Vampires Suck

By Teresa R. Tunay
Cast: Jenn Proske, Matt Lanter, Chris Riggi, Ken Jeong, Dave Foley, Diedrich Bader, Anneliese Van Der Pol, David DeLuise, Kelsey Ford
Writers and Directors: Jason Friedberg and Aaron Selzer
Studio: Twentieth Century Fox

Technical: 3 Moral: 3 For 14 years and up

Being a lampoon of the vampire genre, Vampires Suck does not bother to have an original plot. Instead it recycles Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight Saga whose impact on the general public is gauged by its 91 weeks of being in the New York Times Bestseller List since the book’s release in 2005.

Twentieth Century Fox summarizes the comedy as being “about contemporary teen angst and romance movies. Becca, an anxious non-vampire teen, is torn between two boys. Before she can choose, Becca must get around her controlling father, who embarrasses Becca by treating her like a child. Meanwhile, Becca’s friends contend with their own romantic issues—all of which collide at the prom.”

Many film critics tear Vampires Suck to pieces, saying it bears the characteristic crass humor of the same team that made Date Movie, Disaster Movie, Epic Movie and Meet the Spartans—directors and writers Jason Friedberg and Aaron Selzer. But if taken as an independent unit, minus the track record of its creators and the accompanying bias against it, Vampires Suck bears a message that deserves to be heard no matter how crudely it is delivered.

Vampires Suck’s significance derives from its guts in putting a reality check on a fast growing vampire cult rekindled by Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight Saga. The Twilight franchise has reaped phenomenal success worldwide, not only in ticket sales, but also in engaging viewers to regard it as a credible love story, intriguing and much like mythical romances where gods and mortals fall for each other. When female fans are getting polarized—when sisters, best friends, mothers and daughters fight over fictitious heroes (Team Edward or Team Jacob?)—it’s high time they were roused to the fact that their idols are simply figments of someone’s imagination. And what better way to do this than to expose the vampire movies to public ridicule?

The movie poster says it’s made for boyfriends unwilling to sit through another vampire movie. Vampires Suck certainly does a good job of lampooning Edward, Jacob and Bella, among other things. This is not to say the movie is a witty or stylish spoof, for many of its sight gags are cheap, flat, slapstick, violent, farcical, in bad taste, or downright unfunny, but it certainly succeeds in satirizing most of all the virtuous vampire, the exhibitionist werewolf, and the virginal victim of raging teen hormones.

Jacob’s clone (Chris Riggi) is exposed in all his hairy glory, complete with five sets of nipples and a yen for chasing household cats. No wonder—Jacob is actually a Chihuahua in werewolf’s clothing, so you see why he can’t ever run around without the pack, all shirtless like himself, flaunting their biceps and laundry board abs while dressed (down) like macho dancers in a gay bar!

On the other hand, Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter), the virtuous vampire who refuses sex outside of marriage, shrieks when excited, powders his face in public, and sleeps with his hair in curlers. While he tries his damned best to out-Edward Edward in glowering like a flesh-starved vampire, he doesn’t look emaciated enough to convince anyone. And speaking of starvation, watch what this Edward does when the sex-starved Becca straddles him in bed. Could Edward the chaste lover be… gay?

Becca Crane (Jenn Proske), not only parodies the angst-ridden Bella Swan in her constant hair-tucking, lip-biting mannerisms but also in lines that suggest she has an IQ of 40. Of all three lead actors, Proske is funniest in spoofing her model heroine, not only because she actually can pass for Stewart’s sister in looks and physique, but also because she seems to have sincerely psyched herself into Bella Swan’s mindset.

Loyal fans who take the Twilight Saga seriously will not find Vampires Suck funny. Jealous boyfriends and people who have seen the movies but were not pleased with them may find some LOL moments in Vampires Suck’s ribbing. Those who have not seen the Twilight movies will not know what Vampires Suck is all about. Better watch Splice instead.

Despicable Me

TITLE: Despicable Me RUNNING TIME: 95 minutes
LEAD CAST: Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Julie Andrews (VOICES)
DIRECTOR: Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud
GENRE: Animation, Comedy, Kids & Family
CINEMATOGRAPHER DISTRIBUTOR: Universal Pictures

Assisted by a small army of minions, Gru (voiced by Steve Carell), plans the biggest heist in the history of the world: to steal the moon. With an arsenal of shrink rays, freeze rays, and battle-ready vehicles for land and air, he vanquishes all who stand in his way, until the day he encounters three little willful orphaned girls see in him something that no one else has ever seen: a potential Dad. Funny, clever, warmly animated with memorable characters, the movie says no heart is hard enough for innocence to touch.

Technical: 3 Moral: 3 Rating: General Patronage

Mamarazzi

TITLE: Mamarazzi RUNNING TIME: 105 minutes
LEAD CAST: Eugene Domindo, Andi Eigenmann, Carla Abellana, Diether Ocampo, John Lapus, JC Tiuseco, Xian Lim and Carl Guevarra.
DIRECTOR: Joel Lamangan
SCREENWRITER: Ricky Lee
PRODUCER:
EDITOR: MUSICAL DIRECTOR:
GENRE: Comedy
CINEMATOGRAPHER DISTRIBUTOR: Regal Films

Violy (Eugene Domingo) the mother of triplets Dingdong (AJ Perez), Strawberry and Peachy (Andi Eigenmann) is loving and hardworking in her funeraria business but finds difficulty connecting with her son. The children demand to know the identity of their father whom Violy keeps as secret with her gay best friend Mandy (John Lapus). The genre makes light of the theme—becoming a biological mother outside of marriage—which is morally unacceptable.

Technical: 3 Moral: 2 Rating: R 18

Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore

Cast: Bette Midler, James Marsden, Nick Nolte, Christina Applegate, Michael Clarke Duncan, Neil Patrick Harris, Sean Hayes, Joe Pantoliano, Katt Williams, Chris O'Donnell
Director: Brad Peyton
Writer: Ron J. Friedman, Steve Bencich
Genre: Action/Adventure, Comedy, Family
Running Time: 82 min.

Technical: 3.5 Moral: 3 Rating: PG 13

Hairless cat Kitty Galore (voiced with gusto by Bette Midler) is an ex-MEOWS agent who is pushed by a dog into a vat filled with permanent hair remover. She is also kicked out of the house by her former masters and left out in the snow on Christmas day. She then vows to take revenge on dogs and their best friends—humans—wearing various body wigs, disguising herself as a helpless abandoned animal and a harmless house pet to secretly unleash her plan, a weapon of mass destruction. Kitty Galore’s plan, called “The Call of the Wild” is meant to be activated via an orbiting satellite to make all the dogs on the planet go mad, making her gain dominion over all cats who will then enslave humanity. But DOG, the canine counterpart of MEOWS, recruits Diggs (voiced by James Marsden), a German shepherd who loathes cats. He and partner and mentor Butch (voiced by Nick Nolte) join forces to find feisty pigeon called Seamus (voiced by Katt Williams), who alone holds vital clues to Kitty's plan. But the cats are also concerned for humanity, thus MEOWS top cat Tab Lazenby (voiced by Roger Moore) proposes a peace pact with DOG to thwart Kitty Galore’s evil scheme. Soon canine agents Diggs and Butch and MEOWS special agent Catherine (voiced by Christina Applegate) agree to set aside their natural differences in order to hunt down Kitty.

Although the target audience of this spy adventure Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore is children below 12, it’s thoughtful enough to offer something enjoyable for the youngsters’ chaperones as well. The plot and the visuals—clever and seamless CGI—make for an entertaining fable, combined with takes on other movies that grown ups easily recognize. The story and its telling is engaging enough for the young viewers who couldn’t care less who’s voicing which character, or whether or not it’s in 3D, but the oldies accompanying them certainly could make a lively game of spotting which character, line or scene is reflecting bits of James Bond, Batman, Silence of the Lambs, and others. (The title character’s name itself is a baby-talk derivative of James’ Bond’s Pussy Galore).

Judging from the cheers and the general response of the children in the audience, his Brad Peyton-directed movie will certainly enthrall the below-12 crowd who may just “see” their own household pets in the cute characters. Even though its plot is capitalizes on the old good-versus-evil formula that adults may find clicheic, Cats & Dogs: Revenge of Kitty Galore can still be mined for the valuable life lessons it envelopes—lessons on anger, revenge, hunger for power and control, and… uh… animals’ inhumanity to animals (so to speak) may be downsized to for children’s consumption.

In Your Eyes

Cast: Claudine Baretto, Anne Curtis, Richard Gutierrez Director: Mac Alejandre;Story and Screenplay: Keiko Aquino; Producer: Viva Films and GMA Films; Running Time: 100 minutes; Genre: Drama; Location: Los Angeles (California, USA) and Manila.

Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 2
Rating: For viewers 18 and above

Ibinigay ni Ciara (Claudine Baretto) ang kanyang buong buhay sa pag-aaruga na nakababatang kapatid na si Julia (Anne Curtis) magmula nang mamatay ang kanilang mga magulang. Inambisyon nilang magpunta ng Amerika upang doon buuin ang kanilang pangarap na mas magandang buhay. Makakarating si Ciara sa Amerika at magtatrabaho bilang physical therapist habang inaayos ang papeles ni Julia upang kanyang maipetisyon at sumunod sa kanya. Samantala, makikilala at magiging kasintahan ni Julia si Storm (Richard Gutierrez). Nang minsang manakawan ang tinitirhang bahay ni Julia, nagmadali itong sumunod kay Ciara sa takot na balikan siya ng mga magnanakaw. Hindi pa tapos ang kanyang papeles kung kaya't student visa lamang ang kanyang nakuha. Hindi naman makakatiis si Storm at sasama ito sa kanya papuntang Amerika. Mahihirapang makahanap ng trabaho si Storm sa Amerika at minsan ay magpapasya itong bumalik na lang ng Pilipinas. Pipigilan naman siya ni Julia at maiisip nitong kumbinsihin si Ciara na pakasalan si Storm para mapadali ang pagiging legal ng papeles nito sa Amerika. Pumayag kaya si Ciara? Paano kung tuluyang mahulog ang loob ni Ciara at Storm sa isa’t isa sa kanilang pagpapanggap bilang mag-asawa?

Isang kakatwang kuwento ng mga kakatwang posibilidad ang In Your Eyes. Bagama't maaring nangyayari ito sa tunay na buhay, hindi naging kapani-paniwala o kapuri-puri ang pagkakalahad nito. Nagkulang ang pelikula sa maraming bagay katulad ng tamang hagod ng emosyon at malalim na karakterisasyon. Paanong napaibig ng isang lalaking walang kabuhay-buhay na gaya ni Storm ang dalawang babae? (Maliban na lamang kung ang hanap ng magkapatid na ito’y isang lalaking mayabang, mainitin ang ulo, isip bata, at “bagyo” kung magalit? Akma ngang “Storm” ang pangalan niya: pa-sumpong-sumpong, walang direksiyon, at mapanira.) At paano rin magiging malalim ang pagmamahalan ng isang babae’t isang lalaki kung wala man lang matibay na pundasyon at matinding pagsubok na pagdadaanan? Lumalabas na ang pagmamahalan sa pelikula ay nag-uugat lamang sa tawag ng laman.
Nakapanghihinayang ang husay nina Barreto at Curtis na nahaluan ng walang husay na pag-arte ni Gutierrez na sa kabila ng itinagal sa industriya ay kagandahang lalaki lamang ang bentahe. Puwede din naming ipikit ang mga mata namin sa pag-arte ng mga ekstrang walang ibubuga, ngunit hindi maaaring palusutin namin na ang batikang aktor na si Joel Torre na bilang doktor ay pasulpot sulpot lamang sa eksenang parang kidlat upang sa pamimilosopo niya’y maliwanagan ang landas ni Ciara.

Walang makabuluhang kurot sa damdamin ang kabuuan ng pelikula at higit pang naging katawa-tawa ito dahil sa masagwa nitong musika na ubod ng lakas at bigla na lang papasukin ang iyong pandinig habang wala naman itong kinalaman sa eksenang dumaraan sa iyong paningin. Pilit mo mang abangan sa bawat dibdibang eksena ay hindi mo makikita ang koneksiyon ng pamagat (“In Your Eyes” na pamagat din ng isang popular na awitin) ng pelikula sa takbo ng kuwento na lumaylay nang husto sa bandang dulo at pumalpak nang labis sa kabuuan.

Puno rin ng nakababahalang mensahe ang pelikula. Nariyan ang lantarang pagtatalik ng mga tauhan sa labas ng kasal; ang “safe sex” na umaasa sa nakagawiang paggamit ng condom. Nagkindatan lamang sa bar ay nauwi na sa paggawa ng mga bagay na dapat lamang ay sa mag-asawa. Pinawawalang halaga nito ang nararapat na proseso ng pag-iibigan, at sa halip na magsimula sa panunuyo, ay inuuna nito ang tawag ng laman. Ginagawa nitong makatuwiran ang maling paniniwala at gawain. Hindi ito magiging magandang halimbawa lalo na sa mga kabataan na maaaring magpadala sa mga luha ni Curtis, sa pagka “martir” ni Barretto, at sa tulis ng ilong (ahem!) ni Gutierrez.

Higit na nakababahala ay ang pinaka-sentro ng kuwento kung saan ang dalawang tao ay nagpapakasal sa kung ano-anong dahilan maliban sa pagmamahalan sa isa’t isa. Bagama't maaaring talamak na ang praktis na ito sa mga kababayan nating nasa Amerika, hindi pa rin ito dapat ginawang napaka-kaswal at kaakit-akit na gawain. Nauuwi ito sa maraming komplikasyon sa relasyon at pamilya na siya namang sinikap na ipakita ng pelikula ngunit hindi ito naging epektibo pagkat walang tunay na pagsisising naganap sa mga nagkamali upang maging sanhi ng kanilang malalim na pagbabago. Sa kabila ng kanilang sinapit, bulag pa rin sila sa katotohanang itinulak nila ang kanilang mga sarili upang masadlak sa mga sitwasyong kanilang kinahinatnan.

Maliban sa pagmamalahan ng magkapatid—na hindi rin naman matatawag na dalisay dito pagkat ang pundasyon nito ay pangangailangan at hindi tunay na paghahandog ng sarili—walang ibang uri ng karapat-dapat na pagmamahalan ang isinasaad sa pelikula. Maaaring sa mababaw manood ng pelikula o sa mga ayaw mag-isip, naging wasto na ang ipinakitang “pagmamahalan” ni Ciara at Julia, ngunit sa mga masusing manonood, butas-butas ang In Your Eyes. Pinalalabo nito ang guhit na naghihiwalay sa tama at mali. Dito ang mga tauhan ay nagtatalik, nagsasakitan at napapariwara nang walang ibang dahilan kundi ang makasariling kasiyahan at “pagmamahal”. Ang mga butas nga bang naturan ay nasa pelikula o nasa mga mata lamang ng tumitingin?

Hindi ang lahat ng nanonood ng sine ay naghahanap lamang ng libangan—mayroon sa kanilang nangangailangan ng gabay, mayroon ding hinog ang isip at mapagtanong. Tulad noong nakaupo sa likuran namin na malakas na nagwika, sabay hagikgikan, matapos ang pelikula, “Ano ba yan! Pagkatapos nyong guluhin ang buhay ng mga tao, magsasalubong lang kayo sa ibabaw ng tulay, ayos na naman?”

Ang CINEMA rin, magtatanong: “Ano nga ba talaga, direk, ang punto mo?” Ito ba’y para pukawin ang isip ng mga Pilipinong nasa Amerika? Para kumita lang ang pelikula? Para panatiliin lang na nasa eksena ang mga artista? Pero may pag-asa pa, direk. Puwede pang gumawa ng sequel ang In Your Eyes para iwasto ang mga pagkakamaling ikinakalat nito ngayon, pero pamagatan mo naman kaya ng “In God’s Eyes”?