Avengers: Endgame

Technical assessment:  4  

Moral assessment:  3.5 

MTRCB rating: PG 

CINEMA rating: V13  

Three weeks after Thanos (Brolin) snaps his finger and disintegrates half of life, Captain Marvel (Larson) rescues Tony Starks (Downey) and Nebula from outer space and reunites with the remaining avengers on earth—Romanoff, Captain, Rocket, Patriot, Banner and Thor. Together find Thanos, hoping to retrieve the Infinity Stones and undo the destructions. However, Thanos reveals he has destroyed the stones and gets beheaded by a frustrated Thor. Five years hence, Scott Lang escapes the quantum realm and convinces the Avengers to travel back in time and retrieve the stones. They recruit Banner—who  successfully merged his intelligent side with Hulk’s body—and Thor—now an overweight alcoholic still reeling from his failure to save humanity. Stark refuses to help as he is now a father of 5-year-old Morgan. But after talking to his wife Pepper (Paltrow), he decides to perfect the time travel technology and joins the team to retrieve the Infinity Stones in various times before Thanos does.  This brings certain closures and  requires painful sacrifices from our heroes. 

Avengers: Endgame completes the narrative arcs of the 22-movie long individual journeys of its characters. While we can take Endgame as a standalone film, understanding it from 2008 Iron Man (and we are almost sure most viewers saw the previous films) allows viewers to appreciate the struggles and triumphs of its characters. And this is the greatest strength of the moviethe slow unfolding of individual stories tightly woven into the main conflict and the antagonist’s own arc (even Thanos is given a backstory). The other elements—the imaginative design, the gripping action scenes, the impressive CGIs, the emotional score and the seamless editing—are subservient to and supportive of the storyline, pushing it forward, bathing it in drama and comedy as needed and underlining its message with powerful punches in the soul. By the time fans watch Endgame, they would have been so emotionally invested that each triumph (like when the disappeared heroes return) is a celebration, each death is a heartbreak and each conclusion is bittersweet.   

Taking the film as a whole, we can talk about sacrifice and selflessness. Natasha kept the team together in the beginning and let herself go in the end to save humanity. Starks, the conceited self-serving genius millionaire whom Cap said in the very first Avenger can never sacrifice for others, ultimately did. The battlecry, “Whatever it takes!” resonates real struggles ordinary people fight everyday. Thanos is not the just the intergalactic Titan but a representation of people and situations that oppress. Avengers showed that it is not the superpowers per se that can defeat the oppressor but teamwork, selflessness and embracing one’s higher purposes even if you can turn your back on it. Individually, we learn from Captain America’s willingness to live an ordinary life instead of remaining the superhero the world worships. We see how Peter Quill will not give up on his one true love even if she does not recognise him. We see how Thor grieved and became depressed because from successive failures to save Asgard from Hela (in Ragnarok) and the world from Thanos (in Infinity Wars) and relinquished his throne to a person he felt deserved it more.—PMF

Avengers: Endgame (2019)                                                             

DIRECTOR: Anthony Russo, Joe Russo

CAST: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Paul Rudd, Brie Larson, Karen Gillan, Danai Gurira

Bradley Cooper, Josh Brolin

SCREENPLAY BY: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely,

BASED ON: The Avengers by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby

PRODUCERS:  Kevin Feige

GENRE: Action, Adventure, Fantasy

MUSIC BY:  Alan Silvestri

EDITED BY: Jeffrey Ford, Matthew Schmidt

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Trent Opaloch

PRODUCTION COMPANY:  Marvel Studios

DISTRIBUTED BY: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

COUNTRIES: United States   

LANGUAGES: English

RUNNING TIME: 3 hours 1 minute

The Curse of La Llorona

Director: Michael Chaves   Lead Cast: Linda Cardellini, Raymond Cruz, Marisol Ramirez, Patricia Velasquez, Roman Christou, Jaynee-Lynne Kinchen  Screenwriters: Mikki Daughtry, Tobias Iaconis  Producers: Gary Dauberman, Emile Gladstone  Editor: Peter Gvozdas  Musical Director: Joseph Bishara  Cinematographer: Michael Burgess  Genre: Horror  Distributor: Warner Bros.  Location: California, US  Running Time: 1 hr 33 min

Technical assessment: 3

Moral assessment: 3

CINEMA rating: V14

MTRCB rating: PG

A portrait of three mothers. The first is moved by survival. The second by revenge. The third by remorse. Anna (Linda Cardellini), a caseworker for social services, rescues two boys from their home. They were locked up by their mother Patricia (Patricia Velasquez) who claims she is protecting her children from the evil spirit La Llorona. At the orphanage, the two boys are found dead, and Patricia blames Anna. Vindictive, Patricia summons La Llorona to go after Anna’s children Chris and Sam (Roman Christou, Jaynee-Lynne Kinchen). Anna seeks the help of Father Perez (Tony Amendola). The priest tells her the tale of La Llorona (Marisol Ramirez), the weeping woman in Mexican folklore who killed her children in a fit of jealousy to spite her husband. Her guilt has transformed her into a malevolent wraith claiming the lives of children. Only one person can help Anna and her children: Rafael Olvera (Raymond Cruz), a curandero, a faith healer.

Part of the Conjuring universe of horror films, La Llorona sketches a similar eeriness of dark interiors, a slithering presence, then a swoop. For the most part, silence escalates suspense. But compared with other Conjuring movies, this one does not haunt you. There is no gore, no graphic depiction of torment. There is even an attempt to inject humor with Rafael’s “ta-da” as he performs some shamanic rituals. Cardellini as Anna is engaging, her son (Roman Christou) is natural—but no one in the cast succeeds in drawing us into the horror. We don’t feel we’re in the 70s even with Anna’s flared pants; we don’t see the shift to the 1600s when La Llorona killed her children. For a horror movie to horrify, it needs to catch you off-guard, it needs to inch its way from the known to the unknown. La Llorona is static; the plot is all too familiar.

Although benign in its genre, this horror film may confuse young audiences. How do you explain La Llorona’s motivation to kill her children whom she loves the most when it is her husband she wants to hurt? It’s a twisted narrative that requires parental guidance, more so because it’s the image of a mother, the protector, that is demolished here. Deranged Patricia, another mother, makes the plot more disturbing for children when she “prays” to La Llorona for the wraith to kill Chris and Sam. Anna of course redeems the message: strong and loving, she risks her life for her children. There is one other value we find in the story, but it is nested in the controversial issue of the use of shamanic rituals. It is the constant affirmation of the Divine, faith, and God’s power to save us from evil. The curandero is a former priest. He says to Anna: I may have left the church but my faith in God remains.—MOE

Hotel Mumbai

DIRECTOR: Anthony Maras  LEAD CAST: Dev patel, Armie Hammer, Nazanin Boniadi, tilda Cobham-Hervey   PRODUCER: Basil Iwanyk, Gary Hamilton, Andrew Ogilvie, Jomon Thomas  SCREENWRITER: John Collee, Anthony Maras  BASED ON: Surviving Mumbai by Victoria Midwinter Pitt  MUSIC: Volker Bertelmann  GENRE: Suspense-Action  COUNTRY:  India 

LANGUAGE: English  RUNNING TIME: 125 minutes

Technical assessment: 3.5

Moral assessment: 3

CINEMA rating: V14

MTRCB rating: R16

It was an ordinary day’s work at for Taj Mahal Palace Hotel waiter Arjun (Patel) and chef Oberoi (Kher). As the day progresses, guests arrive. This includes Iranian-British heiress Zarah (Boniadi), her husband David (Hammer), the infant son Cameron and his nanny Sally (Cobham-Hervey) and a former Russian operative Vasili (Isaacs).  A man known as The Bull masterminds and directs his terrorist group to simutaneously attack several areas of Mumbai in the evening. This leaves the hotel helpess as the local police are not equipped to handle such situation. In the ensuing events, David and Vasili are executed by the terrorist as Arjun and Oberoi bravely guides and protects the hotel guests and helps the Special Forces to track the terrorist and end the seige.

Hotel Mumbai depicts the horrors that took place in 2008 with heart and dignity to the fallen and its hereos. The film interweaves structure, tension and drama through Maras’ direction, although at times too graphically violent for comfort. Seeing how terrorists easily kill people like swatting flies and then take a pizza break as if the former is just a slice of a day’s work transmits chilling horror. There is a noticeable dose of technical proficiency despite the formulaic presentation. Maras wastes no time to build the suspense, beginning from the very first scene as terrorists casually enter the city and blend in like casual tourists.

Sometimes, altruism comes from people whom you least expect would be willing to give up everything when they themselves have nothing. At first, we are led to believe that affluent couple Zarah and David will be the protagonists who will save others but then we realize that Arjum—who went to work shoeless—and Oberei turn out to be the ones willing to die for the sake of people they do not even know. While viewers bathe in gruesome violence scene after scene, we see two seemingly unnoticeable people bring compassion and sacrifice. Two selfless souls whose acts were enough to make us see the value of life. The violence is too intense for a young audience but the message is powerful for older and mature viewers.--PMF

Born Beautiful

DIRECTOR: Perci Intalan  LEAD CAST: Martin del Rosario, Paolo Ballesteros, Lou Veloso  SCREENWRITER: Jun Lana, Rody Vera  PRODUCER: Jane Basas, Perci Intalan  EDITOR: Maynard Pattaui  MUSICAL DIRECTOR: Emeron Texon GENRE: Horror Thriller   

CINEMATOGRAPHER: Tey Clamor  LOCATION: Philippines  RUNNING TIME: 108 mins. 

Technical assessment : 2.5 

Moral assessment: 2 

MTRCB rating: R16 

CINEMA rating: V16 

May pinagdaraanan si Barbs (del Rosario). Una, namatay ang kanyang pinakamatalik na kaibigang si Trish (Ballesteros) sa naunang pelikula. Sumunod ay tinamaan at sinunog ng kidlat ang isang pang baklang kaibigan.  At ngayon ay napagitna siya sa dalawang lalaki nag-aagawan sa kanyang pagmamahal. Dahil dito ay inisip niyang nagdudulot ng kamalasan ang kanyang pagiging bakla. Pagpapasyahan niyang mamuhay bilang isang lalaki sa pamamagitan ng “conversion theraphy session”, subalit lalo lamang itong magpapagulo sa kanyang buhay. Mabuti na lamang at ang espiritu ni Trisha ay laging handang magbigay ng payo kapag kailangan na niya. 

Katulad ng naunang pelikulang Die Beauiful, pinilit na siyasatin ni Intalan ang masalimuot na pinagdaraanan ng isang transgender sa kasalukuyang panahon. May kurot ang bawat tawa, may sugat ang bawat salita.  Kahit sa makabagong pananaw ngayon, mahirap pa rin ang pinagdaraanan ng mga taong hindi nakaayon ang mga pagpili sa idinidiktang pamantayan ng lipunan. Kaya sa mga naglalakas loob na tumaliwas, kailagang pagtibayin ang loob at patigasin ang puso. May malalim sanang mensahe ang naratibo kung naging maayos lamang ang pagkakatahi ng mga eksena at pagbuo sa katauhan at mga motibo ni Barbs.Sa halip ay itinuon ito sa katatawanan at nagmistulang sala-salabat na sitcom lamang ang mga tagpo. Nakatatawa, oo. Pero pagkainom mo ng tubig ay sabay na ring mahuhugasan kung ano mang kwento o kwenta ang meron dito. 

Kung ang layunin ng mga gumawa ng Born Beautiful ay palawigin ang pagkakaunawa sa mga isyu ng LGBT o bigyan sila ng karampatang panahon para hindi lamang maging pangbasag sa seryosong mga eksena—hindi nila ito nabigyang katarungan. Katulad ng nabanggit, mas malakas ang direksyon na ibenta ang komedya at hatakin ang mga manunuod sa magaspang na katatawanan. Maraming kabastusan na hindi naman talagang kailangan. Kahit na nasa hustong gulang at pag-iisip ang manunuod ay mahihirapan pa ring himayin ang mas makabuluhang pangyayari na maaring pagsimulan sana ng mas matalinong pag-uusap ukol sa LGBT.--PMF 

Pet Sematary

DIRECTORS: Kevin Kölsch, Dennis Widmyer  LEAD CAST: Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, John Lithgow  SCREENPLAY BY: Jeff Buhler   STORY BY: Matt Greenberg, based on Pet Sematary by Stephen King  PRODUCERS: Lorenzo di Bonaventura, Steven Schneide, Mark Vahradian  GENRE: Horror, Thriller  MUSIC BY:  Christopher Young  EDITED BY: Sarah Broshar  CINEMATOGRAPHY: Laurie Rose  PRODUCTION COMPANY: Di Bonaventura Pictures, Alphaville Films  DISTRIBUTED BY: Paramount Pictures   COUNTRY: United States   LANGUAGE: English  RUNNING TIME: 1 hour 48 minutes

Technical assessment: 2

Moral assessment: 2

CINEMA rating: V18

MTRCB rating: R16

Tired of living in the big city, Dr. Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) moves his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz) and their two kids, eight-year-old Ellie (Jeté Laurence) and toddler Gage (Lucas Lavoie) from Boston to rural Maine. Everyone seems to like their rustic new house, even Church the cat. But the house is along a superhighway with speeding trucks that can squash persons or animals in seconds. When the inevitable tragedy happens, Louis turns to neighbor Jud Crandall (John Lithgow) who tells them about an old Native-American graveyard out back where kids bury their road kill and its powers of bringing the dead back to life. Little did they know that trying it out sets off a dangerous chain reaction that unleashes an unspeakable evil with horrific consequences.

Pet Sematary is both a remake and an adaptation of Stephen King’s 1983 novel. The film feels dated in its approach and in some plot elements. The exposition is also quite too long and it takes a while before the story gets really interesting. There are bits of scares here and there but nothing really unforgettable. The movie tries very hard to be psychological but it fails to really explore the various subplots which could have made it more insightful if not more exciting. The actors have played their parts well although the material does not really call for more depth. This film is one classic example of intelligent characters doing stupid things and it gets in the way of suspending disbelief.

What if your favorite pet dies and you bury it in a place where it could get back to life again? And what if the same is applied to humans? That is basically the film’s premise that calls for debate on dealing with loss, grief and death. Just as when the Creeds are trying to pull their lives together and settle in a more laidback environment to spend more time together and cherish each and every waking moment, tragedy strikes. People have different ways and capacities of coping with loss. It is seen in the film that the Creeds do not have a faith practice and Louis does not really believe in God nor in life after death. Church for the Creeds is nothing more than their pet. The film clearly shows what happens if our happiness depends on people and pets—they will inevitably leave and fail us—so loss would be so painful that one will defy all sorts of reason. The film lacks any redemptive value for the protagonist does not demonstrate any kind of remorse and he just opens up their bodies and souls to be instruments of the devil. In Louis’ desire to bring back to life a dead loved one, he deprives everyone around him of peace and the chance of living a beautiful life. Sometimes, dead is better—as the movie says. Given its theme of psychological and spiritual warfare, and the gore and violence, CINEMA deems Pet Sematary as appropriate only for audiences 18 years old and above.—RPJ