Mamma Mia!

Lead cast: Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Amanda Seyfried, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgard, Julie Walters, Dominic Cooper, Christine Baranski, Ashley Lilley, Rachel McDowall, Philip Michael; Director: Phyllida Lloyd; Screenwriters: Catherine Johnson/based on the original musical book by Ms. Johnson/originally conceived by Judy Craymer based on the songs of Abba; Cinematographer: Haris Zambarloukos; Editor: Lesley Walker; Music: Benny Andersson and Bjorn Ulvaeus/some songs with Stig Anderson; Genre: Musical, romantic comedy; Location: Greece, USA, England; Runtime: 108; Producers: Judy Craymer/Gary Goetzman; Distributor: Universal Pictures.


Technical assessment: 3
Moral assessment: 3
CINEMA rating: V 14

Twenty-year old Sophie (Amanda Seyfield) is getting married soon. Dreaming of a white wedding, however, she insists on being given away by her father. The problem is, she doesn’t know who her absentee-father is. Her single-mother Donna (Meryl Streep) raised her singlehandedly, running “Villa Donna”, a modest inn on a Greek island. Days before the wedding she discovers—and shares with her bosom buddies—Donna’s diary which speaks of three amorous encounters around the time she was conceived. She is determined to realize her dream of walking down the aisle with her father, and so, unknown to Donna, she invites the three men: Sam (Pierce Brosnan), Harry (Colin Firth) and Bill (Stellan Skarsgard) to the wedding. If her own mother Donna can’t tell which of the three men has sired her daughter, how will Sophie be able to determine who her real father is? Who will finally give Sophie away?

The plot is thinner than crepe dough but Mamma Mia is undoubtedly enjoyable, thanks mostly to the great acting, and the lilting, foot tapping ABBA songs that have a way of burrowing into your memory. Because this is adapted from the Broadway musical of the same title, expect the characters to burst into song at the oddest moments, and forgive the production if the song is not the accurate expression called for by the situation. If the frothy story is good enough for Meryl Streep and Pierce Brosnan and is set on a Greek island, why complain? Just sit back and gorge on the eye candy that it is. If you want heavier stuff, see The Dark Knight, but if your bones are aching and your head is almost bursting from stress, then drop the aspirin and go see Mamma Mia. Seyfried is a real pro at singing, and delivers a star-making performance, a far cry from her roles in Mean Girls, Veronica Mars, and Big Love. Streep is obviously enjoying the sing-and-dance routine, at which she isn’t so bad, especially since the numbers rely more on fab costumes than on fancy choreography. Cinematography is a bit rocky: long shots with a little more action would have been better than close-ups, as in that part where Streep and Brosnan belt out “The Winner Takes it All”—it simply draaaags.

Not only is Mamma Mia’s plot thinner than crepe dough, the whole movie is in fact is like Cherry Crepes—looking yummy, brightly colored, sweeter than candy but hardly nourishing. Its one message is “go with the flow”: nothing is worth fretting about—it’s okay to change your mind, call off or stage a wedding at whim, stop asking who your father is. Very Greek-island living--just be accepting of the way things are, and everything will turn out all right after dancing to a couple of songs—with a literal Greek chorus in the background. As long as you know this type of feel-good movie can be addictive, you can go ahead and enjoy it for the therapeutic escape it can offer. At least, it’s way cheaper than a visit to the doctor.

The Dark Knight

Lead Cast: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine; Maggie Gyllenhal, Morgan Freeman; Director: Christopher Nolan; Story: Christopher Nolan, David Goyer; Screenplay: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan; Cinematography: Wally Pfister; Editing: Lee Smith; Producer: Christopher Nolan, Charles Roven, Emma Thomas; Music: James Newton Howard, Hans Zimmer; Location: USA; Genre: Action; Running Time: 155 minutes; Distributor: Warner Bros.

Technical Assessment : 3.5
Moral Assessment : 2.5 (for violence)
Cinema Rating : V-14

Gotham City has a new hero, one who need not hide in a mask and lurk in the shadows as an uncontrollable vigilante. He is the newly appointed District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) who is determined to rid the city of mobsters and criminals within the boundaries of law and justice. He is able to round up 500 mob and thugs with the help of Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Batman /Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale). This prompts the mob leaders to take the offer of the criminally insane anarchist and mass murderer Joker (Heath Ledger) to kill Batman. Joker attempts to lure Batman to reveal his true identity by killing high ranking and innocent citizens of Gotham everyday. The conscience-stricken Batman contemplates to prevent any more murders and asks Dent to call a press conference so he can reveal his true identity. However, during the press conference, as the crowd clamors for Batman to step up and face the consequences of his actions and before Bruce Wayne can come forward, Dent confesses he is the Batman. Dent, escorted by a police caravan, is transported to jail. Joker attacks the caravan en route to kill Dent but is captured and incarcerated by the police. However, being always one step ahead and with the help of corrupt police officers, Joker kidnaps Dent and Rachel, Dent’s fiancée and Bruce Wayne’s friend and former sweetheart. They are put in separate places laden with explosives. Unfortunately, only Dent is rescued. Rachel dies and half of Dent’s face gets badly burned. The experience corrupts Dent and transforms him into the vindictive Two-face. Now Batman must fight Joker’s murderous madness, Two-face’s vendetta and the lawlessness he seemingly inspired in the streets of Gotham.

This version of Batman departs from the customary comic-book archetypes and Tim Burton’s theatrical directorial interpretation. This time Batman is a darker and grimmer production that moves closer to real people. The Nolan brothers have successfully integrated the comic-book storyline with a more mature plot development, favoring drama over dash and allowing people to sympathize with characters’ flaws, transformations and weaknesses. No back-story was provided for Ledger’s Joker character but he portrays it with such chilling menace that no explanation is deemed necessary to understand his twisted logic and evil character. Also outstanding were the portrayals of Oldman and Eckhart. Technically, the movie leaves you at the edge of your seat with one explosive action sequence after the other and an exhilarating editing technique. The camerawork could have slowed down as viewers sometimes feel continuously moving even during serious dialogues and non-action scenes. However, the movie still feels a little long and overstretched with one too many scenes that serve no purposed save to explain side stories or provide more action.

Integrity and selflessness seem to be just romantic but forgotten virtues especially during times of fear and chaos. When one’s survival is threatened, what does one do? The movie suggests that most people would betray, harm or even kill someone else just to save their own life. Self preservation seems to be the ultimate objective of living, as the Joker tries over and over to prove that even the most decent and upright man can be corrupted when put under extreme pain and despair. But characters such as Commissioner Gordon, Rachel Dawes and Lucius Fox illustrate how selflessness, uprightness and dispensing justice within the boundaries of law are the best way to bring about order and stability in society. The scene where passengers of two ferry boats loaded with explosives were forced to blow the other in order to save themselves stresses that even sinners / criminals can learn to sacrifice themselves to do what is right.
These times, most societies are put to test with the many pressures and challenges in all fronts – economic, political, social, and psychological. Relationships and dignity are threatened by so many self-serving ideologies. We are almost always challenged to choose to save our own skins at all costs or to think of the good of others at the cost of our happiness, desires or comfort. Perhaps when one day people can think and care less of themselves can we finally start having a harmonious, peaceful and progressive society.

The film conveys this valuable message but unfortunately gets drowned by intense action and psychological violence, explosions, mayhem and aggressive behavior of the main characters. Most scenes may not be appropriate for young audience and parents should be cautioned against allowing their teenagers to watch the film alone.

Hancock

Title: Hancock; Cast: Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, Jae Head; Director: Peter Berg; Producers: Akiva Goldsman, James Lassiter, Michael Mann, Will Smith; Screenwriters: Vincent Ngo, Vince Gilligan; Music: John Powell; Editors: Colby Parker Jr., Paul Rubell; Genre: Action/ Comedy/ Drama/ Fantasy; Cinematography: Tobias A. Schliessler; Distributor: Sony Pictures Entertainment; Location: Los Angeles , California , USA; Running Time: 92 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 up



John Hancock (Will Smith) sleeps at park benches, swears, is rude, drinks heavily, and is in the words of a little boy an “asshole”. But he is also a superhero of sorts. He’s arrogant but he saves lives; he’s a bum but he can’t tolerate baddies. When on call he doesn’t hide and slip into a signature costume, he simply skyrockets himself, crashing through windows, making a mess of the traffic, leaving downtown Los Angeles like it’s been rocked by a mega hurricane. Half the people adore him; the other half has filed over 600 lawsuits against him for damaged property and injured bodies. One day he saves from sure death a dreamer of a PR man Ray (Jason Bateman) who is stupid enough to get himself stuck on the railroad track with a train zooming up. Grateful for his life, Ray brings Hancock home for a spaghetti dinner, and introduces the superhero to his son (who idolizes Hancock) his wife Mary (Charlize Theron) who can’t seem to stand the sight of the boorish superhuman around the house. What Ray really wants to do is give Hancock an image makeover—to make him look good to the public.

The movie’s trailer and poster claim there are heroes and superheroes (and more superheroes) and then there is Hancock. Or something like that. Which leads the viewer to expect a different kind of superhero—but a superhero nonetheless. So the story brings us this superhero with an issue—or rather with unresolved issues good enough to keep ten psychiatrists employed for life. This movie which is billed as an “action comedy” flick seems two movies in one, but it confuses its own plot, thus it won’t fit in a decent genre. So there are action comedies and action comedies, and then there is Hancock, a hybrid that doesn’t know how to categorize itself. Even the hero doesn’t understand his powers, much less wield them as a hero is expected to. Okay, okay, they said this was not your ordinary superhero movie—but at least give us something superior, so we don’t regret buying a ticket and having nothing left for popcorn. Don’t give us an unidentifiable species that’s half-hearted comedy turning into a half-baked Shakespearean tragedy with no rationale to engage our brains. The CGI is passable, but worthless against all the questions directed at the ethics of the hero.

Is there a race somewhere? A supercontest of sorts where superheroes out to save the world leave in their wake bigger and bigger collateral damage? Who gets to pay for all that mess this sloppy superhero creates? Just count the potholes caused by his landings. Where is this superhuman coming from? Aren’t superheroes supposed to be, at least, respectful of the citizens of this planet? Is it correct for a superhero to traumatize a kid who’s just being a kid? Is it moral to save one and let a hundred others die? Did Hancock’s makers mean to say anyone can be a superhero simply because he happens to be superhuman? What do they want our children to be? Will Smith the actor became famous for being a family-friendly rapper, a good kid in a very popular TV series. Why are they now shaking off his clean image? Do they want our kids to follow this likeable actor to perdition? Many are the ways by which the evil one will try to lure our children into decadence. Beware. If you must allow your 14-year olds to see this movie, tell them Hancock is fictitious, not to be emulated, idolized, or taken seriously.

Wanted

Title: Wanted; Cast: James McAvoy, Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman, Terence Stamp, Thomas Ketschmann. Director: Timur Bekmambetov; Writer: Michael Brandt, Derek Haas and Chris Morgan; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: USA; Running time: 110 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA rating: R 14 (For viewers aged 14 up)

In Wanted, the “Fraternity” is a thousand-year old secret society of assassins whose mission is to rid the world of bad guys. “Kill one, save a thousand” seems to be their motto. Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) is a nondescript account manager in some New York office ruled by an obese woman with a razor tongue and indefatigable vocal chords. Besides being bullied by this slob of a boss, Wesley is also hen-pecked by his girlfriend who incessantly complains of the night trains chug-chugging by their cheap apartment. As if two ranting women were not enough, the nerdy Wesley also discovers that his best friend and office mate is also seeing his girlfriend on the side. Too naïve and cowardly to stand up for himself, Wesley seems resigned to live a life that leads nowhere. Until Fox (Angelina Jolie) enters the scene—but not to bring sunshine and flowers to Wesley’s dead-end existence. She takes him to Sloane (Morgan Freeman), the head of the Fraternity, who reveals to Wesley that he has the assassin in his genes, being the son of one of their murdered members. It is to avenge the death of his father then that Wesley is to be recruited, motivated and trained.

The plot of Wanted, if a trifle too bloody, vengeful and violent, is simple enough to follow, and seen against the backdrop of comic book fiction may even come across as credible. It’s not hard for everyman to identify with the superbly acted McAvoy character who turns from weakling to super assassin. Its credibility is further established by having Morgan Freeman in the cast—he who is gifted with a hypnotic growl and an aura of omniscience can make poison sound like milk and honey until you thirst for it. And nobody but nobody could have played Fox more believably than Jolie—wielding with elan fantabulous guns half her weight. Her legendary sex appeal needs no dominatrix costumes—it oozes through even a no-frills white mini dress that would have looked like a nanny’s apron on a less stylish actress. Her panache and her expressive face also project her as the perfect “killer of few words.” Kazakhstan-born director Timur Bekmambetov ably pulls off this thriller and succeeds in suspending the viewer’s disbelief with the use of over-the-top stunts and killer-ware: surfing atop speeding trains, guns and bullets with implausible trajectories, supercars that make James Bond’s look like a Matchbox collection.

There’s no stopping them now—action movies that rival computer games in adrenaline stimulation and ingenuity of inventions. It’s possible that even very young children who can wield the (computer) mouse will enjoy the technical aspects of Wanted. Why, even adult viewers would, as long as it’s clear to them that this movie defies the laws of physics and dabbles in gray areas of morality and mortality. Young viewers may not be able to draw the line between fact and fiction, or may be lost in seeing the boundary blurred between right and wrong. And even if there are willing parents who can guide them through this violent and deception-ridden piece of art, why titillate their imagination thus when there is so much still to learn in school and at home about real physics and real justice? For down-to-earth education-cum-entertainment that broadens their horizons, there’s Nat Geo Junior, Animal Planet or Discovery Channel. To help them with their school work, there’s Knowledge Channel. For good old Sunday afternoon family entertainment, put on The Sound of Music DVD, please.

The Warlords

Title: The Warlords; Cast: Jet Li, Andy Lau, Takeshi Kaneshiro, Xu
Jinglei; Director: Peter Chan; Producers: Andre Morgan, Huang Jianxin,
Peter Chan; Screenwriters: Xei Lan, Chun-Tin-Nam, Aubrey Lam; Music: Lean
Ko, chan Wong Wing; Editor: Wenders Li; Genre: Action/Drama/History/War;
Cinematography: Arthur Wong; Distributor: Viva Films, Morgan, and Chan
Films; Location: China; Running Time: 110 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above


Qing General Pang Quingyun (Jet Li) is the only survivor of a very fierce battle fought in 1861 during the Taiping Rebellion against the corrupt Chinese Qing Dynasty. Traumatized, Pang is nursed back to health by a kind peasant Lian (Xu Jinglei). Though their meeting is short--he sleeps with her for a night-- he develops some feeling for her. Soon, Pang falls in with a group of bandits under the leadership of Zhao Erhu (Andy Lau) and his aide Jiang Wuyang (Takeshi Kamashiro). Pang saves Jiang’s life and the three men pledge eternal friendship and blood brotherhood. Pang realizes Lian is Zhao’s wife. Later, Pang persuades the bandits to join the government’s army so they will have food and arms. Actually, Pang’s plan is to take his revenge on a rival general Pang and his men are assigned to what appears as a hopeless as assault on Shi City , yet Pang comes out victorious but at great cost since he had to use a great number of men as shields. Then they are asked to blockade Suzhou City but because this takes so long, the soldiers are hungry and suffer a lot. At this point, Zhao and Pang become gradually estranged because of Pang’s decisions to ruthlessly sacrifice men to win at all costs. Will this brotherhood stand the strain of conflict? How will the illicit relationship between Pang and Zhao’s wife affect the lives of the three “brothers”?

Originally, The Warlords was intended as a remake of the classic The Blood Brothers made by Chang Chek in 1973. But the present film ended up as a
highly budgeted war picture costing $40 million with no stunts and a
minimum of martial arts. Both are inspired by the chronicled assassination
of Gen. Maxinyi by his trusted friend Zhang Wenxiang in 1870. The Warlords also changes the names of the protagonists. The present picture is an epic war drama dressed up in impressive costumes but full of skillfully choreographed battle scenes so ultra realistic that they call to mind the gory heroism of the Spartan’s 300. Peter Chan shows the master’s hand in directing action sequences with thousands of extras wielding different weapons. Images of soldiers suffering and starving in trenches in the 30 minute Sushou sequence have strong emotional impact and may recall stories about 20th century world wars. Visuals are good and the predominance of dirty gray and brown help bring out the bleak atmosphere. Editing is tight but the music scoring is uneven. Originally in mandarin, the dubbed dialog is often difficult to follow. Though the other characters like Andy Law put in good performances, this is Jet Li’s picture. He dominates every scene where he appears and gives justice to his role as a conflicted
warrior and later as a warlord. But he does not have good chemistry with Xu Jenglei; the female protagonist. Their love scenes are very low key though their relationship is important to the outcome of the story.

Viewers who expect The Warlords to entertain them with spectacular war scenes will have their fill. Those with a scholarly bent can also gain insight into Chinese history. Moreover, the film has moral dimensions worth mentioning. For instance, the matter of adultery. Having an illicit relationship with a married person is often regarded in a matter-of-fact manner these days and just simply tolerated. But it does have far-reaching effects (the movie affirms this) that often times are not immediately discernible but these will come to pass. Jet Li’s character is that of an ambitious warrior who makes decisions to attain a goal (here, victory) without taking into account the welfare of others or the human factor. It is true that he has to make difficult decisions because the choices are difficult but this does not justify his killing a group of soldiers(over the issue of food) so others may live. He is so affected by what he does that he even sheds a tear but to him as a military man, it is victory at all costs. In the end, his realized ambition and position of importance are of no use. It is still the same rule. One cannot justify evil means even if the end or goal is good. Definitely this movie is not for the young. The violence is so preponderant that it is overwhelming. Too much exposure of young impressionable viewers to violence desensitizes them so that often their regard for the value of life is diminished.