eye—we can also only assess the merits of an epic fantasy after it is sealed by its concluding episode.  When the first of this J. K. Rowling series, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, came out in 2001, not a few observers thought it was but another potboiler glamorizing witchcraft and sorcery at the expense of young people’s perception of reality.  But the subsequent box-office success of the series points to a satisfied need in the viewer, something we dare not delve into in this review.  Whether it is a simple need to be entertained or one that seeks profound metaphysical answers, we can’t tell, but this concluding series begs to be viewed in the context of the whole epic narrative. 

It is nothing short of grace, quiet grace that falls like rain on parched earth, that comes upon us as we see the final minutes of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.  We see Harry, Hermione and Ron almost two decades after the battle at Deathly Hallows, but instead of wishing they were back on their flying brooms we heave a sigh of relief that they are where they are.  We realize these “kids” have become part of our life.  We have seen them grow into their roles through ten years of fantasy and adventure and now that they have come of age, we wish every good thing for them as though they were part of our family.  While we found amusement in their juvenile exploits we now experience amazement in their ordinariness.  Showing the three principals wearing wedding rings and pushing baby prams, this film roots for family life as the ultimate in human fulfillment. 

The single scene that ought to redeem J. K. Rowling’s opus in the eyes of its early critics and raise its moral value a notch higher is the one shot among Hogwart’s ruins, with Harry holding the Elder Wand which is rightfully his.  Ron says, “It’s the most powerful wand in the world, it makes you invincible… what do we do with it?”  Hermione turns to Ron and exclaims, “We?”  Harry doesn't say a word but does something in reply that stuns his two companions.  

When you see the movie and come to this scene, watch your thought to see what it reminds you of.  Surprise!

 

 

Amigo

CAST: Joel Torre, Garret Dillahunt, Yul Vazquez, D.J. Qualls, Rio Locsin, Dane DeHaan, Chris Cooper, Jemi Paretas, James Parks; DIRECTOR/SCREENWRITER/EDITOR:  John Sayles; PRODUCER: Maggie Renzi; RUNNING TIME: 128 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3

Moral Assessment: 3

CINEMA Rating:  For viewers age 13 and up with parental guidance.

Village Chief Rafael Dacanay a.k.a Amigo (Joel Torre) sends the remaining Spanish invaders to prison under the revolutionary government.  A the end of  Spanish occupation, a troop of American soldiers led by Lt Compton (Garret Dillahunt) under the command of his military superiors  occupies the remote rural village  in the Philippines .  Lt Compton collaborates with Rafael in the course of their stay in the village and calls him Amigo, a Spanish word means friend.  The Americans do not recognize the existing revolutionary government and therefore all supporters are considered rebels and subject to execution.  Rafael is aware of the movement of the rebels because his brother is one of the leaders.  Lt Compton suspects Rafael as an enemy and put him under surveillance.

Whilst the film Amigo is about war and American occupation in the Philippines in 1900, it was not likely to show the usual ground or air attacks rather isolated shootings that left dead bodies.  It depicts a remote village with strong religious practices in view of the long time presence of Spaniards.  The story focuses on the character of Rafael Dacanay or Amigo and his struggle to play his role as a friend to his constituents, the rebels and the Americans.  The character of Lt Compton is also given equal exposure in the film.  As a simple narrative the film uses variety of approaches such as mix of nationalities from the lead to the least characters, mix of languages, use of subtitles, sub-themes that include nationalism, love story, inter-cultural, religion and tradition. The director succeeded in putting them together and makes use of the sound effects and musical score for continuity.  The production design for 1900 setting is good although it appears to be too refined and tidy for a remote area.  The film has a good cinematography in conveying details such as the nipa hut construction in bayanihan scene. However, despite several interesting features of the film, the entire run of two hours can be dragging at some points and may invite viewers to sleep.  Overall, the film Amigo is one those low budgeted films that obviously exerted efforts to put up a good one.

What makes a good leader?  The film Amigo features three types of leader that are present at the same time in a remote village.  They are, a native village chief, an American soldier officer, and a revolutionary one.  First is the village chief who cares so much for his constituents aims for peace and unity.  He is highly principled and willing to sacrifice to protect those who need it. He fought silently till the end of this life.  Second is the American troop leader who leads by the rule, level-headed, not too bad but can disregard life when someone defies the rules.  Third one is the revolutionist  who defies oppression. He is passionate and aggressive in his fight for freedom.  He can also be violent and disrespectful of life.  Ironically, the rebel leader was even a former seminarian who attended religious formation. One common thing among the three leaders, none of them seeks discernment for wise decisions, all of them look only at themselves.  The film shows strong religious inclination among the village people especially the woman, however, the image of the priest in the film is obviously tainted by power and politics.  Whilst known historical names were mentioned several times and the American occupation really happened in the Philippines, the film does not necessarily present factual truth.

Temptation Island

CAST: Marian Rivera, Ruffa Mae Quinto, Heart Evangelista, Lovi Poe, Solenn Heussaff, John Lapus, Aljur Abrenia, Rom Rodriguez, Mikael Daez; DIRECTOR and WRITER: Chris Martinez;  PRODUCER: Regal Films; GENRE: Comedy; LOCATION: Philippines

Technical Assessment:  2 

Moral Assessment:  2

CINEMA Rating:  For viewers age 18 and above.


    Apat na dalaga mula sa iba’t ibang antas ng lipunan ang sumali sa paligsahang “Miss Manila Sunshine Supermodel Search”, sa iba’t iba ring mga dahilan: si Virginia P. (Heart Evangelista), isang estudyante sa kolehiyo na sumali lamang para makakawala sa kanyang pamilya; si Serafina F. (Lovi Poe), isang “spoiled socialite” sumali dahil banidosa siya; si Pura K., (Solenn Heussaff), dating anak mayaman nguni’t wala nang pera para tustusan ang engrandeng debut na pangarap niya; at   si Christine G. (Marian Rivera), na nagbabalak gamitin ang kanyang nobyo at kanyang katawan para maimpluwensiya ang huradong papanalunin siya.  Sa dinami-dami ng mga contestants, ang apat na ito ang naging mga finalists.

Kasalukuyang nasa isang cruise ship sila upang itanghal ang evening gown competition nang magkasunog at sumabog ang barko.  Sa madaling salita, lumubog ang barko ngunit nakalikas ang apat na dalaga, at nagkasama-sama sila sa isang islang mistulang disyerto, kasama rin ang baklang pageant coordinator na si Joshua (John Lapus) at ang kanyang boyfriend (Mikael Daez); ang waiter sa barko na si Umberto (Tom Rodriguez); si Alfredo (Aljur Abrenica), isang stowaway na pasahero ng barko; at isa pang babae, si Maria (Ruffa Mae Quinto) na yaya at laging kabuntot ng mayamang socialite na si Serfania F.    

Hindi gasinong nasubok ng pelikula ang husay ng mga pangunahing artista sa pagganap, gawa marahil ng kababawan ng istorya at katauhang nasasangkot.  Bagama’t may kuwento naman masasabi ang pelikula, hindi nito masunggaban ang atensiyon ng manonood pagka’t higit pang minahalaga nito ang mga kababawan ng mga tauhan kaysa sa takbo ng istorya.  Kahit may mga hidwaan at kumpitensya ang apat na dalagang contestants, halimbawa, hindi ito ang siniryoso ng pelikula, bagkus ay naging pokado ito sa “kabaklaan” ng mga modelo.

Maraming parte na pinahaba at tuloy naging nakakasawa o nakakaantok pagkat wala itong maihaing katuturan sa manonood man o sa takbo ng istorya.  May mga bahagi din namang nakakatawa, at halos lahat ng mga iyon ay dahil sa papel ni Quinto bilang “alila” ni Poe.  Naiba siya sa apat na reyna-reynahan pagkat hindi siya nakikipagtarayan, bagkus ay sunud-sunuran lamang ng among abusada.

Ilang puntos din ang salungat sa pagkamakatotohanan ng pelikula, kaya’t nasasabi naming hindi nito dinidibdib ang sarili niyang kuwento.  Halimbawa, ilang araw na sila sa isla, gutom, uhaw, babad sa init kung araw, at nginig naman sa ginaw sa gabi pagkat wala silang tulugang maayos—pero ang lilinis at ang gaganda pa rin nila, ang puputi pa rin at ni hindi man lamang namula nang bahagya samantalang dapat ay sunog na sila sa araw.

Di ba—para maging kapani-paniwala ang kuwento—dapat ay nangangalumata na sila sa pagod, burado na ang makeup, nanlilimahid na ang damit sa pawis (dahil walang liguan), gutom at uhaw na pagkat wala silang makain at mainom dito sa disyertong walang tumutubong halaman?  Teka—sa lawak ng disyertong iyon, wala kaming nakitang balon o sapa man lang, kaya saan sumalok ng tubig ang alilang si Maria para gumawa ng barokeng sofa na upuan ni Serafina?  Wala rin kaming nakitang halaman o punong kahoy, kaya saan din nanggaling ang mga tuyong dahon na ginawa nilang tent?  May abanikong anahaw pa si Joshua!  Atsaka nung kumain sila ng barbecue, saan sila namitas ng berdeng dahon na pinambalot sa karne, at saan din sila nakapulot ng parilyang pinag-ihawan?

Kung sabagay, katatawanan o comedy ang pelikula, kaya siguro ipinagpalagay na lang ng direktor at manunulat na si Chris Martinez na “mapapatawad” na ng mga manonood ang ganoong mga pagkukulang.  Ang mahalaga siguro sa kanila ay mapatawa nila ang audience. Pero kung gusto nitong magpatawa, bakit naman isinali pa ang isang napakaselang isyu na kung sa tunay na buhay ay sadyang magiging sanhi ng kabigatan ng loob at matinding hirap sa konsiyensiya sa taong daranas nito?

Gusto lang kaya talagang magpatawa ng pelikula, o hangad ba nitong punahin at pagtakhan ng manonood ang nangyayari sa tunay na buhay—ang pagiging obsessed ng mga makabagong babae sa pagkakaroon ng lalaking makakasiping sa ano mang kalagayan?  Isipin nyo na lang, kung kailan ang dapat manguna sa kanilang isipan ay ang kanilang buhay, nakukuha pa mag-agawan sa mga lalaki?  At nagsasamantala naman ang mga lalaki sa mga “uhaw” na babae?  May magpapakamatay pa dahil naagawan ng kasiping!

Monte Carlo

CAST: Selena Gomez, Leighton Meester, Katie Cassidy, Corey Monteith, Andie MacDowell; DIRECTOR: Tom Bezucha; WRITERS: Ronald Bass, Jules Bass, Jez Butterworth, John Henry Butterworth, Kelly Bowe, Amy B Harris; GENRE: Comedy, Romance; RUNNING TIME: 109 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3

Moral Assessment: 2.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

SYNOPSIS: A young woman, her uptight step sister and her best friend use their savings for a long anticipated dream trip to Paris, which turns out to be a big disappointment. When they decide to take a break from their lousy tour and duck into the lobby of a five-star hotel, one of them is mistaken for a spoiled British heiress. Before they get the chance to reveal their true identities they are wrapped up in a whirlwind of paparazzi, private planes, couture gowns, storybook romances, and a vacation in Monte Carlo.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

CAST: Shia LaBeouf, Josh Duhamel, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley,John Malkovich, Patrick Dempsey, Ken Jeong, John Turturro,Frances McDormand, Peter Cullen, Tyrese Gibson; DIRECTOR: Michael Bay; WRITER: Ehren Kruger; GENRE: Action/Adventure; RUNNING TIME: 154 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 2.5

Moral Assessment: 2.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

In Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon, the story goes that when the United States put the first man on the moon in 1969, it constituted the biggest cover up the world power has ever made.  The space mission was not for man to reach the moon, but for the astronauts to investigate “the Arc”, a space craft that crashed on the moon’s dark side and carried robots from a different solar system into ours.  These are the Decepticons—from the name alone you see they’re the bad guys.  They are to be battled by the Autobots—the good robots who are returning from having been exiled by President Obama.  The Autobots are to be on the side of men in the war to save the universe, and the feat, of course, requires human participation.  The requirement is filled by humans led by Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf), now unemployed but who is called upon to save the world again; and his girlfriend Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley).

Foremost film critic Roger Ebert writing about Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon took the words out of our mouth when he said “it is a visually ugly film, with an incoherent plot, wooden characters and an inane dialog.”  We couldn’t have agreed more heartily.  Sitting through this potboiler for 2½ hours is pure agony.  If we had a choice we wouldn’t watch it even if our next meal depended on it.  Unable to piece together scene after scene of the patchwork that was masquerading as a plot, we were naturally distracted by a warped “sense of wonder”: we wondered how they designed the bad robots; we wondered how the collapsing building looked so real inside as Witwicky and girlfriend Carly rolled and slid to and fro among the office furniture without as much as suffering a bump; we wondered how the metal monster snaked its way through and around the building like an apple corer driven through a loaf of multigrain bread shedding crumbs in the process; we wondered why a respectable actor like John Malkovich would lend his name to such a silly production; we wondered why there had to be humans at all in the movie when it is simply a war between bad bots and good bots; in short, the movie fails to involve us—we would rather see its “in the making” version than the movie itself.  And then there’s this beyond-ridiculous scene where two robots are fighting each other with swords!  What the sshheck! Where robots are already a metal monstrosity, it would have been more infinitely interesting if director Michael Bay had made them fight with cavemen’s clubs instead, but swords?  Hello!  And speaking of metal upon metal, be warned that the noise level is assaultive—all that banging and clanging (for over 40 straight minutes at one point) is bound to split your eardrums if not suck out your brains altogether. 

The acting, what about?  Except for Malkovich, who in our books is at par with Jack Nicholsson, the actors, especially LeBeouf and Huntington-Whiteley, act as though they ate newsprint flakes for breakfast.  Bleah!  Disappointing, to say the least, considering the media hype preceding its opening day—this thing about Megan Fox being fired and replaced by a Victoria’s Secret model.  One thing about pretty faces—they seem unable to grasp that a movie camera demands that they project a character and not themselves.  In the case of Hungtington-Whiteley, many frames show her posing as though for a Vogue pictorial, plus tight jeans and stiletto heels—distracting to say the least, and definitely unforgiveable in an action-sci-fi flick. 

As for meat content,  Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon is one huge chunk of fat.  Deep-fried that translates to chicharon—too noisy to eat, and if overeaten can give you LBM.  You don’t really expect a plot hazier than the Milky Way to deliver something that substantial, even as you hope for some redeeming value in the end.  But if ever there is an attempt by Bay to do that, it probably just breezed through, ghostlike, as the viewer’s mental faculties are too drained and battered by the overwhelming CGI and protracted clanking combats.  The movie portrays alien robots and that snaky monster as formidable enemies that have the power to annihilate the human race (at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Wacker Drive in Chicago, anyway), while humans are denied even a semblance of dignity.  In the face of all that purposeless destruction, humans survive through luck, not pluck.  Think before you watch.  Admission is 200 bucks at most theaters.  If you can swing it, ask for a satisfaction-guaranteed-or-your-money-back option.  Warning: don’t start your kids believing this is entertainment.

The Tree of Life

CAST: Brad Pitt, Hunter McCracken, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn, Joanna Going, Fiona Shaw, Jackson Hurst, Pell James, Crystal Mantecon, Lisa Marie Newmyer, Jennifer Sipes; DIRECTOR: Terrence Malick; WRITER: Terrence Malick; GENRE: Drama; RUNNING TIME: 138 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 4

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance.

Young boy Jack O’Brien (Hunter McCracken) grows up with two brothers in Waco, Texas, in the 50s, with a disciplinarian father (Brad Pitt) and a forgiving mother (Jessica Chastain).  He wants to be a good son, and he is, but time comes when he feels he cannot be anymore.  He is confused, torn between his love for his parents and his ever growing need to assert himself and defy them.  He begins to resent his father, and to scoff at his mother for her inability to stand up to her husband.  He gets angry with himself as he slowly sees he is becoming everything he ought not to be.   In the middle of all that Jack begins to feel incomprehensible stirrings within himself but circumstances would pressure him into silence about them.  He perceives power in his father, in many things around him, and in himself; fascinated by power he wants to test the limits of his own.  His bottled up anger makes him contemplate dangerous moves—including killing his father.  On the brink of adolescence Jack is unaware that he is treading a crack in the earth that separates the innocence of his boyhood from the expediency of manhood.

The Tree of Life opens with hazy, fiery movements, like mesmerizing gaseous forms dancing against a dark infinity.  A man’s voice tells us there are two ways to go through life, “the way of nature, or the way of grace.”  From that alone the viewer can tell this is not going to be a popcorn movie.  It is not even a movie, an art film, or an Oscar contender.  It is a meditation on human existence—inspired, not just crafted.  Even if it were the only work one has seen of director Terrence Malick, it would say enough for one to gauge the extent of Malick’s genius in his chosen medium.  He has control over the story and the script, he is in harmony with his cinematographer, and he coaxes the best out of his actors.  He is brilliant at utilizing music to rub in his message—Smetana’s Die Moldau, for one, evokes the ephemeral quality of existence, and when heard as one watches a silk lingerie being carried by the current down a river, spawns an experience that has to be felt in the guts to be understood.   That is but a few seconds long; imagine the whole opus.   The Tree of Life has the power to captivate your senses and your mind all at once, to take you out of yourself to be willingly lost and yet alive in some unknown space.  In one word: stunning.

 Some films are just too sublime to be fairly judged.  The Tree of Life is one of them.  It is just too beautiful for words.  With images it tries to grasp all of existence by finding the meaning and deciphering the mysteries of a few puny lives.  Where have we come from?  Where are we going?  Such humbling questions.   The answers may vary from viewer to viewer, but perhaps not all viewers would care.

Green Lantern

CAST: Ryan Reynolds, Mark Strong, Peter Sarsgaard, Blake Lively; DIRECTOR: Martin Campbell; WRITERS: Michael J. Green, Greg Berlanti, Marc Guggenheim, John Broome, Gil Kane, Mart Nobell, Bill; GENRE: Action/Adventure, SciFi/Fantasy; RUNNING TIME: 105 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3.25

Moral Assessment: 3

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is a happy-go-lucky test pilot who is temporarily suspended for compromising one of his missions. However, his life changes when he is chosen to take over Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), one of the 3,600 intergalactic police force guarding the universe. The Green Lanterns Corps, derive their strength and supernatural abilities from their willpower which transmits to their ring to transform images from their mind into reality.  The other Green Lanterns doubt Hal’s potentials as he belongs to a weak and naïve species compared to the rest of them. Hal’s worthiness as a Green Lantern is put to test as he defends earth and battles the Parallax, a former guardian who desired to control FEAR until he became consumed by its essence resulting to his banishment.

For non- Justice League fans, the back story of Green Lantern provides an interesting insight to another super hero’s making. It is comforting to know that ordinary people with their extraordinary character, and not some inborn powers or mutant abilities, are chosen to become a hero. Hal’s motivation and inner conflicts are rather vague. In fact, Howard’s story (the antagonist) is better defined. As far as storyline, the movie is clean and clear but too technically close to the comic book version that it bordered on being dull. The pace picks up towards the 2nd half of the film and from then on becomes no more than just action and special effects. The attempt at drama and character motivation becomes lame and corny. Performances are acceptable but not great as the roles do not require a lot of effort. Undoubtedly, the movie is a visual feast with its stimulating CGIs, tight pacing and great artistic direction. But then again, it is too literal a translation from the comic books into the big screen that you feel you haven’t gained anything from the illustrated versus live action.

What makes a hero a hero? Almost every movie about the history of a superhero shows us how ordinary people are transformed into superheroes not by physical abilities or supernatural power but by their character that makes them worthy to receive the special gifts that will make them SUPERs. We also see how one with great powers is also given great responsibilities. And lastly, we see that although some are heroes by fate, it also requires them to be heroes by CHOICE. All these elements are present in GREEN LANTERN and we are once more reminded we can all be a superhero if in our hearts we desire to serve and place the common good above our personal interests.

Another valuable point raised in the film is the power of the WILL, especially against FEAR. When will is focused on putting every ounce of strength to protect the weak, on using every natural ability to glorify the good and on creating harmony and peace every one’s passion, then FEAR become irrelevant and  conquerable.

The movie is suitable for the entire family although some action scenes and sexual innuendos need parental guidance for the younger audiences.

Mr. Popper's Penguins

CAST: Jim Carrey, Carla Gugino, Maxwell Perry Cotton, Andrew Stewart-Jones, Curtis Shumaker; DIRECTOR: Mark Waters; WRITERS: Sean Anders, John Morris; GENRE: Comedy; RUNNING TIME: 95 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 4

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance.

 Mr. Popper (Jim Carrey) is an adroit dealer on architecture and real estate who receives six penguins as a gift.  Divorced from his wife Amanda (Carla Gugino) and living alone in a swank New York apartment, he considers the creatures pests, not pets, and decides to donate them to the local zoo.  But before he can make arrangements for the penguins to be hauled out, his children, teener Janie (Madeline Carroll) and Billy (Maxwell Perry Cotton), on one weekend visit, fall in love with the birds in his flat.  Thinking the penguins are Mr. Popper’s surprise gift to their son celebrating his birthday, his whole family is most touched.  Mr. Popper does not have the heart to disappoint his children, especially as the penguins’ presence endears him to his family, so he decides to keep the birds in his apartment, turning the place into a perpetual winter wonderland in an effort to simulate the penguins’ natural habitat while providing weekend fun for his children.

Mr. Popper’s Penguins is based on the time-honored children’s classic novel by Richard and Florence Atwater about a boy (Popper Jr.) whose explorer-father made up for his absence (especially at the boy’s birthday celebrations) with gifts and souvenirs from all over the globe.  The story combines fantasy and heart, and is anything but frivolous, thanks to the spot-on casting that makes for credible characters with real life feelings.  It is a mellowed Carrey that the Mr. Popper character calls for and projects quite successfully; thus Carrey fans may be disappointed to see very little of the usual antics of the rubbery-faced comedian but they may be delighted to find that the actor can actually deliver convincing drama, too, without being fake or syrupy about it.  Perhaps Carrey was actually spurred to real acting by working with real Gentoo penguins which the movie reportedly used, drastically cutting down dependence on CGI.  It is hard to tell when the penguins are computer-generated or are displaying good training, something that should be credited to director Mark Waters and, of course, to seamless editing.  Noteworthy of close watch is that part where Mr. Popper and his children keep vigil to watch the penguin eggs hatch.

Although Mr. Popper’s Penguins is aimed at children, its message is for adults as well, particularly parents having difficulty coping with family situations.  The Carrey character—the young Popper father—unwittingly risks becoming exactly like his explorer father by his preoccupation with his career, which, in fact, has cost him his wife and family.  The arrival of the penguins—which Mr. Popper actually inherits from his globe-trotting father—is a grace that enables the dead man to make up for lost time and to help towards making his divorced son see what matters most in life.  It augurs well for modern society that the book published in 1938 and presumably upholding family values in that era has reentered the scene as a film after 73 years, refocusing the limelight on those same values that present day families want and need to revive.  CINEMA recommends Mr. Popper’s Penguins for 97 minutes of family fun and profit.  Perhaps then you would wish for a Mr. Popper’s Penguins II to see what eventually happens to the baby penguins, at least.

CAST: KC Conception (Raffy Slavador), Sam Milby (Eugene Servero), Matet de Leon, Robi da Rosa; DIRECTOR: Cathy Garcia-Molina; PRODUCER:  Charo Santos; DISTRIBUTOR: Star Cinema; GENRE:  Drama/Adverture/Romance; LOCATION:  Cagayan de Oro, Bukidnon,  Lanao del Norte; RUNNING TIME: 110 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3.5

Moral Assessment: 4

CINEMA Rating: For viewers of all ages.

SYNOPSIS: The story is about a man who pushes himself to the limits, a man who is always up for the challenge. He is proud. He only lives for himself. He then meets a woman one day, a woman who is more cautious in life, a woman who teaches him to embrace and appreciate life, love and all its smallest blessings.

Insidious

CAST: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Barbara Hershey, Angus Sampson, Ty Simpkins, Andrew Astor; DIRECTOR: James Wan; SCREENPLAY:  Leigh Wannel; LOCATION: US; GENRE: Horror; RUNNING TIME: 102 minutes

Technical Assessment: 3

Moral Assessment: 3

CINEMA Rating: For viewers 13 and below with parental guidance.

The Lamberts have just moved in to their new house. Josh and Renai (Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne) with their three children are just settling in when their eldest son Dalton (Ty Simpkins) suddenly falls into an inexplicable coma. Renai starts to feel and see mysterious beings she suspects to be ghosts and concludes that the house might be haunted so they immediately move out. But then the same strange things happen and seem to have followed them even in their new home so they seek the help of ghost hunters and a psychic who believes that it’s not their house that’t haunted, but it’s their son Dalton.

Insidious lives up to the challenges and expectations of a haunted house theme and horror genre. This time, the film takes on a different take through going beyond a place that is haunted which appears to be logical and believable and at the same time, very frightening. The film barely uses computer graphics in their portrayal of ghosts and demons that makes the scares all the more effective. The ghost-hunting part is a  balancing comic relief and at the same time makes the audience still attune with the “reality feel” of the entire picture. The actors were able to deliver their parts well. Their emotions do not go beyond mere hysterics and the silences and subtleties are enough to scare the audiences even more. This film could be well-remembered through it’s for real “frightentainment”. 

In between screams and scares, Insidious makes a lot of sense when the story deals with family matters and issues. The mysterious coma of Danton, Renai’s paranoia, and Josh’s past are all difficult challenges for the Lamberts yet they tackled these problems head on and they did not succumb into their miseries. Josh’s ultimate sacrifice of risking his life to save his son is commendable. Renai’s dedication as a mother and wife sets a good example for every family. However, the theme of the entire film is problematic. If soul travelling is an ability, there should be a way that such can be used for good and not just a mere habit. If it’s a curse, then proper exorcism should have been done. In dealing with the supernatural, the couple relied on science experts and psychics instead of church exorcists. The film subtly insinuates that the church knows nothing and has nothing to do with anything that is supernatural. Apparently, the film depicts the presence of evil which could well be a concern of the church. Good thing, the ultimate evil in the film is defeated by courage, the willingness to live and love for the family so Insidious is still a worthwhile feature. Spoiler alert: the ending suggests that the battle between good and evil is not yet over. 

Super 8

CAST: Elle Fanning, Kyle Chandler, Ron Eldard, Noah Emmerich,Gabriel Basso, Joel Courtney, Ryan Lee, Zach Mills, Amanda Michalka; DIRECTOR: J.J. Abrams; WRITER: J.J. Abrams; GENRE: SciFi/Fantasy; RUNNING TIME: 112 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 3.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance.

Super 8 begins the day after a tragic accident in a factory killing Joe Lamb’s (Joel Courtney) mother. Apparently, she had to work extended shifts because Louis Dainard (Ron Elard) had been drinking the previous evening and could not report for work. Four months after the funeral, Joe helps his friends finish a zombie movie shot in a Super 8 camera. While doing a scene with Alice, Louis’ daughter, and his longtime crush, the group accidentally witnesses and film a truck derailing a train and causing a massive accident. The group then discovers the truck driver is their Chemistry teacher and is told to never talk about the accident or their parents will be killed. Meanwhile, the Air Force arrive to secure and clean up the disaster, much to the suspicion of Joe’s father Deputy Jackson (Kyle Chandler). During the next few days, the town folks experience mysterious phenomena like dogs running away, car engines and cable wires stolen, fluctuating power and people disappearing.    The Air Force attempt to clean up the town to hide their secret, thus enforcing “Operations Walking Distance”; wherein  a wildfire is deliberately started in the pretense of evacuating the town. But when Alice is abducted by the unknown creature, Charlie and friends brave the military attacks and the danger of the creature on the loose to save her

Super 8 is a masterfully told story. Abrams knows subtlety creates deeper impact. You particularly remember the simple way the camera hovered around the “days since last accident countdown” and how the man quietly replaced 700++ to 1 and cutting to the post funeral scene of Joe’s mom. This choice had more dramatic effect than actually showing the accident and the funeral. The tender moments between Joe and Alice, as well as the playfulness of the boys make audiences sympathize with the characters so much more. The plot unfolds is ways that get you hooked in the story because you just can’t guess what the next scene will be? The storyline development is completely unpredictable but reasonable and logical. The CGI’s were perfectly executed and created tension and excitement while the actors were authentic. Both the script and direction enabled each character to stand out against the mystery and tension of the unknown. Super 8 is an enjoyable and memorable family film.

The movie brings several striking multi-layer messages on friendship, forgiveness, bravery, selflessness and letting go. The friendship between Joe and Charles is so genuine and noble. Joe lives up to his promise to help his friend finish achieve his dream while Charles learns to set aside his personal feelings for Alice to give way to Joe. Jackson and Louis’ strained relationship is a commendable example of learning to forgive. One blamed the other for the tragedies in their lives but in the end, as they joined hands to look for their children, the two fathers realized what he has done and what he needs to do to restore their friendship. Self-sacrifice and bravery are exemplified by characters who brave the dangers of death and pain to save another life – human or alien. Finally, the scene where Joe silently lets go of his mother’s necklaces speaks so loudly of learning to let go of past hurt and pain and move on to a new day. These beautiful messages were intensified by the brilliant screenplay and direction of Abrams.

The movie, though contains scenes of substance abuse, military torture and intense explosion and violence which may be disturbing for the younger audience. 

Hangover 2

Cast: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Justin Bartha, Ken Jeong, Paul Giamatti, Mike Tyson, Jeffrey Tambor, Mason Lee, Jamie Chung, Sasha Barrese, Gillian Vigman, Aroon Seeboonruang, Nirut Sirichanya, Yasmin Lee, Nick Cassavetes, Sondra Currie  Writers: Todd Phillips, Craig Mazin, Scot Armstrong  Director: Todd Phillips  Running Time: 102 minutes  Distributor: Warner Bros.

Technical:  3

Moral Assessment:  1.5

CINEMA rating:  R18  (For viewers aged 18 and above)

Phil  (Bradley Cooper), Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and Stu (Ed Helmes) wake up in a seedy hotel room in Thailand with no memory of the previous night.  What’s worse, they are missing their fourth companion, 16-year-old Teddy (Mason Lee), but find Teddy’s finger sitting in a bowl of ice.  A monkey drops from the ceiling and another person wakes up, but everyone remains clueless about how they all came to be where they are.  What they all know is they must all make it to Stu’s wedding pretty Thai girl Lauren (Jamie chung)—which is the reason they have flown to Thailand in the first place—but how can they appear at the wedding without Teddy, Stu’s future brother in law?  So they embark on a mad search for the missing teenager, encountering gangsters and other gun-toting characters along the way.

Let’s talk about the plot.  If you’ve seen Hangover 1 (2009) you’ll have a fair idea of what to expect from Hangover 2.   Same cake, fluffier, fattier icing.  We resonate with a web reviewer who writes, “Director Todd Phillips seems to have taken the Hangover screenplay and moved it laterally from Las Vegas to Bangkok while retaining the same sequence of scenes: Call to bewildered bride to be, flashback to wedding plans, ill-advised bachelor party, four friends waking up with terminal hangovers in unfamiliar hotel room, ominous signs of debauchery, desperate quest to discover what happened, etc.”  If you were not offended by Hangover 1, you’ll enjoy Hangover 2 as it presents more of the same ingredients rejected by those who found the movie offensive.  But that’s not an absolute—middle of the roaders who saw some redeeming factors in Hangover 1 and therefore laughed along with its raucous humor might, just might, think that Hangover 2 has gone way over the top.  But even if you have not seen Hangover 1, you can either thumbs-up or thumbs-down this one as there’s a story all right, and a screenplay that’s easy to follow. 

If you had a stake in producing Hangover 1, what could possibly motivate you to invest in Hangover 2?  Clue: the 2009 version grossed $485 million, the highest grosser of the year in R-rated comedy.  Its production budget was $30 million.  Those guys must have thought, “If audiences lapped up Hangover 1, why not give them more of the same?”  So they plunked down $35 million on the sequel—do you hear the clinking of the cash registers in the background?  You’re not wrong.  Money is never a mean motivator.  We wonder, though, how this movie will register among Thai viewers—it shows the side of Bangkok that their tourist brochures would probably never even mention.  Hangover 2 is definitely not for impressionable or immature viewers, whatever their age.  In fact, actor Galifianakis (who plays the Alan character), when swamped by children-fans for his Hangover role, reportedly yelled at their parents for letting them see it.  We hope it was a sincere gesture, but then, again, in this gimmick-moved world, that could have been another ploy to get more xxx-hungry adults to go see it.   

X-men: First Class

Lead cast: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon, Rose Byrne, Jennifer Lawrence, Oliver Platt, Álex González, Jason Flemyng, Zoë Kravitz, January Jones, Nicholas Hoult, Caleb Landry Jones, Edi Gathegi, Lucas Till, Demetri Goritsas, Glenn Morshower, Matt Craven, James Remar, Rade Serbedzija, Ray Wise, Michael Ironside, Bill Milner, Morgan Lily, Laurence Belcher, Hugh Jackman. Director: Matthew Vaughn. Screenplay: Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughn, based on a story by Sheldon Turner, Bryan Singer. Cinematography: John Mathieson. Music: Henry Jackman. Distributor: 20th Century Fox. Running Time: 132 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: V-14 (Viewers 14 years old and above)

1944, in a concentration camp established by the Nazis on occupied Polish soil, Erik Lensherr, a boy with metal bending ability witnesses the murder of his mother. Nearly two decades later the boy is to become Magneto (Michael Fassbender), and to team up with professor and CIA advisor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) who is to be known as Professor X. Agent Moira Mac Taggert (Rose Byrne) gives them the task of assembling a collection of mutants to halt the machinations of an ex-Nazi madman, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) and his superhuman cohorts. A clash of ideals develops between Charles and Erik: Charles believes peace for men and mutants would be attained once the evil Shaw is done away with; Erik believes in the inevitability of violence and a global war. Erik’s motive for joining the war against Shaw is personal: it was Shaw who killed his mother.


X-Men: First Class is an origin story that charts the epic beginning of the X-man saga—what the mutants were before they became superheroes. It can be uplifting to watch superheroes battling with megalomaniacs out to destroy the planet, and it could be pure entertainment seeing the young mutants gather and display their hidden powers to one another, like kindergarteners at a show-and-tell assignment. However, it is rather ambitious of X-men: First Class to interweave real-life history (Nazi in World War II, Cuba showdown in early 60s, etc.) and Marvel comics super-action since the result presents too many elements that only serve to compete against one another for audience focus. The actors embody the characters well enough, although again, perhaps the story could have been more pointed and cohesive with fewer mutants showing off their powers. For example, the character sprouting dragonfly wings is cute to watch but has doubtful essential value in the plot. Same with the guy with oversized feet. As it is, the movie is almost a supermarket of superpowers which distracts the viewer from the real message of the story which is actually meaty.

One lesson worth remembering amidst all that jaw-dropping, eye-popping CGI effects is the need for controlling one’s anger. Whether you’re a man or a mutant, it’s never cool to be controlled by one’s anger. For that and the abovementioned technical superiority as far as effects are concerned, it is certainly worth seeing X-men: First Class.

Paul

CAST: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Kristen Wigg, Bill Hader, Jane Lynch, Jason Bateman, Seth Rogen, Sigourney Weaver; DIRECTOR: Greg Mottola; WRITERS: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost; GENRE: Comedy; RUNNING TIME: 100 minutes.

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

Make no mistake about it: Paul  is no harmless cartoon for kids.  The language alone can make the proverbial sailor blush, as the alien Paul tells a character, “Cursing is fun; you just have to pick your moments!”  The word “f - - k” is used 50 times, “s - - t” 40 times, and so many other terms you would never want to hear coming out of your children’s mouth.   On top of that the alien Paul smokes marijuana and spurs others to do the same; he’s a beer guzzle and a reckless driver; pushes others to steal to satisfy his whim, pokes fun at Bible-toting Christians, and has a yen for making obscene gestures.   CINEMA came across a crisp and incisive critique of the movie by Plugged In Online which we respectfully excerpt and pass on to our readers.     

“Paul tells us that advanced civilizations have outgrown the concept of God—at least a Christian God. But here's what I find most interesting about its point of view: In attempting to strip away one religion, we've been given another.

“The popularity of aliens and UFOs in pop culture has been attributed, by some, to folks trying to replace traditional faith with a more scientific form of religion, complete with rewards (knowledge), punishments (probes!) and awe-struck wonder. Consider Paul—his characteristics, not his character: He's a being from another place, a creature filled with unimaginable knowledge and incredible power. He heals the sick, he raises the dead, he helps the blind to see. He holds (the film suggests) the promise of a better world—one full of peace and love and community, free from strife and sin.

“And yet Paul does not appear to everyone. Indeed, he reveals himself only to a select few … disciples. And those to whom he shows himself are often mocked, even persecuted sometimes.

“We meet a woman to whom Paul revealed himself 60 years prior. Now old, she's angry with Paul at first, telling him how the neighbor kids would make fun of her, throw rocks at her window. They would not believe her and her "alien" stories, and in time she had perhaps begun to doubt her own memories. But then she softens. Seeing Paul now, face-to-face, everything's fine again. Her faith—following an unseen, unfelt visitor—is validated.

“If you haven't connected the dots yet, what I'm getting at is Paul's status as a deity. But what a slovenly deity he is: Little more than a "greater" being who, when he gives his friends the sum of all his knowledge, doesn't change them a whit; an advanced entity less concerned with mankind's betterment than with the pot he's carrying and the partying he's planning.”

If you’re looking for laughs plus, there’s Kung Fu Panda; for adventure, there’s Pirates of the Carribean:  Stranger Tides.