Eat Pray Love

A review by Peter Malone

For the many readers who liked Elizabeth Gilbert’s book, they will know that the title refers to the twelve months that the writer took out of her life to take stock, enjoy and marvel at the world, and to come kind of self-forgiveness and acceptance. She spent four months in Rome (eat), four months in India (pray) and four months in Bali (love). For those who did not read the book, the film is an opportunity for them to accompany Liz on her geographical, psychological and spiritual journey.

What makes the film easier for many audiences is the fact that Julia Roberts plays Liz Gilbert. Twenty years ago, she was the glamorous Pretty Woman. Ten years ago, she was the feisty saviour of victims, Erin Brockovich. Now she offers a character for women in mid-life who want to take an initiative to discover their better selves. Julia Roberts, looks beautiful at all times, but harried at first, becoming more radiant and then, without make up, her older, even plainer, self. Though we are conscious that it is Julia Roberts we are watching, she does transform herself into Elisabeth Gilbert making the journey credible.

Though the film is long, the first episodes are rather hurried, too hurried to really grasp the personalities of her husband who loves her (Billy Crudup) but whom she divorces, of her younger, actor partner (James Franco). We get glimpses (and during the journey some flashbacks) of the relationships and why they failed. Viola Davis is solid as her best friend.

Then the film settles down to indulge us with the vistas of Rome and plenty of food, glorious food, Italian-style. With good friends and learning the difference between entertainment and real pleasure (Italians pointing out that this is a mistake that busy Americans make), Liz puts on the kilos with happy abandon. And, then she is in India.

At the ashram in India, Liz assumes the dress styles, the rituals, the manual work of service (yes, that is Julia Roberts scrubbing floors), the silences, the hospitality and the meditative space that leads her to a conclusion that ‘God is within me, as me’, a reflection worth some more reflection. The film captures the colours of India, even at a wedding, and should entice happy visitors to Italy to take a second look at their affluent world in comparison with the poverty and hardships of India.

There is a standout sequence in the Indian episode, a clip that could stand alone for use in seminars on alcoholism and self-improvement. The writing of the film takes off and is brought to dramatic power by the performance of Richard Jenkins.

What do you do when you have purged yourself of some spiritual ailments? Go to Bali, seek the help of a wise man and some alternative healing – and allow yourself to fall in love. That requires inner freedom, an acknowledgement of past failures but, most importantly, discovering self-forgiveness. In the beauty of Bali and with Javier Bardem on hand, it is, after many difficulties, possible.

The trouble with Eat Pray Love is that one wants to respond to the character and how she handles her journey rather than sit back and accept the film and Liz Gilbert. This is very much a First World story, the aftermath of New Age fashions and the discovery of Eastern mystic practices if not Eastern religion. Very few (very few) women can take the time, let alone afford the time and expenses for such a journey. This is the spiritual trek of a wealthy woman. While holiday and break are necessary, and Liz is introduced to some mysticism and asceticism in India, we ask, ‘to what purpose?’. By the time she has come to terms with herself and found love, we wonder what the moral bases of her life consist of, what is the nature of her integrity and the tension between some absolutes she has discovered and the relative importance of principles to be held on to or discarded.

Many men in the audience have found sharing this journey a tedious movie experience. Many women will be encouraged to follow Elizabeth Gilbert in her search in as much as their means allow them. Her story, book and film, is at least an attempt, in a pluralist world that has become even more pluralist, to attempt a search for life values.

CINEMA RATING: Technical: 3 Moral: 2.5 R 14

White House

Cast: Gabby Concepcion, Iza Calzado, Joem Gascon, Lovi Poe, Angel Jacob, Maricar Reyes; Director: Topel Lee; Screenplay: Lamberto Casas, Jr; Running Time:100 minutes; Location: Baguio; Genre: Horror

Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 2.5
Rating: For Viewers 14 years old and above

Isang kilalang ispiritista si Jet Castillo (Gabby Concepcion) na aalukin ng trabaho ng isang malaking estasyon ng telebisyon na gagawa ng isang “horror reality show” kung saan ang mga kalahok ay ikukulong sa isang haunted house at ang makakatagal ng tatlong araw ay mag-uuwi ng isang milyon. Pinuntahan ni Jet ang sinasabing haunted house sa Baguio na kilala bilang white house. May mararamdaman siyang di kanais-nais- mayroong nagmumulto sa bahay na nagbabadya ng panganib dahil maaari itong makapanakit. Tatanggihan ni Jet ang trabaho at pagsasabihan ang executive producer (Maricar Reyes) na huwag nang ituloy ang programa. Ngunit magiging mapilit ito at itutuloy ang pagpapa-audition sa mga nais maging kalahok. Samantala, ang nag-iisang anak na babae ni Jet ay magkakaroon ng kakaibang karamdaman. Mapagtatanto niyang kinuha ng isang masamang espiritu ang kaluluwa ng kanyang anak. Dahil ang hinala niya ay isa itong espritu mula sa white house, kakailanganin niyang bumalik doon upang mabawi ang kaluluwa ng anak. At dahil wala siyang oras na dapat sayangin, masasabay ang paghahanap niya sa espiritu sa pagsho-shooting ng reality horror show. Dito masasaksihan nilang lahat ang malalagim na pambibiktima ng multong tinatawag na black lady (Iza Calzado).

Sinubok ng White House na magpakita ng kakaibang pelikulang katatakutan sa pamamagitan ng paghahalo ng tinatawag na reality TV show na usong-uso sa panahong ito. Nakakaintrigang panoorin ang pelikula dahil dito. Dagdag pa diyan na pinagbibidahan ito ng mga kilala at respetadong mga artista sa industriya. Ngunit sa simula pa lang ng pelikula ay pawang magiging malaking pagsisisi ang panonood nito. Karamihan sa mga sitwasyon na kinahantungan ng mga tauhan sa kuwento ay pawang bunga ng kani-kanilang katangahan at kabalintunaan. Lahat ng ninais ng pelikulang iparating sa manonood ay bigo. Bigo itong magtanim ng takot at misteryo sa manonood.. Nakabulatlat antimano ang anumang nais itago ng pelikula kung kaya’t wala na itong gulat sa bandang huli. Maganda sana ang mga special effects na mukha namang pinagbuhusan ng talino ngunit dahil palpak ang pagkukuwento, ay pumalpak nang todo ang pelikula sa kabuuan. Mababaw ang karakterisasyon ng mga tauhan na hindi man lamang pinalawig, tuloy, walang kakampihan o kakaawaan man lang ang manonood. Marami pa sanang pwedeng iganda ang pelikula ngunit sinayang nila ang pagkakataong ito. Marahil nagkulang sila oras sa paghahabol na maipalabas ito sa panahon ng Undas.

May ilang malilinaw na puntong nais sabihin ang White House sa kabila ng kakulangan nitong teknikal. Una ay ang dalisay na pagmamahal ng isang ama sa kanyang anak na gagawin ang lahat, susuungin ang panganib mailigtas lamang ang anak sa kapahamakan. Ganyan ang ipinakita sa katauhan ni Jet. Pangalawang ipinakita sa pelikula ang pagsasalarawan ng kung paanong ang mass media ay ginagamit at pinagkakakitaan ang kasawian ng iba. Ipinakita ring pinarurusahan ang sinumang naglalagay sa buhay ng tao sa alanganin maging ito man ay isang taong may mataas na katungkulan. Pangatlo ay pinaigting ng pelikula ang kapangyarihan ng kabutihan laban sa kasamaan. Naging matagumpay man si ‘black lady” sa simula ay hindi pa rin ito nanaig sa bandang huli. Yun nga lang, marami nang buhay ang nasayang at nawala nang ganun-ganun na lamang. May mangilan-ngilan lamang tanong at nakakabahala sa kuwento. Tulad halimbawa ng hindi paglilinaw kung bakit ganoon na lamang kasama ang tinaguriang “black lady”. Saan nanggagaling ang kanyang poot at galit? Tila yata hindi ito masyadong napalawig sa pelikula. Pinalabas na sadya lamang siyang masama at may makitid na pag-iisip. O marahil, may diprensiya siya sa pag-iisip? Maging yun ay hindi malinaw. Hindi rin maganda ang mga ipinakitang larawan ng kababaihan sa pelikula. Ang isa ay kaladkarin, ang isa nama’y ubod ng hina, at ang isa nama’y labis ang kasamaan. Ang karamihan sa mga tauhan sa pelikula ay isteryotipikal. Ang lalaking bida naman ay tila lumalabas na bayani at tagapag-sagip. Hindi rin gaanong ipinakita ang kalakasan ng pagdarasal sa pelikula dahil hinayaan nitong maraming buhay ang mawala. Para bang walang silbi ang mga dasal at orasyon laban sa masamang espiritu. Hindi napalawig ang kapangyarihang taglay ng panalangin sa kabuuan ng pelikula. May mga ilang eksesan pang nakababahala tulad ng lantarang pagtatalik sa labas ng kasal isinasapubliko pa sa kamera, at paggamit ng ipinagbabawal na gamot na pinalabas na katawa-tawang gawain sa halip na ipakitang ito ay masama. --By Rizalino R. Pinlac, Jr.

Life as we know it

CAST: Katherine Heigle, Josh Duhamel, Josh Lucas, Christina Hendricks, Hayes MacArthur, Jean Smart, Melissa McCarthy, Majandra Delfino, Faizon Love, Will Sasso. DIRECTOR: Greg Berlanti. WRITERS: Ian Deitchman, Kristin Rusk Robinson GENRE: Comedy-Drama. RUNNING TIME: 115 minutes. LOCATION: United States. DISTRIBUTOR: Warner Bros.

CBCP-CINEMA Ratings: TECHNICAL: 3 MORAL: 2.5
R 14 (For viewers aged 14 and above)

Holly Berenson (Katherine Heigl) is an up-and-coming caterer and Eric Messer (Josh Duhamel) is an aspiring network sports director. After a disastrous first (blind) date arranged by their best friends Peter and Alison Novack (Hayes MacArthur and Christina Hendricks) the only thing they have in common in their dislike for each other and their love for their goddaughter Sophie, the child of Peter and Alison. When Sophie’s parents die in a car accident, Holly and Messer find themselves the unwilling surrogate parents as stated in the Novacks’ will. Messer and Holly are oil and water forced to live under the same roof in raising a child not their own. When they realize Sophie is an orphan and has nobody else in the world, they agree to put aside their differences. Parenting is done in earnest as Holly and Messer juggle career ambitions and competing social calendars to honor their best friends’ wish. (Warner Bros.)

Fans of Katherine Heigl will love this movie—besides being easy on the eyes, Heigl has good comic timing, which explains why she is so much in demand for rom-coms. It’s good to remember that Life As We Know It is a romantic comedy, a genre that may include the facts of life and living but which also may capitalize on these facts as props to justify the improbable plot. The most factual thing about this movie is its portrayal of details where it concerns the experience of sharing a home with a baby: the sleepless nights, poop-and-vomit management, feeding time tantrums, and god-knows-what-other tragedies that can be caused by an unattended toddler.

Like most rom-coms, Life As We Know It comes across as formulaic and in many instances may feel like an expanded television 30-minuter; but unlike most rom-coms, it is premised on love for others, concern for the helpless, trust and loyalty among friends, and goodwill of neighbors. Points for reflection are: 1) having to care for a baby when one is not prepared for it, and 2) what a shared experience of raising an orphan can do to erstwhile enemies. While being surrogate parents to a toddler helps them mature as persons, proximity accelerates physical intimacy between the pair, leading them to skip courtship—which is what happens in so many Hollywood movies, when boy and girl bed even before they get to know each other’s name. Despite the laughs and the artifice, Life As We Know It may still move you to be involved—especially as Sophie begins to call her surrogate mother “mama”—to be concerned about the future of so many Sophies in our midst.--Teresa R. Tunay

The Town

CAST: Ben Affleck, Rebecca Hall, Jeremy Renner, Blake Lively, Pete Postlethwaite, Chris Cooper. DIRECTOR: Ben Affleck. SCREENPLAY: Ben Affleck, Peter Craig and Aaron Stockard, based on the novel “Prince of Thieves” by Chuck Hogan. CINEMATOGRAPHY: Robert Elswit. MUSIC: David Buckley, Harry Gregson-Williams. GENRE: Drama-thriller. RUNNING TIME: 124 minutes. LOCATION: United States. DISTRIBUTOR: Warner Bros.

CBCP-CINEMA ratings: TECHNICAL: 3.5 MORAL: 2.5 R 18 (Restricted to viewers aged 18 and above)

Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck) is an unrepentant criminal, the de facto leader of a group of ruthless bank robbers who pride themselves in stealing what they want and getting out clean. With no real attachments, Doug never has to fear losing anyone close to him. But, that all changes on the gang's latest job, when they briefly take a hostage, bank manager, Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall). They let her go unharmed, but sometime later she meets an unassuming and rather charming man named Doug... not realizing that he is the same man who only days earlier had terrorized her. The instant attraction between them gradually turns into a passionate romance that threatens to take them both down a dangerous, and potentially deadly, path. (Warner Bros).

Director and co-writer Affleck's screen version of Chuck Hogan's 2004 novel "Prince of Thieves" is meant to be a serious film , yet it is able to cater to the crowd that finds thrills in car chases and bloody bank heists. The story is clear and is enhanced by good direction and tight editing. Cinematography is well-conceived, imbuing a sense of urgency and tension to high- action footage and an intimate feel to close ups that capture the depth of each character’s portrayal. Casting couldn’t have been better, as proven by the flawless acting of the lead characters. Affleck has done a good directing job in that he is able to pull together otherwise ordinary elements into a fresh, cohesive whole.

Can a man commit crimes with impunity and still love anyone else but himself? Can a lifetime of violence be reversed by an uttered intention to change? It seems a tribute to the good in man that one who has been brought up in violence and crime—inheriting his bank-robbing “career” from his father as part of a warped but accepted cultural tradition, much like in the olden days when fathers and grandfathers molded their progeny to their trade—still has a modicum of human goodness in him to resolve to turn his back on evil and take the road to decency. But the will to change is tested and tried through time. There are people who have been killed, abused, betrayed and denied—may the offender simply dispose of them in the new world he wants to create? In this film, time and the future are left to the viewer. Nonetheless, The Town gains merits in painfully trying to depict the effect of the “sins of our fathers” on us and in giving hope to those who yearn for a better world. A sensitive and morally weighty film, but its theme won’t interest young teens, and its well-intended message may be missed, if not misconstrued, by immature viewers.-By Teresa R. Tunay

Petrang Kabayo

Cast: Vice Ganda, Eugene Domingo, Luis Manzano, Candy Pangilinan, Gloria Romero, John Arcilla; Director: Wenn Deramas; Screenplay: Mel-Mendoza Del-Rosario ; Producer-Distributor: Viva Films; Running Time:120 minutes; Location: Manila; Genre: Comedy

Technical Assessment: 3 Moral Assessment: 3
Rating: For viewers ages 13 and below with parental guidance

Nakaranas ng malabis na kalupitan si Peter (Vice Ganda) sa kamay ng kanyang ama (John Arcilla) nung siya’y bata pa.Dahilan upang siya’y maglayas. Mabuti na lamang at natagpuan siya ng isang haciendera (Eugene Domingo) na kinupkop siya at itinuring na sariling anak. Subalit lalaking malupit si Peter sa mga tao man o hayop lalo na sa mga kabayo dahil na rin sa dinanas niyang hirap sa kanyang ama na ginawa siyang panghalili sa kabayo sa kalesa nito. Nang mamatay ang itinuring na ina at ipinamana sa kanya ang hacienda, lalong naging malupit si Peter sa mga tauhan nila. Dahil sa malabis na kalupitang ito ni Peter sa mga hayop ay isusumpa siya ng diyosa ng mga kabayo na sa tuwing siya ay magagalit o magmamalupit sa hayop man o tao ay magiging isang kabayo siya kung kaya’t siya'y magiging si Petrang Kabayo. Magawa kaya ni Peter na magbago dala ng sumpang ito?

Bagama’t hindi maiiwasang maihambing ang Petrang Kabayo na ito sa orihinal na bersyon ni Roderick Paulate noon, masasabi namang nagawa ng pelikulang punuan ang inaasahan ng manonood na maaliw. Salamat sa napakahusay na pagganap ni Ganda bilang Petrang Kabayo at nagawa nitong palutangin ang katatawanan sa kabila ng mangilan-ngilang kabagalan ng pelikula sa pagkukuwento. Dahil kay Ganda, nabigyang buhay ang kabuuan ng tauhan at kuwento ni Petrang Kabayo. Pawang mahuhusay din naman ang kanyang mga kasamang tauhan ngunit dahil siya ang bida at ito ang kauna-unahan niyang pagbibida sa pelikula, ay malaki ang inaasahan sa kanya. Nagampanan naman niya ng buong husay ito at walang humpay sa kakatawa ang mga manonood. Ang sunod na lamang sigurong aabangan ay kung makaya pa kaya niyang masundan o mahigitan ang nagawa niya sa Petrang Kabayo. Hindi kaya maglaon ay maumay rin ang manonood sa kanya at sa kanyang mga patawa?

Maganda ang pangunahing mensahe ng pelikula ukol sa pakikipag-kapwa tao at pakikitungo sa iba pang nilalang ng Diyos tulad ng hayop, na sa pelikula ay naka-sentro sa kabayo. Ang hayop, tulad ng tao ay dapat ding inaaruga, pinagmamalasakitan at binubusog ng pagmamahal. Inakala ni Peter sa simula na makatarungan ang kanyang pagiging malupit , gawa ng mga naranasan niyang kalupitan mula sa ama, ngunit nagkamali siya at natauhan din naman sa bandang huli na hindi ito nararapat. Napagtanto din niyang sa kabila ng lahat ng kalupitan at kasamaang dinanas sa ama ay pawang kabutihan naman ang ginawa sa kanya ng nag-ampon sa kanya. Matagal bago naghilom ang sugat ni Peter na siya sigurong magiging tanong ng mga manonood. Una, bakit ang tagal pa rin naalis ng poot sa kanyang puso gayong nagkaroon na siya ng magandang buhay? Pangalawa, kinakailangan pa bang magkasakit ang isang tao upang siya ay magbago? Pangatlo, bakit naging mahirap kay Peter na maging mabuti sa mga taong hindi naman naging malupit sa kanya? May ilan pa ring diskriminasyon sa pelikula sa mga itinuturing na pangit at maging sa mga bakla bagama’t ito ang pangunahing tauhan. Hindi rin naging malinaw kung paanong si Peter ay lumaking bakla. Dahil nga ba ito sa pagmamalupit ng kanyang ama? Bunga ng impluwensiya? Sinasabi bang ito ay nangyayari na lamang at hindi ginugusto ninuman? (O ginawa ba lamang bakla ang bida dahil mas nakakatawa ito kaysa kung ang gaganap na Peter ay si Cesar Montano, halimbawa, o kahit si Vhong Navarro?) Hindi naman ito pinalawig ng pelikula pero kahanga-hanga pa rin ang ipinapahiwatig nitong mensahe ukol sa pantay-pantay na pagtingin sa tao: mayaman man o mahirap, maganda man o pangit, ano pa man ang kasarian. –Ni RizalinoR. Pinlac, Jr.