Monday, June 1, 2009

Night at the Museum 2

Cast: Ben Stiller, Amy Adams, Owen Wilson, Hank Azaria, Robin Williams, Christopher Guest, Alain Chabat; Director: Shawn Levy; Producers: Michael Barnathan, Chris Columbus, Shawn Levy, Mark Radcliffe; Screenwriters: Robert Ben Garant, Thomas Lennon; Music: Alan Silvestri; Editor: Dean Zimmerman, Don Zimmerman; Genre: Action/ Adventure Comedy; Cinematography: John Schwartzman; Distributor: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation; Location: Canada; Running Time: 108 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers of all ages

The display figures at the Museum of Natural History which magically sprang to life at midnight and befriended the night guard Larry (Ben Stiller) are being packed off to the archives of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington to give way to state-of-the-art museum features. Now a businessman in his own right, Larry decides to travel to Washington to rescue his museum friends from a future of perpetual storage. While trying to free from their packing crates Theodore Roosevelt (Robin Williams), the miniature cowboy Jedediah (Owen Wilson) and Octavius the Roman general (Steve Coogan, Larry inadvertently resurrects the Egyptian pharaoh Kahmunrah (Hank Azaria). With ambitions of conquering the world Kahmunrah enlists the help of some of history’s meanest characters Al Capone (Jon Bernthal), Napoleon Bonaparte (Alain Chabat), Ivan the Terrible (Christopher Guest), and of court his own bodyguards to wangle from Larry the giant gold keypad that would unleash the pharaoh’s ancient army. So now it’s Kahmunrah and the baddies versus Larry, a reanimated duo, General Custer (Bill Hader) and aviatrix Amelia Earhart.



Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian is be to enjoyed as an entertaining high-tech ouvre that delights the child in the viewer. Talk about a dinosaur’s skeleton jerking back to life, or figures in iconic paintings stepping out the frame and into the real world to interact with Larry and the museum figures—that’s neat. As a rule, credit must be given generously to those working with the computers to bring about these special effects—not only in this movie but for all movies utilizing computer generated images (CGI), which happen to be a dime a dozen nowadays. When it comes to the predictable story, forget about authenticity or historical accuracy; don’t question character development, time boundaries or inconsistencies with what you’ve learned in History Class. Likewise, there’s no point in asking if the pharaoh acted like a pharaoh would in real life, or if Al Capone would have agreed to being recruited by an Egyptian ruler if he had had a chance to.

What is the message of this movie? Or at least the lesson it’s trying to teach the viewer? Well, the viewer can glean the old tale of good versus evil, naughty versus nice, in the plot, but it’s doubtful if director Shawn Levy had aimed to achieve anything more than box-office success for this work. Like any piece of historical fiction (like the Dan Brown potboilers Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons), Night… 2 is merely a product of a hyperactive imagination. Thus, while the story may be spiced with the names or presence of historical figures—people who lived on earth once upon a time—their personalities in this work of fiction remain fictitious, created by the authors, directors, producers, marketers, with their own probably commercial agenda. Watching this movie may give you a feeling that you’re acting like a den mother to a bunch of gung ho kindergarten kids let loose in the park. One thing good about Night…2 is—its humor remains clean from beginning to end. But as a tip for parents: don’t forget to point out to your young children that Larry stole a guard’s badge and uniform to gain entry into the Smithsonian archives. Even with the noblest of intentions, stealing is stealing in any language.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Terminator Salvation

Cast: Christian Bale, Sam Worthington, Anton Yelchin, Moon Bloodgood, Bryce Dallas Howard, Common, Jane Alexander, Helena Bonham-Carter, Jadagrace; Director: McG; Producers: Derek Anderson, Moritz Borman, Victor Kubicek, Jeffrey Silver; Screenwriters: John D. Bracanto, Michael Ferris; Music: Danny Elfman; Editor: Conrad Buff IV; Genre: Science-Fiction/ Fantasy, Action/Adventure; Cinematography: Shane Hurlbut; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: New Mexico, USA; Running Time: 110 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above

Terminator Salvation is the fourth film of the series. It begins in 2018 Judgment Day and the machines have take over the earth. John Connor (Christian Bale) leads a resistance group and is both seen as a hero in waiting and a false prophet. They discover that Skynet is now attempting to create cyborg a combination of human and robots. Meanwhile death row inmate Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington)wakes up after 15 years and only remembers being on a death row. He emerges unharmed from a nuclear explosion and crosses path with teenage Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin), who is Skynet’s primary target for obliteration and John Connor’s father to be. Between trying to save his future father and the remaining humanity from annihilation, John Connor must decide whether Marcus is an ally or a traitor send by Skynet.

This Terminator installment plays more like a war movie than a Terminator movie with its loudness and non-stop metal clanging and banging. The script is well played but develops to be tedious. There is good camerawork complemented by the high intensity editing which keeps audience at the edge of their seats, gritting their teeth watching through half closed eyes. The action and CGI are enigmatic and impressive. This movie is worth time to spend on a lazy slow day.

There are several great characters in this movie. John Connor, incidentally is also “JC”, is the Christ-figure in the film. Everyone anticipates the “Messiah” but almost no one believe or accepts him as their savior. Marcus Wright is the sinner turned saint as he continually overrides his programming choosing to side with the humans and ultimately sacrificing his life so that another person may live. However, the movie is too violent. The brutality continues from Opening to Closing Credits with not many words to describe the physical and psychological attacks. Because of the graphic carnage and action, the movie is not suitable for young children and impressionable teenagers.

Ded na si Lolo

Cast: Gina Alajar, Elizabeth Oropesa, Manilyn Reynes, Dick Israel, Perla Bautista, Rainier Castillo, BJ Forbes, Roderick Paulate; Director: Soxy Topacio; Screenwriter: Soxy Topacio; Genre: Drama/ Comedy; Cinematography: ; Distributor: APT Entertainment; Location: Manila; Running Time: 91min.;

Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance

Makakarating kay Charing (Manilyn Reynes) ang masamang balitang patay na ang kanyang ama at siya’y hihimatayin sa sobrang gulat at kalungkutan. Makikita ito ng kanyang pamilya at magiging apektado sa lahat ang kanyang bunsong si Bobet (BJ Forbes). Masasaksihan ni Bobet kung paanong mababago ng kamatayan ng kanyang lolo ang samahan ng kanyang ina, mga tiyahin at tiyuhin na pawang mga palingkera lahat. Ito ay mangyayari rin sa gitna ng mga pagtatalo-talo ukol sa mga kasabihan at tradisyong Pilipino ukol sa patay. Sa bahay ng kanyang lolo kung saan nakatira ang kanyang Tita Mameng (Gina Alajar) ang burol. Isa-isang magdadatingan ang mga tiyuhin at tiyahin ni Bobet. Unang darating si Dolores (Elizabeth Oropesa) ang sinasabing pinakamapera sa lahat at pinakamasama rin ang ugali. Sunod ay ang kanyang tiyuhing panganay ( Dick Israel) at ang pinakahuli ay si Junie (Roderick Paulate) ang tiyuhin niyang binabae. Sa pagkamatay ng lolo ni Bobet, ay mauungkat ang mga itinatagong lihim, sama ng loob at mayroon din namang ilang masasayang alaala.

Isang nakakaaliw at nakakaantig na pelikula ang Ded na si Lolo. Sa simula’y aakalin na puro patawa lamang pelikula ngunit habang yumayabong ang kuwento na umikot lamang sa isang linggong burol ay unti-unting napapalitan ang tawanan ng kurot sa damdamin. Maganda ang pagkakasulat at pagkakadirehe. May ilang eksena lamang na nagiging sobrang gulo at hindi maintindihan ngunit maari ring ito mismo ang layon ng eksena. Naging malabis lang marahil sa isteryotipikal na paglalarawan sa mga bakla pero parte ito ng katatawanan sa pelikula. Magaling ang lahat ng nagsipagganap. Marahil ito ang tunay na yaman ng pelikula – ang mga mahuhusay na artistang walang itulak-kabigin sa galing sa pag-arte. Mapa-drama o comedy ang eksena ay nadadala nilang lahat. Tamang-tama ang daloy ng damdamin at hindi naligaw sa nais nitong iparating. Maganda rin ang musika na sumasabay sa emosyon at tiyempo ng pelikula.

Ang kamatayan sa pamilya ay isa sa trahedyang pilit na tinatakasan at iwinawaglit sa isipan ng bawat pamilyang Pilipino. Ngunit ito naman ay hindi talaga trahedyang maituturing sapagkat nagiging daan ito patungo sa pagkakaisa ng mga namatayan pati na ng kanilang mga kaibigan. Ipinakita sa Ded na si Lolo kung paanong ipinagdadalamhati ng pamilyang Pilipino ang kamatayan ng isang kaanak. Tunay na nakakaaliw ang pagkukuwestiyon sa ilang mga tradisyon na tunay nga namang hindi malaman ang lohika at pinagmulan. Wala mang masama at mawawala sa pagsunod, tama rin namang pag-isipan kung ang mga ito ba’y may maitutulong o wala. Hindi rin naman tamang maging sunod-sunuran na lamang ng hindi nauunawan kung ano ba ang kanilang sinusunod. Ang pinakamalagang ipinakita sa pelikula ay ang pagkakaisa ng pamilya sa gitna ng dalamhati at kung paano nilang binibigyang galang ang katawang mortal ng isang namayapa na. Nagkulang nga lang ang pelikula sa pagpapalalim ng kinahihitnan ng kaluluwa ng isang namatay at kinunsinte rin nito ang pagusugal upang makalikom lamang ng pondo. Pero higit na mariin ang mensahe ng pelikula ukol sa pagpapatawad, paghihilom ng sugat, pagtanaw ng utang na loob , pagbibigay at pagpaparaya kung kaya’t katanggap-tanggap pa rin ito sa bandang huli.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

SIGNIS Statement: Angels and Demons

(Rome, May 11, 2009) Just what everyone has been waiting for: a film of a Dan Brown novel!

However, with the report of a review in L'Osservatore Romano after the film's premiere in Rome saying that the film was commercial and entertaining and that Ron Howard had made an effective thriller (although the review also suggested a mind game while watching the film, to pick the inaccuracies!), it means that a lot of the heat should have gone out of any controversy. SIGNIS Cinema Desk would certainly endorse the reviewer's conclusion that the film is 'two hours of harmless entertainment' and not a danger to the church.

Had there been no Da Vinci Code novel, film or controversy, then Angels and Demons would have probably been reviewed as a blockbuster doomsday, murder mystery thriller with a Vatican setting (looking rather authentic), discussions about the church and science with the Catholic Church treated quite respectfully. (References to persecution of scientists in the 16th and 17th centuries was sometimes inquisitorial – and is documented; prison was not easy for Galileo.) There are speculations about the secret society of scientists, The Illuminati, who seem to be a Masonic equivalent.

Angels and Demons was written some years before The Da Vinci Code and is a better written book though it is an 'airport novel', a page-turner. As with many historical novels (and Shakespeare himself was not above creating 'historical' scenarios that were inventive rather than factual), the author takes imaginative license with characters, events, and hypotheses: what if...? But Angels and Demons has a character who seems to do a 180 degree turn in character and behaviour which makes the psychological realism of the book rather absurd. In the film, there is less depth of explaining this character and so the revelation tends to be a cinema twist which, however preposterous, is somewhat more credible, at least in terms of the far-fetched plot itself.

While Ron Howard did not have permissions to film in the Vatican , the sets of the Sistine Chapel, St Peter's interiors, the Vatican Archives look quite convincing and were commented on favourably by the L'Osservatore Romano reviewer.

The scenes of the CERNS reactor are very impressive.

The key point about Angels and Demons is its church subject: church and science, past conflicts, the present challenge, a feature of recent Vatican discussions about evolution and creationism, the meeting of science and religion rather than antagonism. Not a difficult subject when one thinks of Galileo and Pope John Paul's apology in 2000. Which means that the central issues are not as threatening or offensive as the hypothesis of The Da Vinci Code with its relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and their descendants.

The day before the preview of Angels and Demons in London , channel 5 screened The Body which came and went several years ago without too much angst or even discussion. Antonio Banderas portrayed a Jesuit from Rome going to Jerusalem to examine bones discovered in what might have been Jesus' tomb and which would threaten a traditional understanding of the resurrection. There are plenty of novels and films which raise such issues by way of interest and entertainment but are not put forward as theology.

The controversy about The Da Vinci Code, book and film, certainly got people going all around the world, given the number of books sold and the multi-millions of readers. The Opus Dei connection also contributed to some of the furore.

However, this time, with only science and the church (and issues of anti-matter and its potential for mass destruction in the wrong hands) and the Vatican itself calling in Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) to solve the problems, the potential for argument is limited. As with the screenplay for The Da Vinci Code, lines have been inserted more favourable to the church. Langdon reminds the Vatican that, despite the previous controversy, they have called him in this time. There are respectful lines concerning faith and non-belief – and a final request to Langdon from Cardinal Strauss that he write gently about the church!

One of the issues facing the conclave in the film is the 'Church in the Modern World' vis-a-vis science, with the dialogue for the meeting of ideas of science and theology or extremist attitudes towards religion capitulating to science and so destroying the church – the point being that this kind of fanatic stance can become a cause, righteously crusading with violence against those who hold more moderate views – leading to what could be labelled 'ecclesiastical terrorism'.

A key issue prior to the release of the film has been the raising of controversy about the film, sight unseen, a protest that undermines the protesters' credibility.

Any controversy and protest about a film is a challenge for the church to look at how it responds. The Vatican comments from Fr Federico Lombardi deflected some heat with offhand humour (that he would say something if the film-makers took out 1000 10 year subscriptions to L'Osservatore!). However, several Italian papers began making comments about Vatican officials possibly criticising the film some months earlier. This made headlines in the media that the Vatican would object or was objecting. And publicists must have been offering prayers of thanksgiving that these rumours were doing some of their job for them.

But, in the Catholic world, the main protest has come from William Donohue, president of the Catholic League in the United States . As he did with The Da Vinci Code and The Golden Compass, he issued lists of errors in the book and said that they were to insult the church. It was alleged that he had a Canadian priest contact, not wearing clerical dress, on the set of Angels and Demons who reported that director Ron Howard and members of the production were verbally anti-Catholic. On the basis of this, spurred by an Indian journalist who is linked with the Catholic League, processions of protest were held in India and Taiwan . Many of the errors and alleged insults to the church in the Catholic League list are not in the film.

Ron Howard's publicist (or Howard himself) came up with some smart repartee, that William Donohue must be a man of faith because 'he believes without seeing'. And that Donohue and himself were in agreement – that Angels and Demons was fiction. There were some acrid comments reported from the producers about the Vatican prohibiting filming in the Vatican and parts of Rome but there were also many quotes from Tom Hanks and Ron Howard that the film was not anti-Catholic and that the Vatican would enjoy it (as has seemed to be the case from the review). The Donohue one-liner was that Howard was 'delusional'

This kind of thing (which may not go much further because of the L'Osservatore favourable comments) indicates that there is a profound difference in responding to a film, or anything that is challenging, from an 'education' point of view which leads to dialogue rather than a 'crusading' point of view which leads to two-sided polemic with antagonists rather enjoying the experience of battle in crusade. Dialogue can lead somewhere. Polemic leads nowhere but simply confirms antagonists in their positions and stances and introduces the hurling of invective which in no way mirrors the charity and peace of Christ.

The (good) news is that Dan Brown has completed another conspiracy novel, The Lost Code, due for publication and optioned for filming!



ANGELS AND DEMONS: A REVIEW by Fr. Peter Malone



May to August in the northern hemisphere spring and summer is a time for almost weekly release of blockbusters with huge budgets, action and effects and potential for high grosses at the box office. 2009 has seen Wolverine, Star Trek, followed by Angels and Demons, with Night at the Museum 2, Transformers 2 and Terminator Salvation in the offing.

Here is a doomsday plot, murder mystery, action thriller with a cast led by Tom Hanks as symbologist Robert Langdon and Ewan McGregor as the Vatican Camerlengo and an international cast portraying scientists, police, bishops and cardinals.

Angels and Demons, unlike the film of The Da Vinci Code, is fast-paced, the L'Osservatore Romano review referring to Ron Howard's dynamic direction. It also used the word 'commercial' as well as noting that it was 'harmless entertainment' and not a danger to the Church.

In fact, the film treats the church quite interestingly, scenes behind a conclave and inside the conclave, fine sets of the Sistine Chapel, the interiors of St Peter's, Castel San Angelo, the Vatican Necropolis, the Swiss Guards centre, the Vatican archives and several churches with art by Bernini. The film won't harm tourism to Rome or to the Vatican . Probably, the contrary.

The issue is science and religion. There are some very impressive scenes of CERN in Switzerland where the Big Bang was re-created in 2008. Dan Brown, writing years earlier, posited this explosion and the formation of anti-matter which is then used as a terrorist threat in Rome . Arguments are put forward about the church's record in persecuting scientists in past centuries, especially Galileo (true) with some inquisitorial interrogations and tortures. The material about the Illuminati, the underground society of scientists has some foundation but was not as extensive as speculated on here – a kind of Masonic brotherhood of scientists. (They appeared in the first Lara Croft film without anybody taking to controversy.)

One of the issues facing the conclave in the film is the Church in the Modern World vis-a-vis science, with the dialogue for the meeting of ideas of science and theology or extremist attitudes towards religion capitulating to science and so destroying the church – the point being that this kind of fanatic stance can become a cause, righteously crusading with violence against those who hold more moderate views – leading to what could be labelled 'ecclesiastical terrorism'.


Oh, the tale has so many plot-holes (with the action moving so fast you don't quite have time to follow through on them) that they don't bear thinking about – so, either one sits irritated at the inaccuracies about dates and historical figures and driven up the wall by the lack of coherence in the course of events or, as one does, offer a willing suspension of disbelief and enjoy the action for what it is, a lavishly-mounted, pot-boiling thriller.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Duplicity

Cast: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Tom Wilkinson, Paul Giamatti, Dan Daily; Director: Tony Gilroy; Producers: Laura Bickford, Jennifer Fox, Kerry Orent; Screenwriter: Tony Gilroy; Music: James Newton Howard; Editor: John Gilroy; Genre: Drama/ Romance; Cinematography: Robert Elswit; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: several North America and Europe; Running Time: 125 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above

The film opens in slow motion as two corporate honchos brawl in the tarmac after they descend from their respective private jets with their staff watching in horror. Then we return to 2003, when smooth-talking M15 agent charmer Ray Koval (Clive Owen) meets sassy CIA operative Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts) in a consulate party in Dubai. Instantly attracted, they begin flirting with each other until they share a passionate night. However, the next morning Claire drugs Ray and steals the Egyptian documents they were both assigned to look for. Fast forward 5 years after in the US, the two, this time working for the same multinational company as intelligence operatives, cross paths and are teamed together for an assignment much to Claire’s disgust. Or is it so? After a series of flashbacks and flash forwards, as the audience is taken to a jet setting tour around the world, we realize that Claire and Owen have been meeting for years and are now planning a scheme to double cross their employers, steal the secret formula and make a few millions before leaving the spy game. But first, they have to overcome their trust issue before learning to work together.

The biggest achievement of the movie is overcoming the difficulty of non-linear story telling which is both confusing and hard to follow while being clever and amusing. Duplicity relies on cerebral work instead of muscle power. Needless to say, the violence of the film is in the script and words rather than in actual fighting and blood shedding. The cinematography and production design are dramatic as they transform and gloss every single scene regardless if it is in an Italian hotel suite or dingy spy headquarters or the bland corporate office. Owen and Roberts deliver powerful performances but do not quite achieve an intense chemistry to make their long standing love affair believable. The witty complicated plot is washed down by a pathetic and weak ending. Over-all the movie is entertaining and worthwhile albeit a little problematical with the story telling.

Duplicity raises the issue of trust and loyalty. Self-interest and greed seem to be the main motivation of the characters that it becomes hard to have faith in the very person they love.

Again, pre-marital sex is tolerated and glamorized.

But the most disturbing issue with Duplicity is the glorification of crime and presentation of criminals as funny, charming, loveable characters you root for. As it lessens the impact of the misdeed, it may deliver the wrong message especially to young viewers.