Transformers: Dark of the Moon

CAST: Shia LaBeouf, Josh Duhamel, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley,John Malkovich, Patrick Dempsey, Ken Jeong, John Turturro,Frances McDormand, Peter Cullen, Tyrese Gibson; DIRECTOR: Michael Bay; WRITER: Ehren Kruger; GENRE: Action/Adventure; RUNNING TIME: 154 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 2.5

Moral Assessment: 2.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

In Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon, the story goes that when the United States put the first man on the moon in 1969, it constituted the biggest cover up the world power has ever made.  The space mission was not for man to reach the moon, but for the astronauts to investigate “the Arc”, a space craft that crashed on the moon’s dark side and carried robots from a different solar system into ours.  These are the Decepticons—from the name alone you see they’re the bad guys.  They are to be battled by the Autobots—the good robots who are returning from having been exiled by President Obama.  The Autobots are to be on the side of men in the war to save the universe, and the feat, of course, requires human participation.  The requirement is filled by humans led by Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf), now unemployed but who is called upon to save the world again; and his girlfriend Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley).

Foremost film critic Roger Ebert writing about Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon took the words out of our mouth when he said “it is a visually ugly film, with an incoherent plot, wooden characters and an inane dialog.”  We couldn’t have agreed more heartily.  Sitting through this potboiler for 2½ hours is pure agony.  If we had a choice we wouldn’t watch it even if our next meal depended on it.  Unable to piece together scene after scene of the patchwork that was masquerading as a plot, we were naturally distracted by a warped “sense of wonder”: we wondered how they designed the bad robots; we wondered how the collapsing building looked so real inside as Witwicky and girlfriend Carly rolled and slid to and fro among the office furniture without as much as suffering a bump; we wondered how the metal monster snaked its way through and around the building like an apple corer driven through a loaf of multigrain bread shedding crumbs in the process; we wondered why a respectable actor like John Malkovich would lend his name to such a silly production; we wondered why there had to be humans at all in the movie when it is simply a war between bad bots and good bots; in short, the movie fails to involve us—we would rather see its “in the making” version than the movie itself.  And then there’s this beyond-ridiculous scene where two robots are fighting each other with swords!  What the sshheck! Where robots are already a metal monstrosity, it would have been more infinitely interesting if director Michael Bay had made them fight with cavemen’s clubs instead, but swords?  Hello!  And speaking of metal upon metal, be warned that the noise level is assaultive—all that banging and clanging (for over 40 straight minutes at one point) is bound to split your eardrums if not suck out your brains altogether. 

The acting, what about?  Except for Malkovich, who in our books is at par with Jack Nicholsson, the actors, especially LeBeouf and Huntington-Whiteley, act as though they ate newsprint flakes for breakfast.  Bleah!  Disappointing, to say the least, considering the media hype preceding its opening day—this thing about Megan Fox being fired and replaced by a Victoria’s Secret model.  One thing about pretty faces—they seem unable to grasp that a movie camera demands that they project a character and not themselves.  In the case of Hungtington-Whiteley, many frames show her posing as though for a Vogue pictorial, plus tight jeans and stiletto heels—distracting to say the least, and definitely unforgiveable in an action-sci-fi flick. 

As for meat content,  Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon is one huge chunk of fat.  Deep-fried that translates to chicharon—too noisy to eat, and if overeaten can give you LBM.  You don’t really expect a plot hazier than the Milky Way to deliver something that substantial, even as you hope for some redeeming value in the end.  But if ever there is an attempt by Bay to do that, it probably just breezed through, ghostlike, as the viewer’s mental faculties are too drained and battered by the overwhelming CGI and protracted clanking combats.  The movie portrays alien robots and that snaky monster as formidable enemies that have the power to annihilate the human race (at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Wacker Drive in Chicago, anyway), while humans are denied even a semblance of dignity.  In the face of all that purposeless destruction, humans survive through luck, not pluck.  Think before you watch.  Admission is 200 bucks at most theaters.  If you can swing it, ask for a satisfaction-guaranteed-or-your-money-back option.  Warning: don’t start your kids believing this is entertainment.

The Tree of Life

CAST: Brad Pitt, Hunter McCracken, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn, Joanna Going, Fiona Shaw, Jackson Hurst, Pell James, Crystal Mantecon, Lisa Marie Newmyer, Jennifer Sipes; DIRECTOR: Terrence Malick; WRITER: Terrence Malick; GENRE: Drama; RUNNING TIME: 138 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 4

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance.

Young boy Jack O’Brien (Hunter McCracken) grows up with two brothers in Waco, Texas, in the 50s, with a disciplinarian father (Brad Pitt) and a forgiving mother (Jessica Chastain).  He wants to be a good son, and he is, but time comes when he feels he cannot be anymore.  He is confused, torn between his love for his parents and his ever growing need to assert himself and defy them.  He begins to resent his father, and to scoff at his mother for her inability to stand up to her husband.  He gets angry with himself as he slowly sees he is becoming everything he ought not to be.   In the middle of all that Jack begins to feel incomprehensible stirrings within himself but circumstances would pressure him into silence about them.  He perceives power in his father, in many things around him, and in himself; fascinated by power he wants to test the limits of his own.  His bottled up anger makes him contemplate dangerous moves—including killing his father.  On the brink of adolescence Jack is unaware that he is treading a crack in the earth that separates the innocence of his boyhood from the expediency of manhood.

The Tree of Life opens with hazy, fiery movements, like mesmerizing gaseous forms dancing against a dark infinity.  A man’s voice tells us there are two ways to go through life, “the way of nature, or the way of grace.”  From that alone the viewer can tell this is not going to be a popcorn movie.  It is not even a movie, an art film, or an Oscar contender.  It is a meditation on human existence—inspired, not just crafted.  Even if it were the only work one has seen of director Terrence Malick, it would say enough for one to gauge the extent of Malick’s genius in his chosen medium.  He has control over the story and the script, he is in harmony with his cinematographer, and he coaxes the best out of his actors.  He is brilliant at utilizing music to rub in his message—Smetana’s Die Moldau, for one, evokes the ephemeral quality of existence, and when heard as one watches a silk lingerie being carried by the current down a river, spawns an experience that has to be felt in the guts to be understood.   That is but a few seconds long; imagine the whole opus.   The Tree of Life has the power to captivate your senses and your mind all at once, to take you out of yourself to be willingly lost and yet alive in some unknown space.  In one word: stunning.

 Some films are just too sublime to be fairly judged.  The Tree of Life is one of them.  It is just too beautiful for words.  With images it tries to grasp all of existence by finding the meaning and deciphering the mysteries of a few puny lives.  Where have we come from?  Where are we going?  Such humbling questions.   The answers may vary from viewer to viewer, but perhaps not all viewers would care.

Green Lantern

CAST: Ryan Reynolds, Mark Strong, Peter Sarsgaard, Blake Lively; DIRECTOR: Martin Campbell; WRITERS: Michael J. Green, Greg Berlanti, Marc Guggenheim, John Broome, Gil Kane, Mart Nobell, Bill; GENRE: Action/Adventure, SciFi/Fantasy; RUNNING TIME: 105 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3.25

Moral Assessment: 3

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is a happy-go-lucky test pilot who is temporarily suspended for compromising one of his missions. However, his life changes when he is chosen to take over Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), one of the 3,600 intergalactic police force guarding the universe. The Green Lanterns Corps, derive their strength and supernatural abilities from their willpower which transmits to their ring to transform images from their mind into reality.  The other Green Lanterns doubt Hal’s potentials as he belongs to a weak and naïve species compared to the rest of them. Hal’s worthiness as a Green Lantern is put to test as he defends earth and battles the Parallax, a former guardian who desired to control FEAR until he became consumed by its essence resulting to his banishment.

For non- Justice League fans, the back story of Green Lantern provides an interesting insight to another super hero’s making. It is comforting to know that ordinary people with their extraordinary character, and not some inborn powers or mutant abilities, are chosen to become a hero. Hal’s motivation and inner conflicts are rather vague. In fact, Howard’s story (the antagonist) is better defined. As far as storyline, the movie is clean and clear but too technically close to the comic book version that it bordered on being dull. The pace picks up towards the 2nd half of the film and from then on becomes no more than just action and special effects. The attempt at drama and character motivation becomes lame and corny. Performances are acceptable but not great as the roles do not require a lot of effort. Undoubtedly, the movie is a visual feast with its stimulating CGIs, tight pacing and great artistic direction. But then again, it is too literal a translation from the comic books into the big screen that you feel you haven’t gained anything from the illustrated versus live action.

What makes a hero a hero? Almost every movie about the history of a superhero shows us how ordinary people are transformed into superheroes not by physical abilities or supernatural power but by their character that makes them worthy to receive the special gifts that will make them SUPERs. We also see how one with great powers is also given great responsibilities. And lastly, we see that although some are heroes by fate, it also requires them to be heroes by CHOICE. All these elements are present in GREEN LANTERN and we are once more reminded we can all be a superhero if in our hearts we desire to serve and place the common good above our personal interests.

Another valuable point raised in the film is the power of the WILL, especially against FEAR. When will is focused on putting every ounce of strength to protect the weak, on using every natural ability to glorify the good and on creating harmony and peace every one’s passion, then FEAR become irrelevant and  conquerable.

The movie is suitable for the entire family although some action scenes and sexual innuendos need parental guidance for the younger audiences.

Mr. Popper's Penguins

CAST: Jim Carrey, Carla Gugino, Maxwell Perry Cotton, Andrew Stewart-Jones, Curtis Shumaker; DIRECTOR: Mark Waters; WRITERS: Sean Anders, John Morris; GENRE: Comedy; RUNNING TIME: 95 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 4

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance.

 Mr. Popper (Jim Carrey) is an adroit dealer on architecture and real estate who receives six penguins as a gift.  Divorced from his wife Amanda (Carla Gugino) and living alone in a swank New York apartment, he considers the creatures pests, not pets, and decides to donate them to the local zoo.  But before he can make arrangements for the penguins to be hauled out, his children, teener Janie (Madeline Carroll) and Billy (Maxwell Perry Cotton), on one weekend visit, fall in love with the birds in his flat.  Thinking the penguins are Mr. Popper’s surprise gift to their son celebrating his birthday, his whole family is most touched.  Mr. Popper does not have the heart to disappoint his children, especially as the penguins’ presence endears him to his family, so he decides to keep the birds in his apartment, turning the place into a perpetual winter wonderland in an effort to simulate the penguins’ natural habitat while providing weekend fun for his children.

Mr. Popper’s Penguins is based on the time-honored children’s classic novel by Richard and Florence Atwater about a boy (Popper Jr.) whose explorer-father made up for his absence (especially at the boy’s birthday celebrations) with gifts and souvenirs from all over the globe.  The story combines fantasy and heart, and is anything but frivolous, thanks to the spot-on casting that makes for credible characters with real life feelings.  It is a mellowed Carrey that the Mr. Popper character calls for and projects quite successfully; thus Carrey fans may be disappointed to see very little of the usual antics of the rubbery-faced comedian but they may be delighted to find that the actor can actually deliver convincing drama, too, without being fake or syrupy about it.  Perhaps Carrey was actually spurred to real acting by working with real Gentoo penguins which the movie reportedly used, drastically cutting down dependence on CGI.  It is hard to tell when the penguins are computer-generated or are displaying good training, something that should be credited to director Mark Waters and, of course, to seamless editing.  Noteworthy of close watch is that part where Mr. Popper and his children keep vigil to watch the penguin eggs hatch.

Although Mr. Popper’s Penguins is aimed at children, its message is for adults as well, particularly parents having difficulty coping with family situations.  The Carrey character—the young Popper father—unwittingly risks becoming exactly like his explorer father by his preoccupation with his career, which, in fact, has cost him his wife and family.  The arrival of the penguins—which Mr. Popper actually inherits from his globe-trotting father—is a grace that enables the dead man to make up for lost time and to help towards making his divorced son see what matters most in life.  It augurs well for modern society that the book published in 1938 and presumably upholding family values in that era has reentered the scene as a film after 73 years, refocusing the limelight on those same values that present day families want and need to revive.  CINEMA recommends Mr. Popper’s Penguins for 97 minutes of family fun and profit.  Perhaps then you would wish for a Mr. Popper’s Penguins II to see what eventually happens to the baby penguins, at least.

CAST: KC Conception (Raffy Slavador), Sam Milby (Eugene Servero), Matet de Leon, Robi da Rosa; DIRECTOR: Cathy Garcia-Molina; PRODUCER:  Charo Santos; DISTRIBUTOR: Star Cinema; GENRE:  Drama/Adverture/Romance; LOCATION:  Cagayan de Oro, Bukidnon,  Lanao del Norte; RUNNING TIME: 110 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3.5

Moral Assessment: 4

CINEMA Rating: For viewers of all ages.

SYNOPSIS: The story is about a man who pushes himself to the limits, a man who is always up for the challenge. He is proud. He only lives for himself. He then meets a woman one day, a woman who is more cautious in life, a woman who teaches him to embrace and appreciate life, love and all its smallest blessings.

Insidious

CAST: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Barbara Hershey, Angus Sampson, Ty Simpkins, Andrew Astor; DIRECTOR: James Wan; SCREENPLAY:  Leigh Wannel; LOCATION: US; GENRE: Horror; RUNNING TIME: 102 minutes

Technical Assessment: 3

Moral Assessment: 3

CINEMA Rating: For viewers 13 and below with parental guidance.

The Lamberts have just moved in to their new house. Josh and Renai (Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne) with their three children are just settling in when their eldest son Dalton (Ty Simpkins) suddenly falls into an inexplicable coma. Renai starts to feel and see mysterious beings she suspects to be ghosts and concludes that the house might be haunted so they immediately move out. But then the same strange things happen and seem to have followed them even in their new home so they seek the help of ghost hunters and a psychic who believes that it’s not their house that’t haunted, but it’s their son Dalton.

Insidious lives up to the challenges and expectations of a haunted house theme and horror genre. This time, the film takes on a different take through going beyond a place that is haunted which appears to be logical and believable and at the same time, very frightening. The film barely uses computer graphics in their portrayal of ghosts and demons that makes the scares all the more effective. The ghost-hunting part is a  balancing comic relief and at the same time makes the audience still attune with the “reality feel” of the entire picture. The actors were able to deliver their parts well. Their emotions do not go beyond mere hysterics and the silences and subtleties are enough to scare the audiences even more. This film could be well-remembered through it’s for real “frightentainment”. 

In between screams and scares, Insidious makes a lot of sense when the story deals with family matters and issues. The mysterious coma of Danton, Renai’s paranoia, and Josh’s past are all difficult challenges for the Lamberts yet they tackled these problems head on and they did not succumb into their miseries. Josh’s ultimate sacrifice of risking his life to save his son is commendable. Renai’s dedication as a mother and wife sets a good example for every family. However, the theme of the entire film is problematic. If soul travelling is an ability, there should be a way that such can be used for good and not just a mere habit. If it’s a curse, then proper exorcism should have been done. In dealing with the supernatural, the couple relied on science experts and psychics instead of church exorcists. The film subtly insinuates that the church knows nothing and has nothing to do with anything that is supernatural. Apparently, the film depicts the presence of evil which could well be a concern of the church. Good thing, the ultimate evil in the film is defeated by courage, the willingness to live and love for the family so Insidious is still a worthwhile feature. Spoiler alert: the ending suggests that the battle between good and evil is not yet over. 

Super 8

CAST: Elle Fanning, Kyle Chandler, Ron Eldard, Noah Emmerich,Gabriel Basso, Joel Courtney, Ryan Lee, Zach Mills, Amanda Michalka; DIRECTOR: J.J. Abrams; WRITER: J.J. Abrams; GENRE: SciFi/Fantasy; RUNNING TIME: 112 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 3.5

CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance.

Super 8 begins the day after a tragic accident in a factory killing Joe Lamb’s (Joel Courtney) mother. Apparently, she had to work extended shifts because Louis Dainard (Ron Elard) had been drinking the previous evening and could not report for work. Four months after the funeral, Joe helps his friends finish a zombie movie shot in a Super 8 camera. While doing a scene with Alice, Louis’ daughter, and his longtime crush, the group accidentally witnesses and film a truck derailing a train and causing a massive accident. The group then discovers the truck driver is their Chemistry teacher and is told to never talk about the accident or their parents will be killed. Meanwhile, the Air Force arrive to secure and clean up the disaster, much to the suspicion of Joe’s father Deputy Jackson (Kyle Chandler). During the next few days, the town folks experience mysterious phenomena like dogs running away, car engines and cable wires stolen, fluctuating power and people disappearing.    The Air Force attempt to clean up the town to hide their secret, thus enforcing “Operations Walking Distance”; wherein  a wildfire is deliberately started in the pretense of evacuating the town. But when Alice is abducted by the unknown creature, Charlie and friends brave the military attacks and the danger of the creature on the loose to save her

Super 8 is a masterfully told story. Abrams knows subtlety creates deeper impact. You particularly remember the simple way the camera hovered around the “days since last accident countdown” and how the man quietly replaced 700++ to 1 and cutting to the post funeral scene of Joe’s mom. This choice had more dramatic effect than actually showing the accident and the funeral. The tender moments between Joe and Alice, as well as the playfulness of the boys make audiences sympathize with the characters so much more. The plot unfolds is ways that get you hooked in the story because you just can’t guess what the next scene will be? The storyline development is completely unpredictable but reasonable and logical. The CGI’s were perfectly executed and created tension and excitement while the actors were authentic. Both the script and direction enabled each character to stand out against the mystery and tension of the unknown. Super 8 is an enjoyable and memorable family film.

The movie brings several striking multi-layer messages on friendship, forgiveness, bravery, selflessness and letting go. The friendship between Joe and Charles is so genuine and noble. Joe lives up to his promise to help his friend finish achieve his dream while Charles learns to set aside his personal feelings for Alice to give way to Joe. Jackson and Louis’ strained relationship is a commendable example of learning to forgive. One blamed the other for the tragedies in their lives but in the end, as they joined hands to look for their children, the two fathers realized what he has done and what he needs to do to restore their friendship. Self-sacrifice and bravery are exemplified by characters who brave the dangers of death and pain to save another life – human or alien. Finally, the scene where Joe silently lets go of his mother’s necklaces speaks so loudly of learning to let go of past hurt and pain and move on to a new day. These beautiful messages were intensified by the brilliant screenplay and direction of Abrams.

The movie, though contains scenes of substance abuse, military torture and intense explosion and violence which may be disturbing for the younger audience. 

Hangover 2

Cast: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Justin Bartha, Ken Jeong, Paul Giamatti, Mike Tyson, Jeffrey Tambor, Mason Lee, Jamie Chung, Sasha Barrese, Gillian Vigman, Aroon Seeboonruang, Nirut Sirichanya, Yasmin Lee, Nick Cassavetes, Sondra Currie  Writers: Todd Phillips, Craig Mazin, Scot Armstrong  Director: Todd Phillips  Running Time: 102 minutes  Distributor: Warner Bros.

Technical:  3

Moral Assessment:  1.5

CINEMA rating:  R18  (For viewers aged 18 and above)

Phil  (Bradley Cooper), Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and Stu (Ed Helmes) wake up in a seedy hotel room in Thailand with no memory of the previous night.  What’s worse, they are missing their fourth companion, 16-year-old Teddy (Mason Lee), but find Teddy’s finger sitting in a bowl of ice.  A monkey drops from the ceiling and another person wakes up, but everyone remains clueless about how they all came to be where they are.  What they all know is they must all make it to Stu’s wedding pretty Thai girl Lauren (Jamie chung)—which is the reason they have flown to Thailand in the first place—but how can they appear at the wedding without Teddy, Stu’s future brother in law?  So they embark on a mad search for the missing teenager, encountering gangsters and other gun-toting characters along the way.

Let’s talk about the plot.  If you’ve seen Hangover 1 (2009) you’ll have a fair idea of what to expect from Hangover 2.   Same cake, fluffier, fattier icing.  We resonate with a web reviewer who writes, “Director Todd Phillips seems to have taken the Hangover screenplay and moved it laterally from Las Vegas to Bangkok while retaining the same sequence of scenes: Call to bewildered bride to be, flashback to wedding plans, ill-advised bachelor party, four friends waking up with terminal hangovers in unfamiliar hotel room, ominous signs of debauchery, desperate quest to discover what happened, etc.”  If you were not offended by Hangover 1, you’ll enjoy Hangover 2 as it presents more of the same ingredients rejected by those who found the movie offensive.  But that’s not an absolute—middle of the roaders who saw some redeeming factors in Hangover 1 and therefore laughed along with its raucous humor might, just might, think that Hangover 2 has gone way over the top.  But even if you have not seen Hangover 1, you can either thumbs-up or thumbs-down this one as there’s a story all right, and a screenplay that’s easy to follow. 

If you had a stake in producing Hangover 1, what could possibly motivate you to invest in Hangover 2?  Clue: the 2009 version grossed $485 million, the highest grosser of the year in R-rated comedy.  Its production budget was $30 million.  Those guys must have thought, “If audiences lapped up Hangover 1, why not give them more of the same?”  So they plunked down $35 million on the sequel—do you hear the clinking of the cash registers in the background?  You’re not wrong.  Money is never a mean motivator.  We wonder, though, how this movie will register among Thai viewers—it shows the side of Bangkok that their tourist brochures would probably never even mention.  Hangover 2 is definitely not for impressionable or immature viewers, whatever their age.  In fact, actor Galifianakis (who plays the Alan character), when swamped by children-fans for his Hangover role, reportedly yelled at their parents for letting them see it.  We hope it was a sincere gesture, but then, again, in this gimmick-moved world, that could have been another ploy to get more xxx-hungry adults to go see it.   

X-men: First Class

Lead cast: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon, Rose Byrne, Jennifer Lawrence, Oliver Platt, Álex González, Jason Flemyng, Zoë Kravitz, January Jones, Nicholas Hoult, Caleb Landry Jones, Edi Gathegi, Lucas Till, Demetri Goritsas, Glenn Morshower, Matt Craven, James Remar, Rade Serbedzija, Ray Wise, Michael Ironside, Bill Milner, Morgan Lily, Laurence Belcher, Hugh Jackman. Director: Matthew Vaughn. Screenplay: Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman, Matthew Vaughn, based on a story by Sheldon Turner, Bryan Singer. Cinematography: John Mathieson. Music: Henry Jackman. Distributor: 20th Century Fox. Running Time: 132 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: V-14 (Viewers 14 years old and above)

1944, in a concentration camp established by the Nazis on occupied Polish soil, Erik Lensherr, a boy with metal bending ability witnesses the murder of his mother. Nearly two decades later the boy is to become Magneto (Michael Fassbender), and to team up with professor and CIA advisor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) who is to be known as Professor X. Agent Moira Mac Taggert (Rose Byrne) gives them the task of assembling a collection of mutants to halt the machinations of an ex-Nazi madman, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) and his superhuman cohorts. A clash of ideals develops between Charles and Erik: Charles believes peace for men and mutants would be attained once the evil Shaw is done away with; Erik believes in the inevitability of violence and a global war. Erik’s motive for joining the war against Shaw is personal: it was Shaw who killed his mother.


X-Men: First Class is an origin story that charts the epic beginning of the X-man saga—what the mutants were before they became superheroes. It can be uplifting to watch superheroes battling with megalomaniacs out to destroy the planet, and it could be pure entertainment seeing the young mutants gather and display their hidden powers to one another, like kindergarteners at a show-and-tell assignment. However, it is rather ambitious of X-men: First Class to interweave real-life history (Nazi in World War II, Cuba showdown in early 60s, etc.) and Marvel comics super-action since the result presents too many elements that only serve to compete against one another for audience focus. The actors embody the characters well enough, although again, perhaps the story could have been more pointed and cohesive with fewer mutants showing off their powers. For example, the character sprouting dragonfly wings is cute to watch but has doubtful essential value in the plot. Same with the guy with oversized feet. As it is, the movie is almost a supermarket of superpowers which distracts the viewer from the real message of the story which is actually meaty.

One lesson worth remembering amidst all that jaw-dropping, eye-popping CGI effects is the need for controlling one’s anger. Whether you’re a man or a mutant, it’s never cool to be controlled by one’s anger. For that and the abovementioned technical superiority as far as effects are concerned, it is certainly worth seeing X-men: First Class.

Paul

CAST: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Kristen Wigg, Bill Hader, Jane Lynch, Jason Bateman, Seth Rogen, Sigourney Weaver; DIRECTOR: Greg Mottola; WRITERS: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost; GENRE: Comedy; RUNNING TIME: 100 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating:  For mature viewers 18 years and above.

Make no mistake about it: Paul  is no harmless cartoon for kids.  The language alone can make the proverbial sailor blush, as the alien Paul tells a character, “Cursing is fun; you just have to pick your moments!”  The word “f - - k” is used 50 times, “s - - t” 40 times, and so many other terms you would never want to hear coming out of your children’s mouth.   On top of that the alien Paul smokes marijuana and spurs others to do the same; he’s a beer guzzle and a reckless driver; pushes others to steal to satisfy his whim, pokes fun at Bible-toting Christians, and has a yen for making obscene gestures.   CINEMA came across a crisp and incisive critique of the movie by Plugged In Online which we respectfully excerpt and pass on to our readers.     

“Paul tells us that advanced civilizations have outgrown the concept of God—at least a Christian God. But here's what I find most interesting about its point of view: In attempting to strip away one religion, we've been given another.

“The popularity of aliens and UFOs in pop culture has been attributed, by some, to folks trying to replace traditional faith with a more scientific form of religion, complete with rewards (knowledge), punishments (probes!) and awe-struck wonder. Consider Paul—his characteristics, not his character: He's a being from another place, a creature filled with unimaginable knowledge and incredible power. He heals the sick, he raises the dead, he helps the blind to see. He holds (the film suggests) the promise of a better world—one full of peace and love and community, free from strife and sin.

“And yet Paul does not appear to everyone. Indeed, he reveals himself only to a select few … disciples. And those to whom he shows himself are often mocked, even persecuted sometimes.

“We meet a woman to whom Paul revealed himself 60 years prior. Now old, she's angry with Paul at first, telling him how the neighbor kids would make fun of her, throw rocks at her window. They would not believe her and her "alien" stories, and in time she had perhaps begun to doubt her own memories. But then she softens. Seeing Paul now, face-to-face, everything's fine again. Her faith—following an unseen, unfelt visitor—is validated.

“If you haven't connected the dots yet, what I'm getting at is Paul's status as a deity. But what a slovenly deity he is: Little more than a "greater" being who, when he gives his friends the sum of all his knowledge, doesn't change them a whit; an advanced entity less concerned with mankind's betterment than with the pot he's carrying and the partying he's planning.”

If you’re looking for laughs plus, there’s Kung Fu Panda; for adventure, there’s Pirates of the Carribean:  Stranger Tides. 

Kung Fu Panda 2

CAST: Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, Gary Oldman, David Cross, Jackie Chan, Jack Black, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Dustin Hoffman, Lucy Liu, Michelle Yeoh; DIRECTOR: Jennifer Yuh; WRITERS: Jonathan Aibel, Glenn Berger; GENRE: Animation, Action/Adventure; RUNNING TIME: 91 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers of all ages.

An excellent movie highlighting the courage, team work and familial love.  Po's new life of awesomeness with the Furious Five is threatened by the emergence of a formidable villain, the peacock Shen, who plans to use a secret, unstoppable weapon to conquer China. Po also learns he is adopted by Mr. Ping the duck, causing him some degree of depression.  He then feels a grating desire to look to his past and uncover the secrets of his mysterious origin.  Only then will Po be able to unlock the strength he needs to succeed in straightening out the rebellious peacock.  The animation is elegant, the humor is wholesome, the message worth remembering by young and old alike.  If your children wish to see one last movie before school days come around again, make it Kung Fu Panda 2!

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

CAST: Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Ian McShane, Kevin R. McNally, Astrid Berges-Frisbey, Sam Claflin, Geoffrey Rush; DIRECTOR: Rob Marshall; WRITERS: Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio; GENRE: Action/Adventure, Comedy; RUNNING TIME: 137 min.

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

Crossing paths with the enigmatic Angelica, Captain Jack Sparrow is not sure if it's love or if she's a ruthless con artist who's using him to find the fabled Fountain of Youth.  When she forces him aboard the "Queen Anne's Revenge," the ship of the legendary pirate Blackbeard, Jack finds himself on an unexpected adventure in which he doesn't know whom to fear more: Blackbeard or Angelica, with whom he shares a mysterious past.  Pirates... Stranger Tides is superb entertainment but more than entertainment it stimulates the imagination by the introduction of mythical mermaids to the story.  The beautiful creatures actually steal the thunder from Penelope Cruz and Johnny Depp.  The attack by the nubile, innocent looking but menacing mermaids is a masterpiece at CGI, with the human fish bobbing in and out of the gigantic waves, capturing the muscular pirates and dragging them down into the ocean's depths are really something new to watch.  Scary--if mermaids were real you wouldn't want to ever touch the sea again.

Dylan Dog

CAST: Brandon Routh, Sam Huntington, Anita Briem, Peter Stormare, Taye Diggs, Brian Steele, Kurt Angle, Marco St. John,Courtney Shay Young, Gabrielle Chapin; DIRECTOR: Kevin Munroe; WRITERS: Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer; GENRE: Horror, Suspense/Thriller; RUNNING TIME: 107 min.

Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 1.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 18 and above.

The paranormal investigation job of Dylan Dog (Brandon Routh) takes a back seat after the death of his girlfriend at the hands of a vampire clan. He does not accept related cases like the mysterious death of a rich importer which appears to be murdered by a warewolf. However, when his friend Marcus Adams (Sam Huntington) becomes the next victim, Dylan does not have second thought of going back to the business of penetrating the world of vampires, warewolf, and zombies. The mysterious people behind these creatures turn out to be Dylan's friends with whom he maintains relationships for old time sake. In the course of his investigation for the case of the rich importer whose daughter becomes his close allies together with his dead friend Marcus who is now a zombie, he discovers that the key to stopping the deadly creatures is an artifact burried with one of the vampire in the crypt. Dylan got this artifact sooner, but of course, his "friends" would not like it and they want to make sure they have the artifact in their possesions.

The film Dylan Dog: Dead of Night is a combined comedy and suspense thriller. Whilst there is a central character, it does not help to put subplots together to establish a strongly-focused story. The role of Elizabeth which is like a wall flower has no impact at all despite the surprising revelation of her connection to the villains at the end of the film. The antagonists are not as remarkable so viewers could hardly hate them. Nevertheless, Dylan Dog: Dead of Night as an italian comic adaption is entertaining, primarily as an effect of the tandem of Dylan and Marcus. The humor brought by the character of Marcus is effectively carried by Huntington. Routh, on the other hand, hardly acts on this film like an eternal good looking zombie. He survived all the fights and hard beats of the beasts yet preserves the good looks as if nothing touches his face. The gory scenes of dead corpses and worms are not necessarily in bad taste but the director has the tendency to prolong and overdo. The make-up and overall production design are fine but there are more to desire with regards to lighting and compositions. The special effects are a bit of a hard sell too. Overall, the film falls average in the technical aspect.

The film shows how friendship is valued and that a friend is willing to sacrifice in order to seek justice for a lost friend and be motivated to take on bigger responsibility of ensuring victory of good over evil. However, if Filipino myths has manananggals, kapre, tyanaks, the European culture has vampires, zombies and human warewolves. This European supernatural forms is the context of the film Dylan Dog: Dead of Night and it shows that they do exist and live among the living like normal people. The film naturalizes zombies culture. It shows dead corpses and body parts as commodities which is contrary to the respect that Filipinos give to bodies of departed love ones.

The King's Speech

CAST: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce, Timothy Spall, Michael Gambon, Jennifer Ehle, Derek Jacobi, Max Callum, James Currie; DIRECTOR: Tom Hooper; WRITER: David Seidler; GENRE: Drama; RUNNING TIME: 111 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 with parental guidance.

In 1925, Prince Albert (Colin Firth) and wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) are quite content with living their lives away from the public eye. Bertie (Albert), who smokes heavily and stammers, has a speech therapist whose method of making him speak with marbles in his mouth so frustrates the former that he gives up sessions with him. Under cover of anonymity, Elizabeth then arranges for another therapist, a rather unorthodox one by the name of Lionel Logue, a failed Australian actor (Geoffrey Rush) who insists on dealing with his patients as friends as part of his therapy. This friendship, at first uneasy, is to deepen in time, especially when his elder brother and King of England, Edward, abdicates the throne to marry an American divorcee—making Albert step up as King George VI. Being a monarch then means speaking through a microphone as the entire British Empire is listening, a nightmare to a seemingly incurable stammerer. How would Bertie face public humiliation on account of his glaring speech deficiency?

We understand how The King’s Speech won so many awards including Oscars for the film, the director Tom Hooper, actors Firth, Rush and Carter, etc. It is a historical drama that satisfies the audience’s craving for drama while respecting accuracy in the retelling of history. There couldn’t have been a more perfect cast for such a period piece. The actors virtually crawl into the skins of their characters and revive the excellent synergy among their real life counterparts that actually worked to help gain for a stuttering prince the courage to overcome himself and to eventually give hope to a nation at war. Particularly impactful is the scene where Bertie approaches the microphone, glumly as though being led to the guillotine, to deliver a speech to unite the nation. Firth’s and Rush’s acting, the content of the speech itself, footage of the anxious population, and the majesty of the background music all combined to make these perhaps the most memorable 3 minutes in the whole film. Prepare for goosebumps.

The King’s Speech is a story without a villain—rare, it seems, for cinema these days when villains actually outnumber heroes. It throws the spotlight on royalty but says nothing about royalty’s flamboyance or extravagance. It even sidesteps the over-romanticized newsmaker of the day then, King Edward’s renouncement of the throne “to marry the woman I love”, twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson. Director Tom Hooper must have thought there were better things and better people to make a movie about than the infatuation of a wimp for a woman who felt she was all worth the attention and the scandal. Hooper is right. The King’s Speech is a rich and deeply human story that highlights the characters’ sympathy and support for one another, positive attitudes in the face of limiting circumstances. The friendship that deepens between the stammering king-to-be and his persevering therapist, together with the unstinting support of the loving of queen-to-be, effect a transformation in the monarch that will surely inspire audiences of all ages.

In The Name of Love

CAST: Aga Mulach, Angel Locsin, Jake Cuenca; DIRECTOR: Olivia Lamasan; SCREENWRITERS: Enrico Santos, Olivia Lamasan; PRODUCERS: Charo Santos-Concio, Maricel Samson-Maritinez; GENRE: Drama; DISTRIBUTOR: Star Cinema; LOCATION: Philippines; RUNNING TIME: 120 minutes

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

Pitong buwan na si Emman (Aga Mulach) na nakakabalik sa Pilipinas matapos ang 7 taong pagkakakulong sa Japan dahil sa pagtatangkang magtakas ng pera para sa mga Yakuza. Mula sa pagiging mananayaw ay kuntento na sana siyang tumulong na lamang sa pagtitinda sa palengke hanggang malaman niyang naghahanap ng mga Dance Instructor (DI) para sa mga asawa ng pamilya ng gobernador. Dahil minsang nailigtas niya si Dylan (Jake Cuenca), ang anak ng gobernador na ngayo’y tatakbo bilang pangalawang alkalde, siya ang kukuning tagapagturo para sa kanya at ang kanyang kasintahang si Cedes (Angel Locsin). Mapapalapit ang loob ni Dylan kay Emman at mapipilitang si Cedes na tanggapin na ang binate bilang DI nila para sa darating na Governor’s Ball. Lingid sa kaalaman ni Dylan, dating magkasintahan sina Cedes at Emman sa Japan na nagkahiwalay lamang dahil sa pagkakahuli ng binate nuong itatakas niya ang pera para sa mga Yakuza. Sa una ang may galit si Emman kay Cedes dahil bigla na lamang itong nawala nang mabilanggo siya. Subalit nang malaman niya ang pagsusumikap at mga sakripisyo ni Cedes, kabilang ang pagpayag na makarelasyon si Dylan, para lamang makalaya siya ay muling mabubuo ang kanilang relasyon. Magtatangka silang takasan ang katiwalian ng pamilya ni Dylan subalit kailangan muna nilang lagpasan ang pagsubok na ibabato sa kanila ng tiwaling pamilyang ito.

May potensyal sana ang simula ng pelikula, lalo ang di-linyadong pagsasalaysay at pagpapakilala sa kwento ng bawat tauhan. Ang nakakatuwa ang “love story” nina Emman at Cedes sa Japan ay siya naman sanang nakalulungkot na pagtatagpo nilang muli sa Pilipinas. Isa pang kahanga-hanga ay ang paggamit ng mga makabagong “post production techniques” na kitang-kita sa mga pagbabalik-tanaw na eksena sa Japan at sa “opening credits’ ng pelikula. Hindi na tulad ng dati na biglang magiging mala-sepia ang kulay para lamang ipakita ang nakaraan. Mahusay din ang disenyong pamproduksyon dahil nabigyan tuon ang mga maliliit na detalye mula ayos ng bahay at pananamit ng tauhan para lalong maging buo at malinaw ang kwento. Dahil hindi naman masyadong mabigat ang hiningi sa mga actor ay pasado naman ang kanilang mga pagganap na ginawa. Pasado pero hindi pang-Famas. Dalawa ang pinakamalaking pintas sa pelikula. Una, hindi makatotohanang na mananayaw si Aga. Hindi naman dahil hindi siya marunong sumayaw kundi dahil nakikita sa kanyang postura at linya na hindi siya isang “ballroom dancer” at may kabigatan na ang kanyang kilos bilang “hiphop” dancer. Kahit si Angel Locsin ay kulang din ang istilo at disiplina sa pagdadala ng sayaw. Kaya’t halos puro malapitang kuha at pagpitik lamang ng lee gang kanilang ginagawa. Mas maganda sana kung kumuha ng mga “double” upang ang mga eksena ng sayaw ay mas maganda at makatotohanan. Ikalawa, masyadong madrama ang pelikula. Sakit na ata ng Pinoy ang pahabain ang iayakan at ibabad ang luha. Nakuha mo na sa unang 3 segundo, pagtatagalin pa ito ng ilang minuto. Baka mas nababagay ang ganitong istilo sa telebisyon kung saan kailangan pahabain ang eksena.

Pinupunto ng pelikula na ang tunay na pag-ibig ay hindi sumusuko, handing mag-alay at mapagpatawad at handing magparayaw. Naipakita naman ito ni Cedes at Emman sa bawat pagsubok na kanilang nilagpasan alang-alang sa minamahal. May ilang mensahe nga lamang na dapat bigyan tuon ng mga magulang lalo sa mga kabataan anak na manunuod. Una, ang pakikipagtalik sa labas ng kasal ay para bang pangkariniwang gawain lamang. Mahalagang ipaalala na sa kultura natin ay pinahahalagahan pa rin ang sakramento ng kasal at ang pakikipagtalik bilang pribilehiyo lamang ng mag-asawa. Pangalawa, kahit sakripisyo at ginawa alang-alang sa kaligtasan ng iniibig, ang paggamit ng katawan para makakuha ng pabor ay hindi pa rin tama. Maraming karahasan dulot ng katiwalian at pagkagahaman ang ipinakita sa pelikula. Mainam na naipakitang may mga marangal na alagad ng batas na tapat sa tungkulin subalit nakalulungkot na lagi na lamang sa huling bahagi sila nakararating. Maayos naman ang pelikula para sa pamilya pero mas nababagy ito sa mga matatandang kaya nang timbangin ang mga sensitibong eksena.

Water for Elephants

Cast: Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, James Frain, Christoph Waltz, Hal Holbrook, Paul Schneider, Ken Foree, Tim Guinee, Mark Povinelli, Scott MacDonald
Director: Francis Lawrence
Writer: Sara Gruen, Richard LaGravenese
Running Time: 122 min.
Genre: Drama
Distributor: 20th Century Fox

Technical: 4
Moral: 2.5
CINEMA rating: R 14 (For audiences aged 14 and up)

In 1931, Jacob (Robert Pattinson) is a regular guy with dreams of having a happy family life as a veterinarian like his dad. About to take his final exams at Cornell University that would earn him his license as a veterinary doctor, he is dealt a blow by life when his parents die in a car accident. He discovers that they have left neither cash nor home for him since they had mortgaged their house in order to give him an Ivy League college education. The bank now owns everything. Distraught, Jacob decides to leave the house without looking back. He is determined to leave behind his house, his past and his dreams, although he does not know where to go and what to do. He just wants to get away, and so he hops a train, unaware it is the traveling Benzini Brothers circus. After a minor scuffle that almost gets him thrown off the train, Jacob is taken in to do odd jobs like shoveling the cars clean of animal manure to earn his keep. He is soon bewitched by Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), the circus star and wife of the travelling show’s mean big boss August (Christoph Waltz).

Directed by Francis Lawrence (I am Legend and Constantine) with screenplay written by Richard LaGravenese and based on a novel by Sarah Gruen, Water for Elephants is an extremely watchable film that has the power to take the viewer by hand to a world all its own. The sets, the costumes, even the smallest props are meticulously prepared and chosen to bring about a nostalgic feel to every frame, creating not only a charming but also an enchanting period movie.

Part of its appeal, particularly to the young at heart, is its circus environment. Who wouldn’t be entertained by animals dressed up and trained for tricks that delight young and old alike? And to see these intelligent animals off stage and interacting with humans—that’s certainly an experience few would pass up even if only in the movies. Any Filipino who has ever wondered how the local feria at town fiestas magically sprouts up in a few hours can find charming answers just watching how the Benzini circus hands put up their big top as if it’s almost a ritual.

Waltz is perfectly cast as the circus owner August, exhibiting the same strengths that made for his award-winning performance as Colonel Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds. With a face so mobile it can switch back and forth between charismatic and tyrannical in a split-second, Waltz’s villainous portrayal defies prediction—one never knows what he’ll do next, giving the movie its much needed tension.

Pattinson and Witherspoon are also the best choices for their roles—Pattinson out of his vampire mold combines intensity and gentleness, while Witherspoon deviates from happy roles to play a small town girl who endures her husband because the circus is “the only place (she) can be somebody.” Despite a few critics who claim the two actors lack chemistry, director Lawrence is correct in keeping the illicit passion between them on slow burn—otherwise the love angle would overwhelm the other elements that make the movie worth watching even by younger audiences.

Indeed, Water for Elephants is not a love story at all; it is more about kindness—the abundance or lack of it in people—and the dynamics of cruelty and poetic justice. It’s about the intelligence of beasts. That could be the reason behind this old-fashioned film’s endurance at the box office—at a time when movies bring to life fictitious superheroes through CGI, Water for Elephants has remained—now back to back with the lords of spectacular special effects Thor, The Priest, Fast and Furious 5—signaling a return to real people in real situations in real life.

Something Borrowed

CAST: Kate Hudson, Ginnfer Goodwin, John Krasinski, Colin Egglesfield, Steve Howey, Ashley Williams, Sarah Baldwin,Grace Capra, Shirley Dluginski, Jill Eikenberry; DIRECTOR: Luke Greenfield; WRITERS: Jennie Urman, Jordan Roberts; GENRE: Romance; RUNNING TIME: 103 minutes.

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

Dex (Colin Egglesfield) and Darcy (Kate Hudson) are getting ready for their wedding. Darcy’s best friend Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) is to be maid of honor. But one night at a party, one drink too many leads Rachel to disclose to Dex that she had a big crush on him in law school. Little did she know that Dex also felt the same but had kept silent about it. Apparently each one thought the other was too good for him/her. The discovery of a secret long kept leads to a regrettable situation: they sleep together for a night, and since then lies and deception become the order of the day, compounded by the conflict between guilt and self-preservation. Unable to handle the situation any further, Rachel confides to friend Ethan (John Krasinski) who prods her on to do what makes her happy, but Rachel does not have the heart to hurt Darcy who has been her BFF since childhood.

Based on a novel by Emily Griffin, all Something Borrowed needs is to be dubbed in Pilipino for it to pass for a (mediocre) Filipino romantic comedy. It has self-centered wishy-washy lead characters who are supposedly smart but exhibit an IQ of 40 when it comes to managing their (love) lives: a pathetic and irritatingly loyal friend, a best friend with an ego the size of Antarctica, an extremely rich love interest who is so undecisive he ought to be in a Shakespearean play. About the only almost level headed character here is the guy who gives almost-sound advice but whose love will remain unrequited. There is really no one in this movie that you can root for. The story, in fairness, could be a hit as a local TV telenovela, given its length (too long at one hour and 53 minutes), its script (dragging), its acting (ho-hum!).

Up to a certain point, loyalty to a friend (as that which Rachel has for Darcy) is commendable. Genuine concern, too, for another human being (exhibited by Ethan) is good. But in Something Borrowed, these two things are merely used to advance a nonsensical story which unfortunately ends in a distorted “win-win” situation. After all that tug of war between right and wrong, between conscience and concupiscence, the movie concludes with this message: “It’s okay to cheat for love’s sake, others do it, too, anyway.”

The Priest

CAST: Paul Bettany, Karl Urban, Cam Gigandet, Maggie Q, Lily Collins, Brad Dourif, Stephen Moyer, Christopher Plummer; DIRECTOR: Scott Stewart; WRITERS: Cory Goodman, Min-Woo Hyung; GENRE: SciFi/Fantasy, Action/Adventure, Horror; RUNNING TIME: 87 minutes

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

After the Church’s victory on its war against Vampires through the Priests who possess supernatural abilities, the monsters are locked away and the Priests are now disbanded. Then years later, a lone warrior Priest ( Paul Bettany) receives a bad news that his brother has been killed by the vampires and his niece is abducted. Wanting to save his niece, he asks for the Church’s permission to pursue the vampires but they won’t allow him for fear that it would cause public panic. This leaves him without a choice but to break his sacred vows and pursue his quest to track down his niece and save her from becoming one of the vampires.

With its sloppy storyline and ridiculous points and turns, the plot of the Priest is pretty simple bordering on melodramatic than sci-fi. Which is not at all bad because the audience could easily follow through the play of emotions and motivations of the characters in the film given the spectacle of visuals and sounds. The production design is decent and the computer graphics appear to be believable. The fight scenes could be both engaging and distracting (perhaps those were done with the same purpose). Bettany delivers a promising performance and strong screen presence that goes also with the other casts although their characters seem underdeveloped.

The clergy as a peg for the world’s seat of power with the priests as warriors is an intriguing and interesting premise but could also be taken out of context given its portrayal and (mis)representations of the Catholic church rituals. Perhaps, the film is an attempt to emulate the Catholic church’s dark past through a futuristic sense that make everything seem confusing. However, the Church is not portrayed in the film as an evil force, perhaps only neglectful, if not ignorant, of its duties. Again, in the context of its dark history, the Catholic church has already admitted its mistakes and as any other institution, it is not perfect. The Priest also challenges “sacrifice” as the foundation of church believers. It is challenged, questioned and critiqued in the film. But towards the film’s end, it is still “sacrifice” that made all the sense in the story saying that it is the very essense of love not just for one’s self, but for the entire humanity. With sacrifice, the evil is defeated by the good.

Tumbok

CAST: Christine Reyes (Grace), Carlo Aguino (Carlo), Ryan Eigenmann; DIRECTOR: Topel Lee; PRODUCER:Viva Films; GENRE: Horror/Suspense; LOCATION: Philippines

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 1.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

Ilang araw pa lamang sa lumang condominium unit ang mag-asawang Ronnie (Carlo Aquino) at Grace (Christine Reyes) ay marami ng kakaibang nararamdaman, nakikita at naririnig si Grace. Kinumpirma ng mag-inang kapit kwarto nila ang mga kakaibang kaganapan na nakasanayan na nila gayon din ang mga kamalasan sa buhay ng mga tumira sa condominium. Napag-alaman ni Grace na maliban sa kanila ng mag-ina ay mayroon pang mag-asawa at grupo ng mga estudyante na kasama nilang naninirahan sa condominium. Hanggang sa pagtulog ay dinadalaw si Grace ng kababalaghan. Napansin din niya na sunod-sunod na kamalasan din ang nangyayari sa kanila. Napaslang pa ang pinsan niya pagkatapos bumisita sa kanya at payuhan siya na lisanin nila ang condominium dahil sa napakalakas na negatibong enerhiyang bumabalot sa kabahayan. Sa kalaunan ay natuklasan ni Grace na ang pamilya ng asawa niyang si Ronnie ang isa sa mga naunang biktima ng kamalasan ng bahay. Samantala hindi naniniwala sa kababalaghan at malas si Ronnie. May praktikal ding dahilan ito na limitasyong pinansyal kaya mas mainam para sa kanya na manatili sa condo at hwag na lamang pansinin ni Grace ang mga inaakala niyang kababalaghan na naghahatid ng kamalasan sa buhay nila dahil sa pagtira nila sa condominium na nakatirik sa tumbok na tatlong sanga ng daan.

Masalimuot ang kwento ng pelikulang Tumbok. May kalabuan kung seryosong nais ipahatid ng pelikula ang paniniwala tungkol sa kamalasang hatid kapag nakatirik ang iyong tirahan sa tumbok ng daanan. Hindi malinaw kung mga ligallig na kaluluwa o espiritu ng demonyo ang mga namiminsala. Bigla na lang may mga taong nagbubuwis ng buhay para lang maipakita ang kamalasan. May kakahayahan na makapanghalay ang demonyo habang nasa anyong tao o kaya ay bilang espiritu sa realidad o panaginip. Sa layunin na makapanakot ay pinagalaw ang mga bagay kahit walang tao, bumubukas at sara ang mga pintuan, may mga lumilitaw na imahe ng batang babae at lalaki, at mga tunog ng iyak ng bata at paghiyaw ng babae. Establisado ang pagkakaroon ng temang may kaugnayan sa kadiliman ang pelikula. Ang lumang condominium ay tila di ana angkop tirahan dahil madumi at kawalan ng ayos. Hindi masyadong gumamit ng mga nakakatakot na imahe o make-up. Medyo palaisipan naman na sumabog ang kalan sa isang kuwarto at namatay lahat ng nasa loob pero ang kwarto lamang nila ang nasunog.. Wala namang dating ang pagganap ni Christine Reyes, walang naipakitang takot sa mga ekesanang hinihingi ito. Gayon din si Carlo Aquino kulang din ang ipinakitang damdamin sa pagganap bilang police photorgrapher at asawa ni Grace lalo na mayroon pala siyang nakaraan sa mahiwagang bahay.

Maliban sa mga pananalita ng kapitbahay nina Grace na dinadaan sa panalangin ang mga kababalaghan at kamalasan na nakasanayan na niya sa ilan taon ng paninirahan niya sa condominium ay wala nang iba pang mapupulot na aral sa pelikulang Tumbok. Maganda naman ang samahan ng mag-asawa. Pero nakakabahala na natapos ang pelikulang nagpapatotoo sa mga tinatawag na malas at swerte. Karumaldumal ang ilang eksena ng pagpaslang. Iilan lamang ang tauhan ng pelikula subalit walang naipakitang positibong image --- mag-asawang nagbubugan at humantong sa patayan, estudyanteng maiingay at walang galang, pulis opisyal na nagbabanta kapag nalaman ng publiko ang pangit na katotohanan sa serbisyo, at kasero na kampon ng demonyo at nanghahalay ng tumitirang babae sa paupahan, ina nais mamatay ang anak na iniluwal sa paniniwaang kampon ng demonyo, at istambay sa daan na bigla na lang mananaga ng mga inosenteng dumadaan sa kalye.. Sa kabuuan ay halos walang naihaing moral ang pelikula.

Thor

CAST: Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Chris Hemsworth,Idris Elba, Ray Stevenson, Kat Dennings, Stellan Skarsgård,Rene Russo, Jaimie Alexander; DIRECTOR: Kenneth Branagh; WRITER: Ashley Miller; PRODUCER: Marvel Studios; GENRE: Action/Adventure; LOCATION: U.S.A.; RUNNING TIME: 130 minutes

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 4
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above.

Hammer-wielding Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is heir to the throne of his father King Odin (Anthony Hopkins). When he learns that their family palace in Asgard has been ransacked by their enemies, the frost giants, Thor, a rather gung-ho kind of royalty, defies his father’s orders and packs his brother Loki and a handful of buddies along to give the frost giants a lesson. But stands to learn his lesson, too, as Odin is just as determined to teach him one for his brazen disobedience. He banishes Thor to Earth, along with his hammer, his favorite weapon of destruction, but on Earth, Thor loses his nobility status and becomes just an ordinary guy. Worse, his magical hammer is stuck in rock, which means it will only yield to his touch when he stops being a (as Odin says) “vain, greedy cruel boy.” On Earth he meets scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman)—that and Odin’s death spell the beginning of change for Thor.

In mythology, as one of the movie’s posters proclaim, Thor is god of thunder. It seems apt that Thor the movie’s soundtrack is as thunderous as they come, even ear splitting in certain battle scenes. While Thor and Odin are supposedly Nordic gods—and every square centimeter of Hemsworth’s face, from any angle, under any lighting, leaves you no doubt as to the authenticity of his noble Nordic looks—but director Kenneth Brannagh casts the cinematic Thor and company as aliens from a non-heavenly realm, perhaps aware that mythology is lost to the majority of moviegoers these days. Portman’s role here is rather a letdown after her Black Swan soared to higher heavens—but she did aim to be credible as a scientist. Editing is good, it must be said, and the CGI leaves nothing more to be desired. Particularly giddying but pleasantly so are the scenes that enable the viewer to zoom through intergalactic space. Makes you feel really smaller than a dust particle in the whole of creation.

When Thor becomes small, that’s when he becomes really big. When Thor learns to bow his head in weakness, that’s when he gains true power. When he loses his weapons as a warrior, that’s when he’s most heroic. There’s a line by Erik, speaking to Thor that goes "When you learn you don't have all the answers, you ask the right questions" which seems to be the message behind the paradoxes in Thor. Despite its violence, its being a glamorized fluffy action movie, Thor has something weighty to say. Weighty as in biblical. There goes another paradox. And hey, Thor’s fave weapon is a hammer—isn’t that also carpenter’s tool? Go figure.

Pak! Pak! My Dr. Kwak!

CAST: Bea Alonso (Dr. Cielo), Vic Sotto (Dr. Kwak, Angelo), Zaijan Janranilla (Angelito), Xyriel Manabat, Pokwang, Jose Manalo, Wally Bayola, Zanjoe Marudo; DIRECTOR: Tony Y. Reyes; PRODUCER: ABS CBN & M-Zet’s Productions; GENRE: Comedy/ Drama/Fantasy; DISTRIBUTOR: Star Cinema; LOCATION: Philippines

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance

Si Angelo (Vic Sotto) ay isang pekeng manggagamot. Nagpapalit-palit siya ng anyo at lugar dahil sa banta sa kanyang buhay sa minsang hindi niya napagaling na pasyente. Mapapadpad ang grupo nila sa isag bagong lugar kung saan naroon si Dra. Cielo (Bea Alonzo). Bagama't may pagtingin si Dra. Cielo kay Angelo, magiging kontra ito sa mga gawaing pangagamot ni Angelo dahil sa ginagawa nitong pananamantala sa mga tao. Sa pagpipilit ni Dra. Cielo na patunayang pekeng doktor si Angelo ay darating si Angelito (Zaijan Jaranilla), nisang anghel na pinababa mula sa langit dahil sa misyong pagbaguhin si Angelo. Gagawa si Angelito ng mga himala para kay Angelo sa kondisyong gagawa ito ng kabutihan kapalit ng mga milagro. Maging matagumpay kaya ang kanyang misyon kay Angelo?

Wala namang masyadong bagong putaheng inihain ang Pak! Pak! My Dr. Kwak! Nakita na natin ang maraming kuwento ukol sa huwad na faith healers pati na ang tungkol sa mga anghel na pinababa sa lupa dahil sa kapilyuhan. Sinubukang bigyan ng pelikula ng bagong-bihis ang mga gasgas na konseptong ito sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay ng bagong koneksyon sa mga lumang elemento. Pero ang kinalabasan ay tila pilit pa rin. Maging ang mga special effects ay hindi rin naging kapani-paniwala. May ilang mga nakakatuwang eksena pero karamihan sa kanila ay ibinabalik lamang ang nakagawian nang "toilet humor" kundi man slapstick. Nariyan pa rin ang mga karaniwang pormula sa pagpapatawa tulad ng sampalan, pambabatok, mga bastos na patawa kundi man nakakapandiri. Karaniwan na rin at walang bagong ipinakita ang mga komedyante sa pelikula. Si Sotto ay ganoon pa rin ang atake samantalang si Alonzo naman ay parang naligaw sa maling pelikula. Walang naramdamang kilig sa dalawa. Sa patawa nama'y hindi rin ito masyadong naging matagumpay. Marahil, kung ginawa na lamang nilang drama ang pelikula baka naging mas epektibo pa ito.

Sa kabila ng maraming kakulangan ng pelikula sa teknikal na aspeto, hitik naman ito sa mabubuting aral. Nasundan sa pelikula ang kuwento ng dalawang tauhan na kapwa may kailangang baguhin sa kanilang mga pag-uugali. Isang pilyong anghel at isang huwad na mangagamot na puno ng galit ang puso. Nagawa nilang pagbaguhin ang isa't-isa at natuto silang maging mapagbigay at magsakripisyo para sa kanilang mga minamahal. Sa umpisa'y ipinakita kung paanong nasasadlak sa maling gawa ang isang tao at ang ugat nito karaniwan ay kasamaan din tulad ng galit at pagiging ganid. Malakas din ang mensahe ng pelikula ukol sa tunay na pagbabago na ibang-iba sa balatkayo lamang, Ang tunay na pagbabago ay nanggagaling sa puso at hindi ipinipilit dahil lamang sa makukuhang kapalit sa bandang huli. Nakababahala nga lang ang ilang ipinakitang representasyon ng mga anghel at langit na tila walang malinaw na basehan at nagmumukhang katawa-tawa ang kanilanng anyo. Nakakabahalang maniwala ang mga batang manonood na ganito nga itsura ng langit at mga anghel. Ang ilang pambabastos din sa kababaihan at may kapansanan sa ngalan ng pagpapatawa ay nakakabahala din. Pero sa kabuuan naman ay may malalim na mensahe ang pelikula ukol sa pagbabago at pagsasakripisyo at sa puntong ito ay pwede nang patawarin maging ang ilang kasalanan ng pelikula dahil ito naman ang tunay na tatatak sa isipan ng manonood sa bandang huli.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules

CAST: Zachary Gordon, Devon Bostick, Robert Capron, Steve Zahn, Rachael Harris, Peyton List, Ben Hollingsworth, Robert Capron, Michelle Harrison, Grayson Russell; DIRECTOR: David Bowers; WRITERS: Gabe Sachs, Jeff Judah, Jeff Kinney; GENRE: Comedy, Drama; RUNNING TIME: 96 minutes.

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 14 and above

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules takes off from last year’s surprise comedy hit about the Heffley family of three sibling brothers Rodrick (Devon Bostick) , Greg (Zachary Gordon) and toddler Manny and their parents Susan(Rachel Harris) and Frank (Steve Zahn). Rodrick as usual bullies his kid brother 7th grader Greg who has no choice but to play along with him or else. Mom knows it and would give anything to see her two boys living in peace and harmony—to the extent of paying them a dollar for each trouble-free hour they’re together. Susan and Frank one day decide they would go on holiday and leave the house to Greg and Rodrick, extracting a promise from the kids that they would behave while on their own. As soon as their parents leave their sight Rodrick prevails upon Greg to throw a party—but it would be boozeless, relatively safe. But as it turns out, a party’s being alcohol-free is no guarantee of order. The two are caught red-handed and get the appropriate punishment from their disappointed parents.

As far as its genre goes, Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules plays the game by the rules, following a formula that is sure to click with its target audience—kids and families—as the first Diary… did, reportedly making a neat profit for its makers. The viewer can forget about its being fiction as it more or less fairly reflects 21st century parenting American style. You can’t fault the actors for being unbelievable—they’re such naturals given the plot and the never-a-dull-moment script. As for the other things that make a movie technically correct— Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules has them all neatly pulled together. It is an entertaining movie that its makers have taken pains to keep wholesome, so much so that even the stricter critics in the US have freely given it a rating of “PG for some mild rude humor and mischief”.

If you’ve ever been a parent you’ll understand that all Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules is saying is “kids will always be kids but hang on, they’ll grow up, too, and outgrow their mischievous ways”. And CINEMA agrees. Our 2.5 Moral Assessment score doesn’t mean the movie promotes destructive values—it simply means that parental explanations are in order if you allow your children to watch this movie. The parents (Susan and Frank) have good intentions and their children’s best interests at heart, although they could be mistaken for being so naïve or lenient—something that’s balanced by the father of Rowley (Robert Capron), Greg’s chubby best friend, who makes sure his son follows his rules. The movie’s many humorous moments and funny scenes are interspersed with not-so-desirable instances some youngsters might imitate but the resolution at the end gives the viewer a better picture of its optimistic message. In real life, we see worse examples, and children eventually grow up to be mature adults in spite of them.