Hating Kapatid

Cast: Judy Ann Santos, Sarah Geronimo, Luis Manzano, Vice Ganda, JC de Vera, Cherry Pie Picache, Ms. Gina Pareño; Director: Wenn Deramas; Screenwriter: Mel Mendoza-del Rosario; Genre: Drama/ Comedy; Distributor: Viva Films; Location: Philippines; Running Time: 110 min.;

Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance

Umalis ang mga magulang nina Rica (Judy Ann Santos) at Cecilia (Sarah Geronimo), noong sila’y mga bata pa upang maghanap-buhay sa ibang bansa. Naiwan sila sa kanilang lola (Gina Pareno) at sa loob ng halos 20 taon ay si Rica na ang tumayong ama at ina para kay Cecilia. Dahil sa isang aksidente noong bata pa si Cecilia, napilitan si Rica na isakripisyo ang kanyang buhay-pag-ibig. Itinuon na lamang niya ang buo niyang lakas sa pag-aalaga at pagbibigay proteksiyon sa kapatid habang wala ang kanilang mga magulang. Unti-unti’y napapalayo na ang loob ni Rica sa kanyang ina (Cherie Pie Picache) at ama (Tonton Gutierrez) dahil sa matagal nilang hindi pag-uwi sa bansa. Kaya’t nang makatapos si Cecilia sa kolehiyo at magbalik-bayan ang kanilang mga magulang ay matabang na ang pakikisama nito sa kanila. Si Cecilia naman ay masaya sa pagbabalik ng kanyang mga magulang at sa wakas ay buo na silang pamilya. Hindi ito magugustuhan ni Rica at magsisimula nang magkalamat ang relasyon nila ni Cecilia. Lalo pa itong lalala, nang malalaman ni Rica na may manliligaw (Luis Manzano) na ang kapatid.

Marami sanang magandang nais sabihin ang Hating Kapatid patungkol sa pamilya at relasyon ngunit pawang napako ang mga ito sa lantarang kakulangan ng sinseridad ng pelikula sa kabuuan. Gaano man kahusay ang mga talinong nasa likod nito, pati na ang mga di matatawarang galing ng mga aktor, semplang pa rin ang pelikula dahil sa walang pakundangan nitong komersiyalismo na labis na naka-agaw ng pansin sa daloy ng kuwento. Masyadong ginamit ang pelikula upang maisulong ang interes ng mga kalakal at serbisyong ine-endorso na ng mga artista. Tuloy, pawang naglaho ang mga tauhan at pawang mga artista na lamang ang napapanood sa isang pinalawak na patalastas sa telebisyon. Kakatwa rin sa maraming pagkakataon na ang mga patawa, kung hindi luma, ay kapos naman sa hagod o sobrang bagal ng pagkaka-bitaw. Nawawala tuloy ang dapat sana’y magandang epekto sa manonood. Hindi rin nabigyan ng pansin ang paghagod sa karakter, emosyon at kuwento. Pawang minadali ang lahat. Sayang ang manaka-nakang aliw sa mga eksena, pati na rin ang ilang eksenang may kurot sa puso na maari sana'y napalawig pa.

Sa kabila ng mga kakulangang teknikal, hitik sa mensahe ng pagmamahal at pagpapahalaga sa pamilya ang Hating Kapatid. Sinasalamin nito ang maraming pamilyang napipilitang mabuhay nang magkakahiwalay dala ng matinding pangangailangan na mangibang-bayan. Totoo ang sakripisyo ng mga magulang na umaalis mabigyan lamang ng magandang kinabukasan ang mga anak. Kaakibat din nito ang maraming suliraning dala ng paghihiwa-hiwalay. Nariyang malayo ang loob ng mga anak sa magulang dahil sa tagal ng panahong hindi pagkikita. Hindi nga naman mapupunan ng anumang materyal na bagay ang init ng presensya at pagiging nariyan para sa mga anak sa oras ng pangangailangan. Sinubukan namang punuan ng mga magulang ni Rica ang mga pagkukulang na ito sa pamamagitan ng pagtawag sa telepono at paggamit sa makabagong teknolohiya, ngunit sadyang di pa rin sapat. Sa bandang huli’y nagsubok naman ang mga magulang niyang bumawi sa kanilang pagbabalik. Nakakabahala nga lang ang malabis na poot na naitanim ni Rica sa kanyang mga magulang na wala namang hinangad na hindi maganda para sa kanilang magkapatid. Kahanga-hanga naman ang ipinakitang pagmamahalan ng magkapatid sa pelikula. Pati ang aral na ang tao, gaano mo man kahusay alagaan, ay hindi mo kailanman magiging pag-aari. At ang pagmamahal ay ibinabahagi at hindi sinasarili. May mangi-ngilan nga lang na patawang eksena sa pelikula na maaring maka-sakit sa damdamin ng ilan tulad na lamang nang gawing katawa-tawa ang isang matanda. Pati na rin ang pag-iingat sa paggamit ng mga paputok ay dapat na mabigyang-pansin. Kaya nararapat pa ring gabayan ang mga batang manonood na 13 gulang pababa.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

Cast: Nicholas Cage, Jay Baruchel, Alfred Molina, Teresa Palmer, Toby Kebbell; Director: John Turtletaub; Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer; Screenwriters: Lawrence Konner, Mark Rosenthal; Music: Trevor Rabin; Editor: William Goldenberg; Genre: Fiction/Fantasy, Comedy, Action/Adventure, Drama, Kids/Family; Cinematography: Bojan Bazelli; Distributor: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; Location: New York, USA; Running Time: 111 min.;

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

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice opens with a flashback to the Middle Ages, when wizard Balthazar Blake (Nicholas Cage), a pupil of Merlin, the legendary medieval wizard, has been tasked to watch for the emergence of the prophesied successor of Merlin Year 2000, grade schooler Dave Stutler (Jake Cherry) accidentally discovers a store called Arcana Cabana, which is actually more of a museum housing the sorcerer Balthazar’s treasures. The treasures Balthazar guards in Arcana Cabana include a matrioshka (Russian nesting doll) imprisoning another medieval sorcerer, Maxim Horveth (Alfred Molina), Balthazar’s contemporary as pupil of Merlin who had flipped over to black sorcery. Subjecting the 9-year old Dave to a test, Balthazar discovers the boy is the person he has been looking for through the centuries. However, the boy is scared and incredulous, especially when his story about his encounter with Balthazar is seen as hallucination by people who hear of it. Year 2010, 19-year-old Dave (Jay Baruchel) is now a socially-awkward physics geek at New York University and his humdrum existence is about to be punctuated by his encounter with the evil Maxim who has been newly freed from his doll-prison and is doggedly after the magical ring in Dave’s possession.
Like movies of this genre, director Jon Turtletaub’s The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is meant to be a fantasy-adventure. It will be compared—perhaps unfairly and unfavorably—to a Harry Potter movie, but this doesn’t mean it can’t stand on its own. Due to the proliferation of such magic-driven flicks, the viewer can’t help but recognize in this movie elements from other kindred-creations, particularly in the display of sorcerous powers. Because it has its own fantastic story to tell (authored by Lawrence Konner, Mark Rosenthal and Matt Lopez), advanced by CGI and special effects, it has enough energy and splash to entertain the audience, mostly the young ones. Happily, the script (by screenwriters Matt Lopez, Doug Miro and Carlo Bernard) is devoid of vulgar language albeit slightly tinged with toilet humor. Molina’s villain is the kind audiences love to hate, while Cage is a surprise, a departure from his usually morose characters, he is quite lighthearted here and smiles a lot in spite of his bad hairpiece.
Disney’s The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, with all its bloodless stylized violence, is inoffensive enough for pre-teens, but parents and educators guiding young viewers should arm themselves with convincing explanations in case the latter ask about the probability of people being imprisoned in dolls and coming back to life after centuries. The movie’s hero is a young person, so expect young people to resonate with it, and maybe affirm its values without question, so do be forewarned. Older teen and other viewers will benefit from discussions on the topics of power, destiny, and sexual attraction as portrayed in the movie. (Note that school kids here are shown attracted to the opposite sex at age 9). Perhaps one exercise would be to ask “What would you do if you had Dave’s powers and you are asked to save the world?” While CINEMA may give this movie PG 13 rating, parents are advised to bring only older children as some of the scenes might prove too scary for very young children.--TRT

Predators

Cast: Adriene Brody, Topher Grace, Alice Braga, Walton Goggins, Oleg Taktarov; Director: Nimrod Antal; Producers: Elizabeth Avellan, John Davis, Robert Rodriguez; Screenwrites: Alex Litvak, Michael Finch; Music: John Debney; Editor: Dan Zimmerman; Genre: Action/ Adventure/ Sci-Fi; Cinematography: Gyula Pados; Distributor: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Location: USA; Running Time: 107 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

One by one, they drop down from the sky and into the jungle, giving the impression that they are all part of a parachuting outing gone wrong. Are they trainees in a jungle survival exercise? It seems no, because each of them is ready to kill man or beast in order to save his own neck. Soon they learn that they are all killers. They are Royce (Adriend Brody), a dyed to the wool mercenary; Isabelle (Alice Braga), an Israeli army sniper; Cuchillo (Danny Trejo), an Hispanic drug-gang enforcer; Stans (Walter Goggins), a death-row convict; Nikolai (Oleg Taktarov), a Russian Special Forces operative; an African warlord (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali); a Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien); and Edwin (Topher Grace), a mild-mannered doctor who’s the only one among them who is not a killer. With survival as their main concern, they realize it’s much better to have bad company than to be alone in such a menacing environment. And later, they discover they are on another planet, and while the vegetation closely resembles Earth’s, the animals are an entirely different matter. The truth soon dawns on them: they have been brought there in order to be hunted for sport by unknown predators.
The main hitch about attack movies such as Predators is its predictability. You are sure the lead characters will in the end prevail over their predators, so that the suspense is in guessing the order in which the others will be eliminated. Punctuating the rather slow first half hour of Predators are escapes from booby traps and metallic monsters that look like warthogs. By the middle of the movie the tension stems from the identity of the invisible hunters: who are they, and what do they want from the humans? The casting is good, lending credibility to each character; and the actors prove their respectability by giving serious performance despite the implausible plot. The steamy jungle and its strange creatures keep audience attention level high, while cinematography blends well with CGI.
Predators offers many opportunities for mixed group discussions on ethics and life values. One question to throw would be “Would you kill people for a living?” It could also tease minds by asking “Why is it that the only one who seems to have a conscience in the movie is the woman? Are women more moral than men?” Science teachers should also enlighten their students about a breathtaking scene where the planet is surrounded by four moons too big and too close to be real: remember this is science fiction. Those with queasy stomachs and delicate ears are warned: bodies are impaled and guts spill out in this movie; obscenities and other unprintable words are uttered as well. Remember these characters are mercenaries, not diplomats.--TRT

The Last Airbender

ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Noah Ringer, Dev Patel, Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone, Shaun Toub; Director: M. Night Shyamalan; Producers: Frank Marshall, Sam Mercer, M. Night Shyamalan; Screenwriter: M. Bight Shyamanalan; Music: James Newton Howard; Editor: Conrad Buff IV; Genre: Action/ Adventure; Cinematography: Andrew Lesnie; Distributor: Paramount Pictures; Location: USA; Running Time: 103 mins.;

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

BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS

Based on the hugely successful Nickelodeon animated TV series, the live-action feature film is set in a world where human civilization is divided into four nations: Water, Earth, Air and Fire (www.Rottentomatoes.com)

The four nations used to live in harmony until the Fire Nation launches a brutal war against the others. A century has passed with no hope in sight to change the path of this destruction. Caught between combat and courage, Aang (Noah Ringer) discovers he is the lone Avatar with the power to manipulate all four elements. Aang teams with Katara (Nicola Peltz), a Waterbender, and her brother, Sokka (Jackson Rathbone), to restore balance to their war-torn world.

OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF THE FILM: Very good visual effects but poor development of plot and shallow dialogue.

Inception

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao, Cilaian Murphy, Tom Berenger, Marion Cotillard, Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Caine, Lukas Haas; Director: Christopher Nolan; Producers: Christopher Nolan, Emma Thomas; Screenwriter: Christopher Nolan; Music: Hans Zimmer; Editor: Lee Smith; Genre: Suspense-Sci-Fi, Drama; Cinematography: Wally Pfister; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: US; Running Time: 148 minutes;

Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) leads a team of spies/ thieves who illegally and unethically extracts the most treasured secrets of a person through intruding into their dreams using sophisticated technology. This and some details of his past, involving a dark secret about his deceased wife (Marion Cottilard), has made him a fugitive, and unable to return home to his two young children for quite a long while. So when an influential Japanese business magnate, Saito (Ken Watanabe), offers him to clean his legal records in exchange for a dangerous, nearly impossible mission, Cobb accepts. Instead of extracting, Cobb's mission would be “inception” - that is, he would plant an idea into the mind of Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), heir to a rival business which threatens Saito's empire. To be able to do this, Cobb and his team must intrude into Fischer's subconscious that lies in the deepest of his dreams. However, Cobb's professionalism is always hindered by his personal inability to control his own distracting -subconscious brought about by his dark past.

Inception is an out-of-the box spectacle that is able to exploit the limitless possibilities of visual storytelling. The premise dwells on a subject matter usually thought of as implausible for the cinema arts. At the onset, the audience is predisposed with another sci-fi flick but it turns out that Inception is more than that. There's a lot of genius at work in the story that borders in the absurd and the insane but the writer-director, Christopher Nolan, is able to synchronize all the plot elements in a cohesive whole. Things happen so fast in the film though, stories and complications of various layers pile up simultaneously which tend to make the audience breathless and sometimes, at a lost if they are unable to keep up with the film's rapid pace. DiCaprio and the rest of the cast are at their best. They make a tremendous ensemble given the demands of the film's convoluted plots, subplots and more subplots. For having pulled-off such a ridiculous, ambitious concept into a seamless, memorable cinematic experience, the Inception is more than exceptional. It is phenomenal.

In today's technological advancement and domination, everything seems possible. Eversince people have allowed technology to enter into their private spaces, they have already subjected themselves into public scrutiny. In Inception, even one's subconscious can no longer be a secret. Much worse, one's deepest secret can now be extracted and stolen just like everything else. In effect, everything is commodified. Hacking and piracy is no longer limited to ideas, computers and copyrights --- it now extends to one's secrets, even those that lie in the deepest parts of their dreams and subconscious. It is now a dangerous world indeed. There's no question that Cobb's business is illegal and unethical. Their skills and genius went a little too far and they are all aware of it. The film, with all its spectacular technical magnificence, manages to consistently put into play the rudiments of Cobb's emotional and psychological turmoil with the kind of life and livelihood he has chosen. That in itself is punishment enough. No one would ever aspire for a life filled with guilt and resentments. In the blurring of lines between fantasy and reality, there's still nothing worse than to be left in a limbo where love and meaningful relationships do not exist. Inception would make the audience look at dreams and realities in a different light. However, some scenes of violence, themes of suicide, and vulgar language (although in context) may not be suitable for viewers below 14 years of age.

Street Dance 3D

Cast: Charlotte Rampling, Patrick Baladi, Nichola Burley, Chris Wilson, Eleanor Bron; Directors: Max Giwa, Dania Pasquini; Producers: Allan Niblo, James Richardson; Screenwriter: Jane English; Editor: Tim Murrell; Genre: Drama/ Dance: Cinematography: Sam McCurdy; Distributor: Viva International Pictures; Location: UK; Running Time: 98 mins;

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

Street Dance 3D features winners from the reality show Britain’s Got Talent and heavily borrows themes from previous dance movies: competition, fusion of styles and determination. The movie begins with Carly faced with putting together her dance crew after Jay, the leader and her boyfriend, announces that he is leaving. The crew also loses their rehearsal space and is to find alternative spaces which at times prove to be insufficient. The crew dreams of winning a dance off finals and make it to New York but things look impossible without an appropriate rehearsal space. Fortunately, Carly meets Helena, a ballet instructor running her own studio with a lot of talented but passionless dancers, in one of her deliveries. She manages to invite Helena to her crew's rehearsal. Helena is impressed with the group's vibrance and offers Carly free use of the ballet studio on condition that Carly would teachstreet dance to the ballet students. The task is difficult at first as the two dance disciplines clash with each other but in the end, the ballerinas and the street dancers become friends and come up with a unique dance choreography. The plot thickens as Carly falls for Thomas, one of the ballet students, while Jay tries to get back to her.

Very seldom do we see a dance movie with a serious plot other than trying to win in a competition or pass an audition. Street Dance is not different. You’ve seen the storyline once too often that at the very first dance sequence, you already know the last one. The performances are a little too flat – a common dilemma in trying to cast real non-acting dancers. The dance disciplines are a bit type-casted. Ballet need not be stiff and snooty and street dance need not be carefree and crude. The choreography is good and entertaining but nothing really memorable that will be a signature move in the years to follow. However, Street Dance has one trick up its sleeves – the use of 3D technology. With a lot of stop-motions, intricate leaps and footwork and powerful music, the movie is very entertaining and enjoyable.

There are two important lessons one can pick up from the movie. One is determination to succeed. In life, we always have a competition to win and a goal to accomplish. The movie reminds us that along the way to success are heartaches and challenges and we need not only a strong character but also resourcefulness and flexibility. There are times you have to work with people or circumstances that are completely the opposite of what you are used to. And learning to deal with such adversities strengthens your person and improves your creativity. Another lesson deals with unity as a fruit of respect and acceptance. People need to acknowledge the beauty and brilliance of another no matter how good he or she may be in one area. Learning to do so opens people up to cooperation and collaboration, thus leading to more refined and profound output.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

Cast: Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner, Ashley Greene, Peter Facinelli, Elizabeth Reaser, Kellan Lutz, Nikki Reed, Jackson Rathbone, Bryce Dallas Howard, Xavier Samuel; Director: David Slade; Producers: Wyck Godfrey, Greg Mooradian, Karen Rosenfelt; Screenwriters: Stephanie Meyer, Melissa Rosenberg; Music: Howard Shore; Editor: Art Jones, Nancy Richardson; Genre: Fantasy/ Romance/ Thriller; Cinematography: Javier Aguirresarobe; Distributor: Summit Entertainment; Location: Vancouver, Canada; Running Time: 124 mins;

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

The message of Eclipse
By Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS

Jacob is hot about Bella, Bella is hot about Edward, Edward is keeping his cool until he marries Bella. Champions of chastity should know how to use the movie to advance their cause.

SYNOPSIS. The police are perplexed by inexplicable disappearance of otherwise ordinary and peaceful citizens from several counties around Forks, Washington. They suspect that these people have been attacked by wolves. The truth is they’re being “recruited”. The redhead vampire Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard) and her new vampire-lover Riley (Xavier Samuel) are creating an army of “newborns”—freshly bitten humans-turned-vampires—by abducting and ambushing these mortals and sinking their fangs into their victims’ necks. Victoria wants to wipe out the Cullens and the mortal teenager Bella (Kristen Stewart) to avenge the death of her true love James. Newborns are supposedly much stronger than vampires who’ve been around for decades, thus the Cullens admit that even in number alone they are no match against the plasma-thirsty newborns. Bella’s sweetheart Edward (Robert Pattinson) and her admirer Jacob (Taylor Lautner) are left with no choice but to make a truce and combine forces to protect Bella from Victoria and her neophyte but plasma-hungry recruits.

REVIEW. Now it’s not just vampires against werewolves. It’s bad vampires against good vampires collaborating with werewolves while the inscrutable Volturi, the vampires’ ruling council, watch from the bleachers. Interesting? You bet.

The action is Eclipse’s edge over the first two movie versions of Stephanie Meyer’s saga, Twilight and New Moon. With no mean thanks to CGI (computer generated images) wolves the size of well-fed lions battle lightning-quick vampires—that’s a novelty, but there are way too many swish-pan shots and quick cuts to close ups for the viewer to clearly see how the fight progresses. You see who survives the encounter but how it happens is left to your imagination; after the initial collision between werewolf and vampire, you just see one or the other dead. (Jackie Chan offers infinitely better choreography!)

Vampire to vampire combat, however, isn’t that bad; action is sustained until one emerges as victor. One thing about this movie: the carnage is bloodless. When a werewolf is killed, you just see a dead animal, period—a slaughterhouse is definitely bloodier. Even when a vampire is decapitated, no blood flows out of the wound—just crushed ice, like that which spills out of your freezer when you clumsily empty it. (That can’t be said of Ninja movies where blood flows like a leaking fire hydrant.)

So, if only for the stylized and bloodless violence, maybe some would rate Eclipse like a cartoon—funny enough for young children—but if you examine the primary storyline, perhaps you might see it’s dangerous for teenagers. And immature adults.

The story, plain and simple, is a dime-a-dozen romance involving two males and a female. But the Meyer mythos lends the love-triangle a different coloration—one male is a vampire, the other is a werewolf and since according to the novelist vampires and werewolves are by instinct (im)mortal enemies, the rivalry between the two over the human female consequently offers more dynamic interaction than if all three belonged to species homo sapiens.

Minus the vampire-werewolf backdrop, Eclipse is but a story of lust—suppressed and unrequited lust. Putting it nicely in teen lingo, Jacob is hot about Bella, Bella is hot about Edward, Edward is keeping his cool until he marries Bella. One male teenage viewer coming out of the theater was overheard, “Puro Bella, Bella, Bella, nakaka-irita!” (It’s all about Bella, it’s irritating!) But that can’t be helped, considering that novelist Meyer’s intention is really to focus on chastity—and what better way to make chastity shine than to set it deep against a swirling mass of dark, overpowering emotions?

Bella is a self-absorbed teen-ager searching for her identity, a virgin who has fallen in love with a vampire and wants to give herself totally to him, now. But Edward is pat on his principles so he tells Bella: marry me first. Gripped by incomprehensible passions, she rejects Edward’s stand as “ancient” but hangs on to him anyway, while remaining ambivalent about Jacob, her muscular, shirtless admirer. She says she’s in love with Edward but wouldn’t let go Jacob—what a tease. Bella may be in love with Edward, but she’s also in love with the idea of being in love with a vampire, and is beguiled by the prospect of being forever 18.

What Bella doesn’t seem to realize—let alone be willing to admit—is that it is lust controlling her this time. She keeps Jacob around to boost her ego which is repeatedly bruised by Edward’s constant refusal to yield to her sexual availability. When Bella kisses Jacob in plain view of Edward, she probably has in mind, “Look, Eddie Boy, if you don’t want me, somebody else badly does!” When Edward says, “You love him (Jacob)”, and she answers “I love you more”, she could be thinking, “Yeah, Jake’s got gorgeous pecs, but yours glisten in the sun!” So, what is Bella really after?

Jacob is after Bella—has always been since Twilight, through New Moon—though it’s doubtful whether he wants Bella for her own good. Cocksure about Bella’s covert feelings for him, he’s much too wrapped up in his desires to even begin to know what Bella really wants. His consistent sales pitch to Bella is You’re-a-fool-for-wanting-him-when-I’m-better-for-you, uttered in various versions but almost always with a wolfish growl. Jacob’s smugness borders on the ridiculous when he says to Edward, “I’m hotter than you!” Yeah, we know it’s because werewolves are supposed to be warm-blooded while vampires are made of ice inside, but, Attention, please!—his close-up shot here reveals Lautner really meant it for Pattinson, not for Edward. Hot and hotter—such is the name of the showbiz game.

If Meyer’s point in her saga is upholding chastity, she uses the century-old vampire Edward to advance her cause. His decisions and actions show it, and his lines are unequivocal. Edward, despite multiple graduations from high school through the decades, still ticks with the mores of his times—when a man courted a woman, asked her father for her hand in marriage, and kept the fire in his loins under control until the wedding night. Of the three characters in the love triangle, Edward is the one who loves most selflessly, putting the welfare of his beloved above his own. As Jacob is to realize in time, Edward is a gentleman’s gentleman, willing to let Bella go should she opt to be with another man.

Before you decide whether to align yourself with Team Edward or Team Jacob, remember it’s only a movie. Engaging though it is, like a telenovela to many people, this vampiric business is still fiction. At the rate Eclipse is drawing crowds (eight out of 12 movie theaters in a popular mall is showing Eclipse, with the 2D version selling tickets at 400 pesos each), a reality check is in order. To prevent yourselves from getting carried away by this Gothic romance, ponder these silly concerns:

--If vampires are made of ice inside, does it follow that whatever they eat become frozen in there?
--If these bloodsuckers don’t bleed, what has happened to all that blood they’ve swallowed for eons?
--If vampires and werewolves can come to a truce for the sake of a loved one, does this mean there’s hope for the war freaks of our world?
--Since vampires claim being a vampire is a curse they don’t want, then why do they still defend themselves when attacked? Why not just allow themselves to be killed? Or is suicide a no-no for vampires?
--On what day of creation did God create vampires and werewolves?
--Is this movie safe for young children? Answer: Parents who let their 3-year-old watch Twilight on DVD with them were aghast when guests asked the child, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” and the kid gleefully replied, “I wanna be a vampire!”

Eclipse offers much to discuss at home or in school; church workers, take note. Fiction though it is, the fact that young people are trooping to the theaters to watch Eclipse means they resonate somehow with the movie’s content. They may identify with the characters, or recognize their own demons in the tug-of-war between the characters.

The tug-of-war is not between Jacob and Edward, but between Bella and Edward (lust and chastity), between Bella and herself (to want or to wait), and between the two brats Bella and Jacob—(I want what I want now!). The message in Eclipse is, really, “True love waits.” It is Edward’s stand. Isn’t it ironic that it should come from a vampire? Young people pay over and over again to hear that message—if champions of chastity see that as the factor behind Robert Pattinson’s instant stardom, they should know how to use it to advance their cause. Bella may have said Edward’s spiel for chastity is “ancient” without realizing she spoke the truth. The virtue is “ancient” because it has survived generations of vice; and it has survived because deep within the human heart, chastity is the desire of all ages.

(The author is Founding Board Member of the CBCP/CINEMA)

Predators

Cast: Adriene Brody, Topher Grace, Alice Braga, Walton Goggins, Oleg Taktarov; Director: Nimrod Antal; Producers: Elizabeth Avellan, John Davis, Robert Rodriguez; Screenwrites: Alex Litvak, Michael Finch; Music: John Debney; Editor: Dan Zimmerman; Genre: Action/ Adventure/ Sci-Fi; Cinematography: Gyula Pados; Distributor: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Location: USA; Running Time: 107 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

One by one, they drop down from the sky and into the jungle, giving the impression that they are all part of a parachuting outing gone wrong. Are they trainees in a jungle survival exercise? It seems no, because each of them is ready to kill man or beast in order to save his own neck. Soon they learn that they are all killers. They are Royce (Adriend Brody), a dyed to the wool mercenary; Isabelle (Alice Braga), an Israeli army sniper; Cuchillo (Danny Trejo), an Hispanic drug-gang enforcer; Stans (Walter Goggins), a death-row convict; Nikolai (Oleg Taktarov), a Russian Special Forces operative; an African warlord (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali); a Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien); and Edwin (Topher Grace), a mild-mannered doctor who’s the only one among them who is not a killer. With survival as their main concern, they realize it’s much better to have bad company than to be alone in such a menacing environment. And later, they discover they are on another planet, and while the vegetation closely resembles Earth’s, the animals are an entirely different matter. The truth soon dawns on them: they have been brought there in order to be hunted for sport by unknown predators.

The main hitch about attack movies such as Predators is its predictability. You are sure the lead characters will in the end prevail over their predators, so that the suspense is in guessing the order in which the others will be eliminated. Punctuating the rather slow first half hour of Predators are escapes from booby traps and metallic monsters that look like warthogs. By the middle of the movie the tension stems from the identity of the invisible hunters: who are they, and what do they want from the humans? The casting is good, lending credibility to each character; and the actors prove their respectability by giving serious performance despite the implausible plot. The steamy jungle and its strange creatures keep audience attention level high, while cinematography blends well with CGI.

Predators offers many opportunities for mixed group discussions on ethics and life values. One question to throw would be “Would you kill people for a living?” It could also tease minds by asking “Why is it that the only one who seems to have a conscience in the movie is the woman? Are women more moral than men?” Science teachers should also enlighten their students about a breathtaking scene where the planet is surrounded by four moons too big and too close to be real: remember this is science fiction. Those with queasy stomachs and delicate ears are warned: bodies are impaled and guts spill out in this movie; obscenities and other unprintable words are uttered as well. Remember these characters are mercenaries, not diplomats.

Toy Story 3

Cast: (Voice only) Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Don Rickles, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Estelle Harris, Michael Keaton; Director: Lee Unkrich; Producers: ; Screenwriters: Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich; Genre: Animation/ Comedy/ Adventure: Distributor: Pixar/ Walt Disney; Running Time: 102 mins;

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

Andy, the owner of the toys is now grown-up and is leaving for college. His mother asked him to sort his things and decide which goes to the boxes labeled ‘college’, ‘attic’, ‘donation’ or the garbage bag. This is such a heart-wrenching moment for his toys that have not been played for a long time and have been kept in the toy chest for years. Andy decides to put Woody in the box “going to college” while his other toy friends are put in a trash bag but Andy intends to put them at the attic. His choice of container leads to a near rendezvous of the toys to the garbage truck. Afraid that they may end up in the landfill, the toys managed to climb back and decide to go to the ‘donation’ box headed to a day care center. Woody knows the garbage truck incident was a mistake and he tries to convince them to come back home. The group did not believe Woody and they find themselves in the day care center and welcomed by a strawberry scented bear named Lotso. They are convinced that they have found their new home in the day care center and are assured by Lotso that they will be played there. Woody is still not convinced so they decided to part ways. Woody later on learns that Lotso is not the friendly teddy bear he appears to be and his toy friends are now in danger.

Toy Story 3 could be the most anticipated family movie of the year. Being the third installment of a successful franchise, it has to at least be at par with its earlier versions or better. And it never failed in this respect. The creators of the movie managed to thicken the plot with its new premise and additional villain characters which are far more evil-like and frightening than the previous villains in earlier movies, making Toy Story 3 the darkest film of the franchise. This time, the fun and laughs are lesser, but the sentiments are more or less the same. The movie is still as imaginative and the “great escape” adventure of the toy characters is very engaging. The voice actors are great as they have always been. All in all, Toy Story 3 remains to be both fun and heart-warming experience that brings out the child in all of its audience no matter what age.

The Toy Story has been working on its original premise, what if toys are like humans with feelings and emotions. This makes the children, and even the child-at-heart, appreciate all things around, both living and non-living, especially those that make them happy however temporary. The film successfully conveys this idea and achieves such effect to a great extent. For most times, audiences forget that they are actually watching toys. In the movie, toys are actually more human than other humans. How does it really feel to be abandoned? Or left alone? Or betrayed? It is almost always easier to escape and evade but the toys in the story has taught its audience loyalty, courage, perseverance and far more importantly, hope. Against all odds, they stick together and their friendship and camaraderie make them survive any ordeal, making things work for them in the process including a peaceful turnover, a meaningful goodbye and a sentimental letting go. The evil ones get their punishment and the good ones are rewarded. However, the ‘prison break’ and ‘great escape’ plots and some degree of violence in the movie may be a bit dark for the very young so CINEMA recommends that parents supervise their children below 13 years old while watching.

The Karate Kid

ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Jaden Smith, Jackie Chan, Taraji P. Henson, Wenwen Han, Shenwei Wang; Director: Harald Zwart; Producers: Will Smith, Jada Pinkett Smith, Ken Stovitz, Jerry Weintraub, James Lassiter; Screenwriter: Christopher Murphey; Genre: Action/Drama/Family/Sport: Cinematography: Rodger Pratt; Distributor: Columbia Pictures; Location: USA/ China; Running Time: 140 mins;

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

BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS

Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) is a 12-year old living in Detroit, USA when his mother Sherry (Traraji P. Henson) gets a job in China. Once in China, Dre misses home and wants to go back to the USA. His mother tells him that China is home now, and he must learn to accept his new home. Dre begins to like China when he falls for his classmate Mei Ying (Wenwen Han). Dre’s feelings for Mei Ying are seen by Cheng (Shenwei Wang) the class bully who is out to stop it. Cheng puts Dre to the ground with ease using his Kung Fu training. Dre doesn’t have a chance of using the little karate that he knows, and Cheng proves it the next time he sees Dre. Dre is getting beaten badly when Mr. Han (Jackie Chan) the maintenance man, secretly a Kung Fu Master, stops the fight. Dre persuades Mr. Han to teach him Kung Fu. With this knowledge, Dre must now face down Cheng in a fight to win his respect in a Kung Fu tournament.

Sex and the City 2

Cast: Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Kattrall, Kristin Davis, Cynthia Nixon; Director: Michael Patrick King; Producers: Michael Patrick King, Sarah Jessica Parker, John Melfi; Screenwriter: Michael Patrick King, Candace Bushnell; Editor: Michael Berenbaum; Genre: Drama/Comedy/Tourism: Cinematography: John Thomas; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures; Location: New York/ Middle East; Running Time: 135 mins.;

Sex and the City 2: sugar coated poison



By Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS



Those who have become fans of the cable-TV series will no doubt find something to like in the movie... but for audiences who regard movies as powerful shapers of values particularly of the young, Sex and the City 2 is sugar-coated poison.





After two years, the quartet of long-time gal-pals Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker), Miranda (Cynthia Nixon), Charlotte (Kristin Davis) and Samantha (Kim Cattrall) reunite and update one another on their woes, their joys, etc. Lawyer Miranda grumbles that she is pushed around by her male boss simply because she’s female. Housewife Charlotte thinks she’s a happily married mother of two kids. PR agent Samantha swears happiness is looking 35 when she is 50.. Writer Carrie (who narrates the story) chooses marriage without children as most fulfilling for her. They are so close that when Samantha is gifted by a potential client with the opportunity to travel first class and spend some days in style in Abu Dhabi, she wouldn’t go without the other three. In Abu Dhabi, situations invite them to confront their insecurities otherwise unexamined back in America.

A sequel to the 2008 feature by director Michael Patrick King, Sex in the City 2 is candy for the eyes, especially if viewers relish high end fashion, high end travel, high end living, high end everything. There’s a story all right, a story of women who represent the ultimate consumer, and everything else in the movie backs this up. The pace is snappy and so is the script, and with the frequent costume changes, fancy settings, “beautiful people” and exotic locales, it’s hard to get drowsy or bored watching this 145-minute bloated version of the TV sitcom. In this technically polished production, acting is sincere, but the characters are contemporary and seem too close to home to challenge one’s acting skills. Besides, when the movie is almost fashion-porn, who needs to act?

Those who have become fans of the cable-TV series will no doubt find something to like in the movie, for it is indeed entertaining in its own right, but for audiences who regard movies as powerful shapers of values particularly of the young, Sex and the City 2 is sugar coated poison. If the movie is candy for the eyes, it is also toxic for the impressionable soul.

While sound values are presented—like fidelity, family, sexual equality, tolerance and respect for alien culture—these are glossed over when contradictory values forcefully grab screen time, making us wonder whether the movie is pushing a hidden agenda or is simply being dismissive and downright contemptuous of people who are not “in”.

A lavish gay “wedding” eats up nearly half an hour, with the Best Man being a woman (Parker) in a tuxedo, and the pastor another woman—60-something Liza Minelli doing a whole song and dance routine (I’m a Single Lady) in a glamorized man’s shirt and fishnet stockings. That number in itself trivializes the pastor’s ministry and makes of the marriage ceremony a vaudeville show.

Also inserted into the story is a tour of a luxurious hotel suite—mouthwatering to many no doubt, but may be thought-provoking to some who may wonder how much the five-minute plug is actually costing the hotel owner. Five minutes in a movie where fates are sealed in a matter of seconds must cost quite a fortune.

While the gang of four fashionistas do care to be there for each other, they are too self-absorbed, pathetically unaware that there breathes a world outside of their own sparkly little bubble.

Carrie prides herself in juggling career and marriage with elan, but she’s a writer who has no “give and take” in her vocabulary.

Charlotte is the picture of a contented wife and mother, until her two-year old daughter impatient for her attention imprints red paint on her prized Valentino skirt.

Lawyer Miranda plays safe and does some research on the local customs before they fly off to Abu Dhabi but the movie does not take her seriously; instead it gives the youth-obsessed Samantha license to mock with impunity the sex and dress issues of the Muslims. In fact, Samantha is the kind of American tourist no self-respecting American traveler would want to be identified with, uncovering her profound maleducation by openly defying mores of Islamic modesty and seducing a man in public in full view of a traditional Muslim couple. In real life, Samantha could have been stoned, but in the movie the director lets her go scot-free, her neck saved by burqa-clad women who literally unveil themselves as clones of the fashion-obsessed quartet from New York. (Uh-oh… insult upon injury! Let’s see how this movie performs among Middle Eastern audiences).

It is doubtful whether Sex and the City writer and director King intended to portray these four friends as conflicted human beings struggling for enlightenment, but if he believes film ought to serve as a tool for man’s growth, he needs to transform his heroines from women of (dubious) style to women of substance. From lauding these women’s avarice he should now challenge them to get real and outgrow their narcissism.

In Sex and the City 2, women empowerment means the entitlement to la dolce vita, the privilege to shop on a husband’s largesse, and the freedom to carry condoms in your bag as a basic necessity. In spite of everything they have, these women can’t seem to have enough. We’d love to see Sex and the City 3 do justice to women, real women. Miranda will now be running her own law office and rendering legal services pro bono to cuckolded husbands on welfare. Charlotte will be shown happily conducting healing sessions in a facility for battered wives in Harlem while her children play with her patients’ children in a crying room she’s built out of her own pocket. Realizing that a novel of import is never written from atop an ivory tower, Carrie will move to Brazil to write while living alone in a favela and managing a soup kitchen for its residents—because has husband has now claimed his right to enjoy in solitude black and white movies without talkies. Samantha who will have (finally) fallen in love, will now be residing somewhere in Afghanistan as the fourth wife of a handsome 80-year old sheik who demands that she wear a burqa for life, or else… (The author is Founding Board Member of the CBCP/CINEMA)

Letter to Juliet

ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Vanessa Redgrave, Chris Egan, Gael Garcia Bernal; Director: Gary Winick; Producers: Mark Canton, Caroline Kaplan, Ellen Barkin; Screenwriters: Jose Rivera, Tim Sullivan; Music: Andrea Guerra; Editor: Bill Pankow; Genre: Romance, Drama, Comedy; Cinematography: Marco Pontecorvo; Distributor: Summit Entertainment; Location: New York/ Italy; Running Time: 105 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS

When a young American travels to the city of Verona, home of the star-crossed lover Juliet Capulet of Romeo and Juliet fame, she joins a group of volunteers who respond to letters to Juliet seeking advice about love. After answering one letter dated 1951, she inspires its author to travel in search of her long-lost love and sets off a chain of events that will bring into both their lives unlike anything they ever imagined.

Sophie (Seyfried), a current fact-checker and aspiring writer is spending a bleak pre-honeymoon with her workaholic-chef fiancé, Victor (Bernal) in Tuscany. While he parages himself throughout Italy’s finest eateries in search of authenticity, Sophie stays in Verona where she visits “Juliet’s” charmed abode. There, she discovers dozens of letters hidden within the courtyard walls from love-struck women all over the world, and is so taken by one from Claire (Redgrave), dated back to 1957, that she responds to it. Recognizing a story opportunity, Sophie meets Claire. The two, along with Claire’s painfully uptight grandson Christopher, emback on a quest to find out which of the 74 Lorenzo Bartolinis in Tuscany is the long lost subject of Claire’s letter.

ADDITIONAL REMARKS: It’s a clean movie but subject matter is not for children.

I'll Be There

Cast: Gabby Concepcion, KC Concepcion, Jericho Rosales; Director: Maryo J. De Los Reyes; Producers: Charo Santos-Concio, Malou N. Santos; Screenwriters: Athena Aringo, Melissa Mae Chua, Anjeli Pessumal; Music: Jesse Lucas; Editor: Tara Illenberger; Genre: Drama: Cinematography: Gary Gardoce; Distributor: Star Cinema Productions; Location: Philippines;

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

Ulila sa ina si Maximina Dela Cerna (KC Concepcion), baguhang New York-based fashion designer, at lumaking di kapiling ang ama dahil iniwan sila nito sa Amerika at hindi na tinupad ang pangakong babalikan sila. Nang mabulilyaso ang inutang niya capital para sa pagsisimula ng career sa fashion ay biglaan siyang umuwi sa Pilipinas at kinontak ang nawalay niyang ama na si Pocholo Dela Cerna (Gabby) upang kunin ang parte ng mana niya sa naiwang conjugal property ng ina. Pawang galak at kasabikan sa anak ang naramdaman ni Poch samantalang galit at hinanakit ang namamayani naman kay Maxi (a.k.a Mina). Saglit na ipinagdamdam ni Poch nang hayagang sabihin ni Maxi na pera ang dahilan ng pakikipagkita niya sa ama, subalit nangingibabaw ang pagnanais niyang makabawi sa nawalay na anak at mapagbigyan ang nais nito. Naisip ni Poch na ipagbili ang lupain sa mga interasadong banyagang investor subalit kailangang bigyan ng panahon ang pagsasaayos ng mga papeles. Dahil dito ay napilitan si Maxi na mamalagi sa poder ng ama habang hinihintay ang kailangang halaga. Sa pamamalagi ni Maxi sa ama ay nakilala niya ang binatang ama na si Tommy (Jericho Rosales). Dahil sa mapapait na karanasan sa mga taong nang-iwan sa kanya ay tinagurian siyang “angry lady” at di man lang siya naging magiliw sa kanyang pakikitungo. Ano ang kahihitnan ng muling pagsasama ng estrangherong mag-ama? Ano ang magiging kaugnayan ni Tommy sa buhay nilang mag-ama?

Walang bago sa kwento ng pelikula, lalo na at di maiwasan na masalamin dito ang totoong buhay ng mga pangunahing tauhan bilang nagkawalay na mag-ama. Subalit may diin ang mga linya at kahit papaano ay naipakita ang emosyon ng galit at hinanakit lalo na sa parte ni Maxi, samantala emosyon ng pananabik ang lumutang sa parte ni Poch. Mahusay ang trato ng Direktor sa magkahalong komiko at drama. Markado rin ang kaswal na karakter ni Tommy. Maganda ang disenyo ng produksyon na tila hinahatid ang manonood sa mapayapang pagtatapos ng kwento kahit na sa mga madamdaming tagpo. Nakakaaliw ang sinematograpiya kung saan pinapakita ang yaman ng kalikasan at detalye ng paggawa ng tuba. Panalo ang inilapat na musika sa pagpapalabas ng damdamin. Akma lamang ang ilaw at di kinailangan ang maraming effects. Sa kabuuan ay maayos ang teknikal na aspeto ng pelikula at nakatulong sa pagbibigay ng saysay sa gasgas na kwento, bagama’t ang ilang bahagi nito ay nakakaantok sa bagal ng pag-usad ng mga eksena.

Nagiging ganap na malaya ang tao kung wala siyang kinikimkim na anuman nakapagpapabigat sa kanyang kalooban katulad ng galit, sakit, o panghihinayang. Ang mga ito ay dapat na hinaharap ng may pagtanggap, pagpapakumbaba, pagpapatawad at tapang na magpatuloy sa buhay na taglay ang pag-asa hatid ng bukas sa kabila ng lahat. Responsibilidad ng ama bilang magulang na suportahan, alagaan at gabayan sa paglaki ang anak hanggang sa kaya na niyang dalhin ang kanyang sarili. Kung magkaroon man ng problema ay dapat hinaharap at di tinatakasan. At kung may pangako ay dapat tuparin. Sa mga aspetong ito ay naging duwag ang ama sa kwento, at naging makasarili nang bawiin ang pangako na gawan ng paraan ang kailangang halaga ng anak. Sa kabila ng lahat ay di maikakaila ang lukso ng dugo. May punto ang pelikula na ang unang hakbang ng pagkakasundo ng mag-ama ay ang sama-sama nilang pagsimba at bigyan-diin ang parte ng pagbati ng kapayapaan sa isa’t isa. Sa bandang huli, ang anak na nangulila sa kalinga ng ama at ama na nais bumawi sa nawalang panahon ay nakita ang mga sarili na magkaugnay habang buhay.

Emir

ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Frencheska Farr, Sid Lucero, Julia Clarete, Jhong Hilario, Dulce, Bayang Barrios, Bodjie Pascua, Gigi Escalante, Beverly Salviejo, Liesi Batucan, Melanie Dujunco, Kalila Aguilos; Director: Chito S. Rono; Producer: Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP) & Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP); Screenwriter: Jerry Gracio; Music: Chino Toledo; Genre: Musical/ Drama; Location: Philippines and Middle East; Running Time: 145 mins;

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS

EMIR tells the story of Amelia, a Filipina, who decides to work abroad to help her family. She is the nanny of the Sheik’s newly born son, Ahmed. Amelia sees Ahmed growing up, introduces him to the culture, values and language of the Philippines. She acts as surrogate mother to the young prince and will sacrifice everything to protect him.

ADDITIONAL REMARKS: The positive and negative elements faced by overseas Filipino workers (OFW): exposure to other cultures abroad while supporting one’s family in the Philippines, but there is risk to life and family.

Killers

Cast: Ashton Kutcher, Katherine Heighl, Tom Selleck, Catherine O’Hara, Katherine Winnick, Kevin Sussman; Director: Robert Luketic; Producers: Scott Aversano, Jason Goldberg, Mike Karz, Ashton Kutcher, Chad Marting, Christopher S. Pratt, Josie Rosen; Screenwriter: Bob de la Rosa, Ted Griffin; Music: Rolfe Kent; Editor: Richard Francis-Bruce, Mary Jo Markey; Genre: Comedy/ Action/ Drama: Cinematography: Russell Carpenter; Distributor: Lionsgate; Location: USA; Running Time: 99 mins;

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

Nursing a broken heart after a recent failed relationship, Jen (Katherine Heigl) vacations in Nice, France with her protective parents Mr. and Mrs. Kornfeldt (Tom Selleck and Catherine O’Hara). Jen convinces them to let her be more independent with a different schedule or agenda. She meets a handsome hunk Spencer Ames (Ashton Kutcher) who says he is some kind of consultant. They fall in love and marry. They live a bland, contented suburban life, with Spencer getting along well with his in-laws and friends in the community. Unknown to Jen, Spencer lives a secret life as a superagent-spy-hitman who takes orders from a mysterious boss who pays well and gives complicated instructions through a cellphone or other unconventional ways. After three years of living a placid existence, Spencer is viciously attacked on various occasions by close friends and neighbors for no apparent reason. He suspects a price has been put on his head after he had lain low for sometime from his secret job. Jen demands to be enlightened about this turn of events, wanting to know who her husband really is and what he does. But Spencer can tell her only so much because, he said, of a possible risk to her life if she knows more. While having doubts about Spencer, Jen helps him in the deadly fights and even saves his life though she is frightened of guns. Both now try to figure out these mysterious attack and threats to life. Will they succeed?

The opening scenes of Killers immediately spark the viewer’s interest because of the breathtaking lovely scenes of Nice effectively shown to advantage as the panning camera also tracks a running red car. But this so-called comedy falls flat on its face, so to speak, in the first hour or so when nothing happens, no excitement, no witticism, no laughs. When the fighting erupts, it is so vicious and violent, it seems like we have an action picture. Then the film ends just as placidly as it began. This non-sensical movie puts to waste the talents and acting expertise of its actors. Take for example, Tom Selleck. Here, sort of a gruff but charming doting Daddy. Well, he is underutilized. So with our female lead, beautiful Katherine Heighl who had successfully performed other substantial roles before. Ashton Kutcher, as expected has looks and charm but he kills instead and doesn’t have a chance to do any comedy. Not much to commend in this forgettable picture.

In a way, Killers reflects the present times when quite a member of people opt to kill for a living. Ashton Kutcher, in this movie may be a cut about the usual guns for hire as he is employed in an agency (perhaps the CIA?) that gives him “jobs” to do a la 007 James Bond. But killing is wrong per se, no matter how legitimate or worthy is the motive, unless it is done in self defense. Speaking of killers for hire in our midst, it is said, they will kill even for a measly P5, 000. (That’s how cheap human life has become). After all, with the use of masks and unplated get away motorcycles, they are hardly caught and made to answer for their crime. This is a crime that cries to Heaven for justice and perhaps government as well as well meaning citizens should get together to find a solution to this problem that is getting to be more serious and pervasive. Aside from the over-the-top violence for this kind of picture, there is sensuality though there are no explicit sexual scenes.

Noy

Cast: Coco Martin, Joem Bascon, Baron Geisler, Cherrie Pie Picache, Erich Gonzales, Vice Ganda; Director: Dondon Santos; Producers: Arnel Nacario, Katherine Catalan; Screenwriter: Francis Pasion; Genre: Drama/ Docu: Distributor: Star Cinema; Location: Manila; Running Time: 100 mins;

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

Dala ng matinding kahirapan, si Noy (Coco Martin) ay mamamasukan sa isang malaking TV station bilang isang journalist gamit ang pekeng diploma at ipinagawa sa ibang demo reel. Agad bibilib sa kanya ang producer (Vice Ganda) at ibibigay sa kanya ang isang napakahalagang proyekto- ang dokumentaryo ukol sa kampanya ni Senador Noynoy Aquino. Susundan niya at kakapanayamin ang senador sa pangangampanya nito sa iba’t-ibang bahagi ng Pilipinas. Sa simula ng kanyang trabaho’y katakot-takot na pang-iinsulto ang matataggap niya sa producer pagkat pawang hindi niya alam ang trabaho ng isang mamamahayag. Ngunit kalaunan ay magagamay na rin niya ito. Ang paggawa niya ng dokumentaryo ukol kay Senador Noynoy ay magbubukas sa kanya ng marami pang oportunidad at unti-unti’y matutulungan na niya ang kanyang pamilyang nakalubog ang bahay sa tubig baha dala ng bagyong Ondoy. Ngunit habang naaabot na niya ang pangarap na makaahon sa hirap, saka naman magdadagsa ang kanyang problema sa pamilya at pag-ibig. Dagdag pa dito, ang peligro na maaari siyang mabuko sa mga pineke niyang dokumento at maalis sa trabaho.

Isang malaking pagsasayang ang pelikula. Sayang sapagkat kitang pinagbuhusan ng maraming talino ang pagbuo nito. Maraming ninais gawin at ipahiwatig ang Noy ngunit pawang sumabog ito sa kabuuan at hindi naipahatid ang kaukulang mensahe sa mga manonood. Sa umpisa’y kaiga-igayang panoorin ang mga palitan ng eksenesang drama at dokumentaryo. Kahanga-hangang nagawa ng pelikulang pasukin ang mundo sa likod ng mga kampanya ng mga kandidato para sa eleksyon. Ngunit hindi nito naipahiwatig ang nais nitong ipakahulugan. Pawang mahuhusay lahat ng nagsiganap. Yun nga lang, mas magiging epektibo siguro ang pelikula kung hindi mga artista ang ginamit na karakter kundi mga totoong tao na may totoong kuwento. Sadyang mahirap lang papaniwalain ang manonood sa mga bahaging dokumentaryo ng pelikula kapag ipinapalabas na ang kathang-isip na kuwento na ginagampanan ng mga artista. Naging pawang melodramtiko rin ang dating ng maraming eskena na taliwas sa dapat sana’y dokumentaryo nitong pamamaraan ng pagkukuwento. Ang naging resulta tuloy sa bandang dulo’y pagkalito sa kung ano ba talaga ang gustong palabasin ni Noy. Isa ba itong propaganda para sa papasok na pangulo ng bansa? O isa ba itong kuwentong melodramatiko na nagnanais kurutin ang puso ng manonood?

Bagama’t pawang isang malaking propaganda ang pelikula, marami itong ninais ipahiwatig ukol sa pagmamahal sa pamilya at sa bayan. Kahanga-hanga ang karakter ni Noy na handang gawin at isakripisyo lahat alang-alang sa pamilya. Yun nga lang, naging kabaha-bahala pa rin ang kanyang naging pamamaraan. Pinagdusahan man niya ito sa bandang huli’y hindi naging malinaw kung pinagsisihan niya ba ito o hindi. Bagama’t nabanggit din niya’t aminado siya na siya’y kumapit sa kasinungalingan upang maitaguyod ang pamilya, isang malaking katanungan pa rin kung itinuring din ba siyang bayani sa kuwento o hindi. Nariyan din ang maraming isyung pumapalibot sa kahirapan tulad ng droga at krimen. Nakababahalang hindi napaparusahan ang mga tunay na salot ng lipunan. Marahil paraan din ito ng pelikula na ipaabot sa darating na pangulo ng bansa na heto ang kalagayan ng marami sa ating mga kababayan at nararapat lamang na pagtuunan ng pansin. Isang pinaka-nakababahala sa pelikula ay ang pagtatalik sa labas ng kasal na bagama’t nagiging palasak na sa mga kabataan ay talagang nakababala pa rin. Sa bandang huli’y nagsubok ang Noy na magbigay ng pag-asa sa gitna ng kawalang pag-asa. Yun nga lang, sana’y naging mas malinaw pa ang ninais nitong sabihin at hindi nanatili lamang sa idelohikal at astetikong antas na tanging ang mga gumawa lamang ng pelikula ang nakakaintindi at nakakaarok. Dahil sa mabigat nitong tema, minarapat ng CINEMA na angkop lamang ang Noy sa mga manonood na may gulang 14 pataas.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

ASSESSMENT ONLY
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina; Director: Mike Newell; Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer; Screenwriters: Boaz Yakin, Doug Miro, Carlo Bernard; Music: Harry Gregson-Williams; Editor: Michael Kahn, Martin Walsh, Mike Audsley; Genre: Action/ Adventure: Cinematography: John Seale; Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures; Location: Persia; Running Time: 110 mins.;

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

BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS

Produced by Walt Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer, PRINCE OF PERSIA; THE SANDS OF TIME, is an epic action-adventure set in the mystical lands of Persia. A rogue prince names Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) relunctantly joins forces with a mysterious princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton), and together, they race against dark forces to safeguard an ancient dagger capable of releasing the Sands of Time—a gift from the gods that can reverse time and allow its possessor to rule the world.

ADDITIONAL REMARKS: War story is not for children.

Shrek Forever After

Cast: (voices of) Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas,Walt Dohrn; Director: Mike Mitchel; Producers: Teresa Cheng, Gina Shay; Screenwriters: Josh Klausner, Darren Lemke; Music: Harry Gregson-Williams; Editor: David Teller; Genre: Animation/ Comedy: Cinematography: Yong Duk Jhun; Distributor: Paramount Pictures; Running Time: 94 mins;

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

After having rescued his true love from the tower, Shrek (Mike Myers) now lives a happy life with wife Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) and three kids. But then Shrek gets bored of the routine of his supposedly blissful family life: raising kids, putting up with tourists wanting to see his swamp, keeping the household running smoothly. Shrek misses his good old ogre days when he is feared by most and dreaded by many that he almost blew it up in his kids’ first birthday party. He tries to get away from the scene at a moment and along the way he meets Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn), a dealer of deception. Beleaguered, Shrek signs a contract with him that promises a day where he can relive his good old ogre days and away from all his worries in exchange for a meaningless day in his childhood. What Shrek did not know is that the meaningless day would be the day he was born. Thus, everything he has previously done would be void, including the very important day when he rescued Princess Fiona. Now he has to find a way to get his life, family and true love back.

The fourth and last installment of Shrek series, Forever After caps the overall achievement of the franchise. The film is a fitting farewell that has explored all the possibilities of Shrek’s hyper-narrative with branches of stories coming from various fairy tale inspirations. Shrek Forever After still has the old charm audiences fell in love with. Although the ogre hero’s concern has matured and evolved in time, it still has its usual touch and charisma to audiences both young and old. It is apparent that the voice actors have become comfortable with their characters and their work comes out effortlessly. The 3D technology has enhanced even further the film’s solid storytelling. Even without 3D, the film can still pull it through given the detailed craftsmanship at work in the film from conceptualization to scripting to post-production. Fans of Shrek will never be disappointed with Forever After although they have to bear in mind that it cannot be compared with the achievement of Shrek I simply because, everything there in the original is fresh and new. As time goes by, it is understandable that Shrek’s story and character is no longer new but it does not mean that it has run out of surprises.

In Forever After, Shrek undergoes a stage in life called the midlife crisis. It is a stage wherein a person questions the essence of his existence and searches for the meaning of life. It is also a tricky stage because one would tend to look beyond instead of looking within. Shrek happens to look beyond his present state, thus, chooses to wonder what life may have been instead of looking forward to the life in store ahead. The price of such decision to relive the past had cost him a great deal – his love, family and friends, and his entire life. Shrek sums up the film’s message in his one line: “I didn’t know what I had until it was gone.” It is but human nature to want more and wonder what life would have become if circumstances are different, but then, such should not be a hindrance to appreciate and be grateful for what one has at the present moment. Parenting, raising a family and doing household chores are never easy but the rewards at the end of the day are all worth it. Life happily ever after could be just in fairy tales for in real life, hardships and trials would always be part of life. This is one important moral that is always present in Shrek series. And finding one’s true love is just as challenging as keeping it. However, such themes may be too much for the very young and considering some violence and adult contextual humor in the film, CINEMA recommends Shrek Forever After for audiences 14 years old and above.

Robin Hood

Cast: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt; Director: Ridley Scott; Producers: Russell Crowe, Brian Grazer, Ridley Scott; Screenwriter: Brian Helgeland; Music: Marc Streitenfeld; Editor: Pietro Scalia; Genre: Action/ Drama: Cinematography: John Mathieson; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: UK; Running Time: 140 mins.;

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

After ten years of battling in another land, Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) returns to England with of his friends, Alan A’Dale, Will Scarlett and Little John. Along the way, they steal the armor of slain knights while Robin promises the dying Sir Robert Loxley to return a sword to his father in Nottingham. They board an English ship under the guise of noblemen and Robin assumes the identity of Loxley. He is chosen to inform the Royal family of the death of King Richard the Lionheart and to witness the coronation of his younger brother, King John (Oscar Isaac). However, King John is cruel, arrogant and shows no concern for his people. He demands steep taxes and assigns Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong) to collect from his northern kingdom unknowing that the later is a traitor and agent of the French King. Godfrey causes the civil unrest from the people and divides England in time for the French invasion. Meanwhile, Robin continues to impersonate Loxley to prevent the crown to take over the family’s lands. Loxley’s widow, Lady Marion (Cate Blanchet) initially distrusts his motives but warms up to him when she sees how Robin recovers grains for the town people. When the French invade, Robin and the English Barons fight for their country and succeed in subduing the French when Robin kills Godfrey with an arrow shot from a distance. However, King John mistakenly assumes that the French surrendered to Robin and perceives him as a threat to his crown. He declares Robin to be an outlaw and forces him and him, Lady Marion and his friends to retreat to the Sherwood Forest and form the Merry Men.

Audience should commend the efforts of the filmmakers to create a backstory for a well known legend. Regardless of some historical discrepancies, the film progresses quite effectively. However, the presentation gets muddled up between trying too hard to fit fantasy into history and into a popular myth resulting to a disappointingly lifeless action sequence. Crowe lacks the nimbleness of Robin Hood. He is too brawny and serious for the image of a high spirited outlaw who steals for the poor. The director invested heavily on the battle scenes and stripped off the humor from the characters. It would have hurt to see them smile and crack a joke once in awhile. What comes welcome though is the portrayal of Lady Marion as a tough and independent girl instead of the usual damsel in distress. She represents the modern woman who will fight for what she wants and what is right.

The story of Robin Hood always brings to questions the role of vigilante heroes. Are they excused to do one bad deed in exchange for a good one? Are they excused of the consequences of stealing if they are to give their loot to another person in need? Christian teachings explicitly disapprove of this. One cannot offset a bad deed with a good one. In the same way, that a rich man’s charity works will not exonerate his cheating of his customers and employees, the Robin Hood syndrome, so common in Filipino movie action movies, does not excuse the use rudeness, violence and deviousness to help the poor and needy.

On the other hand, Ridley’s Robin Hood tackles themes on good governance, commitment and service to country and the fight against corruption and oppression. One can see how at any given time, citizens will always fight for their country and home.

Some scenes hinting on church leaders’ oppression, violence and some sexual innuedos might offend the more sensitive audiences. The movie is recommended for older teenagers with parental guidance.

Furry Vengeance

Cast: Brendan Fraser, Brooke Shields, Matt Prokop; Director: Roger Kumble; Producers: Keith Goldberg, Robert Simonds; Screenwriters: Michael Carnes, Josh Gilbert; Music: Ed Shearmur; Editor: Lawrence Jordan; Genre: Comedy/ Family: Cinematography: Peter Lyons Collister; Distributor: Pioneer Fims; Location: USA; Running Time: 92 mins.;

Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Construction supervisor Dan Sanders (Brendan Fraser) uproots his Chicago-based family—wife Tammy (Brooke Shields) and teen son Tyler (Matt Prokop)—to move to the woodlands of Oregon and supervise the creation of an environment-friendly housing development. A sulking son and an unwilling wife are no match for Sanders’ scheming boss Neal Lyman (Ken Jeong) who, with an irresistible double-your-salary package, ensnares Sanders in spite of his better judgment. Insensitive to his son’s resentment of his situation and to his wife’s half-hearted cooperation, Sanders naively thinks they will see his point when the eco-friendly paradise that the subdivision is envisioned to be is finally inaugurated. His family is not alone, however, against the project. Work and life soon become unbearable for Sanders due to the forest creatures that conspire to put stumbling blocks on his path one after the other until Sanders is suspected of being—you guess it right—mentally ill.

Furry Vengeance is one of those movies that promise a lot but deliver so little. While it tries to say that it’s important to preserve flora and fauna in their natural state, it projects fauna as mean critters who will do everything to defend their habitat. Like urinating in the mouth of a person and catapulting boulders to destroy incoming cars. Skunks, raccoons, and other furry animals are so way-over-the-top smart that they make a moron out of Sanders. It’s a wonder Sanders survives the furry vengeance. But then again, all that nincompoopery must have been the reason behind Fraser’s flat acting. And speaking of flat acting—maybe Brooke Shields shouldn’t have accepted such an unchallenging role, unless, of course, that’s what she has really become after all those years of glamorous living: a nondescript suburban housewife. Assessing her character, the viewer might say, “Is that what has become of Pretty Baby?” Oh well, maybe it’s the story’s fault—it makes everybody dull beside the furry avengers.

Time to give Furry Vengeance the benefit of the doubt. It may have been clumsily delivered, but the message in this unfunny comedy is: put family and nature before anything else. Which is not quite a bad message these days when family is increasingly becoming “endangered species” as people pursue careers that sap all their energy. Forgive the predictable ending, as long as the father is converted from ambitious and materialistic career guy to nurturing father—thanks to the raccoon. Forget about the corny dialogue as long as they freeze the bulldozers and punish the greedy housing developers. There’s another noteworthy element in Furry Vengeance: a teen pair’s first kiss is treated with restraint, as though to say it’s not just an impulse to be taken for granted. The boy’s mother has done a good job after all. Despite its technical shortcomings and scatological humor, Furry Vengeance gets passing grades for its good intentions. --TRT