Seduction

 

LEAD CAST: Richard Gutierrez, Solenn Heussaff Sarah Labhati.  DIRECTOR: Peque Gallaga. PRODUCER:  Regal Films.  GENRE:  Romantic drama.  RUNNING TIME:  105 minutes  DISTRIBUTOR:  Regal Films.  LOCATION:  Philippines

Technical Assessment: 3

Moral Assessment: 2

CINEMA Rating:  A  18

MTRCB Rating:  R 13

Pilit na pinagkakasya ni Ram (Richard Gutierrez) ang kinikita bilang isang bumbero subalit kapos pa rin. May malubhang sakit sa bato ang kanyang ama na kailangan ng malaking halaga upang maisalba ang buhay nito. Sa panahong higit na pangangailangan ay minalas na masuspende siya sa trabaho dahil sa ginawa nilang pangingikil sa may-ari ng hotel na nirespondehan nila upang apulahin ang sunog.  Habang suspendido ay umupa si Ram sa bahay ni Trina (Sarah Labati) na sa kalaunan ay magiging kasintahan niya. Samantala, isang mayaman na half-Filipino, half-French si Sophia (Solenn Heusaf)  na gustong magpasalamat kay Ram dahil sa pagliligtas sa kanya mula sa sunog.  Nalaman ni Sophia na suspendido si Ram at nangangailangan ng pera kaya para makabawi sa pagliligtas sa kanya ay babayaran niya si Ram ng malaking halaga upang magtrabaho sa kanya bilang driver at body guard. Subalit sa katagalan ay magiging sex partners sila at mahuhulog ang loob  ni Sophia kay Ram. Nang hindi masusuklian ni Ram ang nararamdaman ni Sophia sapagkat mas matimbang sa kanya si  Trina ay magdaramdam si Sophia sa kanya at makakaisip maghiganti.

Maganda ang mga teknikal na aspeto ng pelikula. Mahusay ang mga kuha ng camera lalo na sa mga eksena na nagpapakita ng mga tanawin at tradisyon katulad ng kasalan sa probinsya. Maingat din ang naging trato ng direktor sa mga madalas na eksena ng pagtatalik.  Medyo mahaba at nakakainip nga lang na parang walang katapusan ang mga eksena ng sunog. Nakasentro sa karakter ni Ram ang kwento bilang binata na ginamit ang matipunong katawan at magandang mukha upang katulad niya ay bumigay sa mga kahinaan sa laman ang mga babae kabilang na sina Trina at Sophia. Ipinakita sa pelikula ang iba't ibang hamon at sitwasyon na nararanasasan ng isang bumbero na inaakala ng marami na sa tuwing may sunog lamang nagtatrabaho. Tama lamang ang mga pagganap nina Gutierrez, Heusaff at Labati. Nagsikap ang direktor na mailabas ang hinihinging emosyon mula sa mga artista sa mga eksena.  Nakatulong ang suporta ng mga katulong na aktor katulad ni Jay Manalo maliban sa kanya ay tila hindi kumportable sa pagmumura ang iba pang tauhan lalo na si Ram, kaya pilit ang dating. 

Napakarangal na hanapbuhay ang pagiging bumbero. Hindi lahat ng tao ay nasa posisyon na katulad nila kung saan nakasalalay ang kaligtasan ng  maraming buhay at ari-arian ng mga tao. Subalit saglit lamang ito pinakita sa Seduction; ang mas malaking bahagi ng pelikula at mas naikintal sa mga manonoood ay ang ipinakita na ang mga bumbero na tumatanggap ng lagay, ginagamit ang katawan para makabayad ng utang, at parang mga hayok na ginagawang libangan ang panonood ng pakikipagtalik ng kasamahan. Madalas ang mga eksena ng pagtatalik  na pawang nasa konteksto ng pang-aakit at pagbibigay sa tawag ng laman ng hindi naman legal na mag-asawa. Mahinang karakter ng lalaki ang pinakita sa pelikula. Bahagyang nilagyan ng pagpapakita ng sakripisyo bilang anak para sa kaniyang maysakit na ama, pero mas nangingibabaw at nanaig ang mga kahinaan sa tukso na humantong sa walang saysay na pagbubuwis ng buhay. Sa kabuuan ay walang maihain na magandang aral ang pelikula at maaring mabahala ang isang manonood na gustong maglibang at makakuha ng magandang mensahe sa isang palabas.

Chinese zodiac

Cast: Jackie Chan, Kwom Sang-woo, Liao Fan, Yao Xing Tong, Laura Weissbecker; Director: Jackie Chan; Screenplay: Jackie Chan; Editor: Music: Roc Chen, Nathan Wong,  Producers: Jackie Chan, Stanley Tong, Barbie Tung Genre: Action Comedy; Running Time: 123 minutes; Location: France; Distributor: Star Cinema
 

Technical assessment:  2

Moral assessment:  3

CINEMA Rating: V14

MTRCB Rating: PG 13

A century ago, during the 2^nd Opium War, the Brits invaded Summer Palace in China and stole most of their precious artefacts and national treasure; included were the 12 Chinese Zodiac animals bronze heads. In the present times, MP Corporation sells replicas of these precious collections to the highest bidder and commissions JC (Chan) to recover the remaining bronze heads. JC and his team travel to France where two of the bronze heads are said to have been found. He meets and eventually teams up with Coco (Tong), an idealistic Chinese woman working to return lost antiquities to her native land and Katherine (Weissbecker), the naïve French great great granddaughter of the invaders of the Summer Palace. In the beginning JC sees his mission as another job that will earn him a lot of money. But eventually, he realizes the importance of respecting his nation’s treasures and risks his life to save both the artefacts and the people he cares about.

Chinese Zodiac is nothing more than a vanity project for Jackie Chan. He simply cannot handle all the creative and technical demands of a decent movie and should have been advised to just simply be the lead cast. (The Guinness Book of Records named Chan MOST CREDITS IN ONE MOVIE) In fact for his stature, Chan should be more selective of the roles he accepts. Definitely not one that showcases his limited thespian skill and his aging agility. Between the exhausted and prolonged chase sequences that viewers have seen in older Chan films and the dull pontifications about the industrialized nations pillaging the weaker ones, the movie falls shamelessly on its face with confusing language switches from Chinese to English to French, a miscued framing, artistically challenged camera works, so-so scoring and a really dreadful storytelling. The gadgets are impressive but are obviously imitations of those in James Bond or Mission Impossible films. Save for the opening rollerblade chase and the ending skydiving sequences, there isn’t really much signature Chan moves the viewers can expect. Ultimately, the movie is irredeemably boring and badly made.

Respect for culture and history are romanticized yet consistently overlooked in modern times. More often, culture and history are remembered for the media opportunity and their profitability as tourist attractions.  The real deep-rooted love for heritage is lost—Chinese Zodiac had the intention of getting this message across until it was eaten in the confused creative and technical work of Chan.

The man with the iron fists

LEAD CAST: Russell Crowe, Cung Le, Lucy Liu, Byron Mann, RZA, Rick Yune, David Bautista, Jamie Chung  DIRECTOR:  RZA.  SCREENWRITER:  RZA, Eli Roth  PRODUCER:  Eli Roth, Marc Abraham, Eric Newman, Thomas   EDITOR:  Joe D’Augustine  MUSICAL DIRECTOR:  RZA, Howard Drossin  GENRE:  Action/Adventure  CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Chi Ying Chan  RUNNING TIME:  96 minutes  DISTRIBUTOR:  Universal Pictures  LOCATION:  China

Technical assessment:  3

Moral assessment:  1.5

CINEMA rating:  Not for public showing

MTRCB rating:  R 18

Gold is being stored in a village, and in the basement of the local brothel. The emperor is concerned about it. The villain has killed his master for it. The master’s son arrives bent on revenge. The madam has schemes to hold on to it. The local blacksmith (a marooned American slave) makes weapons that can defend it. An Englishman rides into town and teams up with the goodies. A sinister emissary also turns up to secure the gold.  And a big man who can produce bronze armor over his skin as needed does some dastardly deeds.

The slave is the title man—who has lost his arms but has been able to produce and connect hands, arms and, especially, fists of iron while working as a blacksmith. He is played by rapper RZA who co-wrote the film with Eli Roth (Hostel) and directs. It is a Chinese production, but also presented by Quentin Tarantino (echoes of the Kill Bill films).  That outline doesn’t necessarily spoil the action for potential audiences. All that plotline does is provide the occasion for martial spectacle.—(Excerpted from Fr. Peter Malone, Australian Catholic Office for Film and Broadcasting)

CINEMA rates this movie "NPS", or Not for Public Showing. 

The Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA) has rated it "R", or Restricted "for bloody violence, strong sexuality, language, and brief drug use"?  In the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) website, a review is published by Catholic News Service which states,  "the film contains excessive bloody violence, gruesome images, graphic sexual activity, implied aberrant sex acts, a prostitution theme, drug use, an anti-Catholic slur, much rough language and a few crude or crass terms" and classifies it as "O"—morally offensive.

The following notes taken from various various Canadian Film Classification boards add this information to explain why The Impossible has earned their "R" rating.

Violence:

- Frequent hand-to-hand and weapons violence, with blood and detail shown.

- Explicit depictions of evisceration and dismemberment.

- Detailed gory and grotesque images.

- Frequent and prolonged portrayals of graphic violence.

- Disturbing scenes.

- Depictions of beating, shooting, stabbing, dismemberment, torture and decapitation.

Sexual Content:

- Infrequent portrayals of sexual activity with no nudity, but some detail.

- Simulated and implied sexual activity.

- Sexual references and innuendo.

- Embracing and kissing.

Language:

- Infrequent use of the sexual expletive and variations in a non-sexual context.

- infrequent use of scatological slang.

- Ethno-cultural slurs.

Drugs and Alcohol:

- Infrequent references to drug use.

- Tobacco use.

(Editor's note:  Due to a miscommunication error, the MTRCB rating on this movie was earlier cited as PG 13.  The correct MTRCB rating for "Man with the Iron Fists" is R 18).

Menor de edad

Cast:  Meg Imperial, Wendell Ramos, Ara Mina, JC Parker, Chynna Hortaleza; Director:  Joel Lamangan: Screenplay: Raquel Villavicensio;  Producer: Viva Films; Running Time: 90 minutes; Genre: Drama; Location: Philippines

Technical Assessment: 2

Moral Assessment: 2

CINEMA Rating: A 18 (for ages 18 and above)

MTRCB Rating: R 13

Si Jen (Meg Imperial) ay isang 15-anyos na estudyanteng maraming pinagdadaanan sa buhay. Hindi niya nakilala ang kanyang ama at kanyang ina (Ara Mina) naman ay may kinasakasamang tomboy (JC Parker) na tumatayong padre-de-pamilya. Dahil dito’y tampulan si Jen ng tukso sa eskuwelahan kung kaya’t mapapasama na lamang siya sa isang gang ng mga kabataang babae sa kanilang lugar na kinabibilangan ng kanyang pinsan. Mapapansin ng kanilang guro sa Pilipino na si Ariel (Wendell Ramos) na tila laging malungkot si Jen at nag-iisa. Magmamagandang-loob ito na tulungan si Jen sa kanyang pag-aaral at dito magsisimula ang kanilang pagkakaibigan. Ngunit dala ng bugso ng damdaming kabataan ay magkakagusto si Jen kay Ariel.  Magsisimula ang gulo ng akusahan ni Jen si Ariel ng dimuano’y panggagahasa sa kanya.

Masyadong maraming nangyayari sa Menor de Edad.  Bagama’t naka-sentro ang kuwento kay Jen, madalas itong nagpapaligoy-ligoy sa sa napakaraming tauhan na halos wala namang kinalaman sa pinakabuod ng kuwento. Resulta’y isang pelikulang mahirap panoorin ang Menor de Edad. Isabay pa rito ang pagiging magulo ng mga kuha ng kamera na animo’y nag-iistilong moderno ngunit wala naman sa hulog ang pagkakagawa at hindi naaayon sa nais nitong iparating na kuwento. Maging ang pag-arte ng mga tauhan ay pawang stereotyped din. Walang bagong inihain maging sa script. Maraming katanungan ang nangangailangan ng kasagutan ngunit pawang di naman nararapat pang pag-aksayahan ng panahon dahil ang mismong gumawa ng pelikula ay tila hindi naman interesadong alamin kung ano talaga ang gusto nilang palabasin. Kung ang ninais nila’y magsabog ng kalituhan at pasakitin ang ulo ng mga manonood, nagtagumpay sila dito.

Hitik din sa nakababahalang moral ang pelikula sa kabila ng pagsusubok nitong talakayin ng napakaraming problema ng lipunan na nag-uugat sa kahirapan. Nariyan ang pagkunsinte nito sa relasyong homosekswal na ipinakitang katanggap-tanggap. Nariyan din ang pagtatalik ng mga kabataang menor-de-edad na ipinakikitang karaniwan na lamang. Mayroon ding “incest”, bawal na relasyon ng ama at anak na ngunit hindi rin naging malinaw ang tayo ng pelikula patungkol dito. May mapang-abusong media at may guro na lulong sa masamang bisyo at ang pinakasentro ng kuwento ay kung paanong ang kasinungalingan ay maghari sa sistema ng ating hustisya. Ang lahat ng ito ay inihain sa paraang mababaw at walang malabis na pagninilay. Walang malinaw na damdamin na nais iparating ang pelikula dahil sa magulo nitong punto-de-vista.

Walang aral na matututuhan sa Menor-de-Edad, bagkus, magiging masama lamang ang tingin ng manonood sa mundo at walang anumang kabutihan ang makakasagip dito dahil narito ang isang pelikula kung saan kasinungalingan ang naghahari, ang mga bata’y walang buting napupulot sa tahanan man o paaralan, walang Diyos na pinaniniwalaan, at ang lahat ay walang pakialam sa kinabukasan. Kung ang pelikula ay sumasalamin sa lipunan, nararapat na malaman ng manonood na ang Menor de Edad ay hindi malinaw na salamin kundi isang malabong pagtingin sa tunay na kalagayan natin. Dito sila malabis na nagkulang—sa sinseridad. Hindi naging matapat ang pelikula sa kanyang layuning magmulat dahil ang mismong binuo nila ay isang pagmamalabis at pananamantala sa kawalang-malay at muwang ng mga menor-de-edad na nagsiganap dito. Ito’y isang pelikulang hindi nila maipagmamalaki sa kanilang pagtanda. Dahil sa tema nitong sekswal, at mga eksenang nagpapakita ng karahasan, krimen, pagdo-droga at pag-inom ng alak, minamarapat ng CINEMA na ang pelikulang ito ay para lamang sa  mga manonood na hinog ang isipan, 18 gulang pataas.  

The impossible

Cast: Naomi Watts, Ewan McGregor, Tom Holland, Oaklee Pendergast, Samuel Joslin  Director: Juan Antonio Bayona  Screenplay: Sergio G. Sanchez  Cinematography: Oscar Faura  Music:  Fernando Velazquez  U.S. Distributor:  Summit Entertainment Genre: drama Running Length: 114 minutes

Technical assessment:  4

Moral assessment:  3.5

CINEMA rating:  PG 13

MTRCB rating: PG 13           

The impossible is a drama set during the 2004 tsunami, detailing one family's incredible fight for survival.  Following an eventful Christmas day at a beach resort in Thailand, Henry (Ewan McGregor), his wife Maria (Naomi Watts), and their three sons Lucas (Tom Holland), Simon (Oaklee Pendergast) and Thomas (Samuel Joslin) are enjoying their tropical poolside holiday when one of the worst natural disasters in modern history changes their lives in the blink of an eye—the tsunami that rocked the world.  With no time to run for safety, Henry and his family, just like the dozens of other horrified tourists on the resort, lose one another as they are washed away by the 90-foot wave.  As the devoted parents fight all odds to find and protect their children, they encounter scenes of heart-wrenching tragedy and experience acts of incredible compassion amidst the chaos.

The actors did a marvelous job—you have to see it to feel their sincerity.  The depiction of the horrendous event is flat out stunning.  The impossible’s technical perfection leaves the audience no room to nit pick about flaws—or to try to guess which is actual footage and which is CGI—as it rips right into the viewers’ emotion and carries them away to rush along with the bodies getting slammed on trees, electric posts, broken masonry and other debris.  Witnessing on film and empathizing with the victims’ suffering is a moving and unnamable experience for us who have never been through a tidal wave.  So this is what a tsunami does…  Bodies battered by the merciless waters, scores of cadavers, live victims covered in blood and filth, the anguish of the suddenly orphaned … could the victims be blamed if they were never to believe in God again?

Through it all shines the power of the human spirit not only to overcome but more so to put the welfare of others before one’s own.  Complete strangers weep shamelessly and comfort one another in their grief.  Having heard a child crying beneath the debris, Maria, herself badly cut,  bruised and almost breathless tells Lucas to rescue the child.  Lucas at first refuses lest another wave tear them apart again, but Maria insists “We must… even if it’s the last thing we do…”   In the hospital, Maria, bandaged and strapped to an oxygen tank, tells Lucas to go help others in any way he can instead of just sitting by her bed.  Such instances winess to the undying human spirit and fortify the central self-sacrificial theme of this true story.  Himself going through the angst of yearly adolescence, Lucas absorbs the impact of this vital lesson about life, giving, and sacrifice. 

So this is what a tsunami does… When your life hangs by a thread, you just stop caring about gifts, careers, travel plans—you come to see what really matters in life: life itself, family, compassion.  Try and imagine what you would do when all the things you so enjoy in life are claimed in a split second by an unfeeling tidal wave, when your whole family is grabbed away by a watery hand that’s bigger than your prayers.  What would you do?

Parental Guidance

CAST: Billy Crystal, Bette Midler, Marissa Tomei, Tom Everett Scott, Bailee Madison  DIRECTOR: Andy Fickman;  SCREENWRITER:  Lisa Addario, Joe Syracuse;  PRODUCER: Billly Crystal, Peter Chernin, Dylan Clark; EDITOR:  Kent Beyda; MUSICAL DIRECTOR:  Marc Shaiman; GENRE:  Comedy; CINEMATOGRAPHER:  Dean Semler; RUNNING TIME:  105 minutes; DISTRIBUTOR:  20^th Century Fox; LOCATION:  USA

Technical assessment: 3

Moral assessment: 3

CINEMA Rating:  PG 13

MTRCB Rating:  G (General Patronage)

Artie Decker (Billy Crystal) was laid off work as a sports announcer—a job he held for the past 20 years. His wife Diane (Bette Midler) keeps fit by pole dancing with her friends at home. While Artie is still shocked and devastated by the sad news and wonders how to tell Diane, they receive a frantic call from their daughter Alice (Marisa Tomei).  She has to leave town with her husband Phil Simmons (Tom Everett Scott) for work (and a getaway), and could they please look after their three children Harper (Bailee Madison), Turner (Joshua Rush) and Barker (Kyle Harrison Breitkopf)? Despite protests from Artie, Diane agrees to babysit their grandchildren while their parents are away.

Determined to reconnect with her grandchildren, Diane is willing to do all she can to make them love her, but Artie is still chasing a dream. Both are not prepared for Alice’s and Phil’s automated lifestyle and 21^st century methods of rearing their kids, that is, allowing them to do what they want and never saying no to them or correcting them. Would old school parenting techniques work in the absence of their helicopter parents?

Parental Guidance (previously titled Us & Them) seems to be a parody of present day America and some of the issues that beset family life—despite sophisticated gadgets and technology, parents have less time for themselves or their children, kids are stressed and unable to cope with school or the challenges of growth, older people are left behind by current trends and are not appreciated, the dynamics at work in schools, etc.

Despite the predictable plot, Parental Guidance is fun and enjoyable. The lead actors, especially Billy Crystal and Bette Midler adequately portray their roles. There are many hilarious moments and touching ones, too. It is unfortunate that it had to use some potty humor—could this be for lack of creativity or is it a concession to popular taste?

Grandparents Artie and Diane take care of their three grandchildren using a different approach from what the kids are used to with their parents. Parental Guidance shows that when done to the extreme, both ways can have negative results, hence the need to keep a balance. Despite the differences, what holds the family together is what makes Parental Guidance a good film.  

CINEMA recommends that this be seen by children below 13 with parental guidance.  Even the younger members of the family may be stimulated to comment on the value of the film.

Les Miserables

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Rusell Crowe, Anne Hathaway ; Direction: Tom Hooper; based on the novel by Victor Hugo; Screenplay: William Nicholson, Alain Boubil, Claude- Michel Schonberg, Herbert Kretzmer; Cinematography: Danny Cohen; Editing: Melanie Ann Oliver, Chris Dickens; ; Music: Claude- Michel Schonberg; Producers: Tim Bevan, Cameron Mackintosh, etc.; Genre: Musical-Drama; Location: France; Running Time: 117 minutes; Distributor: Universal Pictures

Technical Assessment: 4

Moral Assessment: 3.5 stars

Rating: A 14

Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) has just been given parole by prison guard Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) and is set to start a new life. But soon he discovers no one will give an ex-convict a chance.  He comes to the convent of the Bishop of Digne (Colm Wilkinson) where he is offered food and shelter. However, Valjean steals the church’s silver and runs away. He gets caught and is quickly returned to the convent by the authorities but to his surprise the bishop supports his lies and even offers him the church’s silver candlesticks. Touched and shamed by the bishop’s actions, Valjean vows to be a different man and start a new life without his past.

Eight years later, Valjean, now a mayor and businessman, has successfully erased his past by changing his name, but is still hunted by Javert for breaking his parole. Fantine (Anne Hathaway), one of his factory workers, is dismissed by the foreman after being discovered to be sending money to her illegitimate child, Cosette (Isabelle Allen). Desperate to support her daughter, Fantine becomes a prostitute and gets arrested by Javert when she attacks a rude customer. Valjean saves Fantine and vows to care for her daughter.  He buys Cosette’s freedom from the Thenardiers (Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter), wicked tavern owners and professional pickpockets.

Later, Javert who is unaware of the mayor’s disguise, informs him that the man he is after, Valjean, has confessed to his crime of breaking parole and is condemned to die. Unable to accept that an innocent man should die in his place, Valjean appears in court to reveal his true identity, that he is indeed prisoner 24601.  Valjean nonetheless ecapes to find Cosette.

Nine years later, Valjean has raised Cosette as his own daughter but refuses to tell her about the past. Consequently, the death of Lamerque has pushed a group of idealistic students to start a revolution. Marius (Eddie Redmayne), one of the students, sees the grown-up Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and instantly falls in love with her, breaking the heart of Eponine (Samantha Barks), the Thenardiers’ daughter.  When the revolt ensues, Javert who has posed as a rebel to spy on the group is exposed and handed over to Valjean, who in turn joins the rebels to protect Marius. However, Valjean allows Javert to escape. When the revolt fails, Valjean carries Marius into the sewers and is confronted by Javert at the exit. Javert threatens to shoot him if he does not surrender but Valjean ignores him and shows more concern for the fatally wounded Marius.

The film is almost a sure ball success because it works with givens that are solid and popular. But of course, between the literature and the stage, Hooper has to make sure he creates a cinematically effective translation of the songs and scenes. The production design is striking and impressive with the proper combination of live scenes and CGIs to heighten every emotional theme. There are moments when the direction feels confused between being more theatrical, realistic or cinematic but then again, an ordinary viewer will get so impressed with the treatment that this will be overlooked.

With so few dancing scenes, Hooper’s Les Miserables is more opera than musical.  We cannot question the prowess Hathaway gives to Fantine—her “I dreamed a dream” rendition is one of the most powerful and emotive scenes in the film.  Cohen and Carter are just fabulous as the Thenardiers, though they at times come across as reincarnations of past roles.  Redmayne and Seyfried are lame and forgettable.  Crowe is a disappointment—vocally he is weak, personality-wise, his Javert is bland; maybe he’s just too pretty to look mean or even stern.

Noting all that, and the better aspects of the film—particularly the strong material—we tend to think that actors had been chosen more for their sincerity and passion than their singing prowess.  Perhaps the director wants us to listen to the truths between the notes instead of just being awed by the singing.  As the central character, Jackman is no Pavarotti, but who would not be touched by his soliloquy which he sings direct to the camera, “Why did I allow this man to touch my soul and teach me love?”  Such a soulful performance gives justice to the point of the plot—were he to croak in the middle of the song, still it wouldn’t diminish the power of its message.

Les Miserables may be a Javert-Valjean story, but there wouldn’t be a story without the Bishop—he whose Christ-like forgiveness transformed Valjean’s hardened heart and filled it with new knowledge. (Hooper must have deemed the role so important that he assigned it to the original Valjean, Colm Wilkinson, who played the part for the first time in 1985).  Despite the background of a revolt or the anti-climactic wedding scene, the film is not about a revolution, much less about a love story, but it speaks of a revolution in the heart and of a love so great it can forgive everything. This is perhaps what has attracted audiences to Les Miserables through its long stage and screen history—its message of forgiveness unmistakably echoing the love of God itself.

CINEMA ratings:  AA, All Ages; PG13, Age 13 & below with parental guidance; A14, Age 14 & above; A18, Age 18 & above; NPS, Not for Public Showing.

Zero dark thirty

Cast: Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Joel Edgeton; Director: Kathryn Bigelow;  Screenplay:  Mark Boal; Producer: Kathryn Bigelow , Megan Ellison, :  Mark Boal;  Running Time: 157 minutes; Genre: Drama/Action; Location: USA, Pakistan

Technical Assessment: 3.5

Moral Assessment: 2

Rating: for viewers 18 years old and above

After the September 11, 2001 attack, a  CIA team is assigned to secretly hunt down and eliminate the terrorist leader of Al Queda group, Osama Bin Laden. One CIA agent, Maya (Jessica Chastain) has dedicated her more than a decade of service searching for the lone terrorist leader. She goes with a team that interrogates detainees until one of them confesses a name of a personal courier to Osama Bin Laden –Abu Ahmed al Kuwaiti. From then on, Maya centers her life/mission on tracking down and chasing the mysterious courier whom she strongly believes is the key to finding Osama Bin Laden.

Zero Dark Thirty realistically depicts the nuances and the many facets of CIA’s operations alongside the politics (of gender and geography included) that goes with it. It effectively portrays the world as dark, vengeful, and dangerous; divided by race, religion and obsession – while at the same time, some would be willing to die to change this.  The film has successfully engaged the audience in the gripping narrative which focuses on a woman’s quest towards fulfilling a mission, believing (sometimes disbelieving) that the entire world is on their side. Chastain shines in every moment of the film as she delivers the complexity of her character even in its most silent moments. The action sequences need not have big explosives nor spectacular effects so as to be consistent with the film’s core—that is to demystify and de-glorify the US’ war against terrorism which merely centers on revenge—no more, no less.

The film’s poster comes with a warning: “not for the weak of hearts”, as most of its scenes closely depict tortures of detainees during interrogation, with blood spurting all over the frame. So the moral debate goes whether Zero Dark Thirty glorifies torture as part of the world’s longing for peace. The film however simply depicts this dilemma as seen in the eyes of CIA agent Maya. She cannot stand the torture herself so she would let others do it, sometimes, not in her presence. For most part, the movie shows how the US’ and CIA’s operations produce dubious outcomes, even to the point of putting the lives of their people in danger. With that, the film throws back the moral question to the audience—is human physical torture moral if done for the sake of finding the truth and achieving world peace? It cannot be denied though that said images are so strong and are undoubtedly disturbing.

 If there’s one point in the film that CINEMA commends it is its portrayal of women. Although Zero Dark Thirty seems to be a man’s film at the onset, it turns out that it’s more about a woman standing out and standing firm in a world predominated by men. Here, we see how a woman’s intuition led to the success of a mission—how it gave the world a reason for celebration. Although, the bigger question remains: Is there really a reason to celebrate? With the death of Osama Bin Laden, is the world now safer and at peace? Has the US’ wound been healed as they continuously exact revenge on their opponents?  Is this fight against terrorism really worth fighting for? 

Jack Reacher

Cast: Tom Cruise, Rosamund Pike, Joseph Sikora Richard Jenkins, Robert Duvall; Direction: Christopher McQuarrie; Story: based from Lee Child`s ONE SHOT; Screenplay: Christopher McQuarrie; Cinematography: Celeb Deschanel;  Editing: Kevin Stitt; Music: Joe Kreamer; Producers: Tom Cruise, Paula Wagner Genre: Action -Thrillerr: Running Time:130 minutes Location: USA; Distributor: Paramount Pictures

Technical Assessment :  3

Moral Assessment :  2.5

CINEMA Rating :  V14

MTRCB Rating :  PG 13

One ordinary morning in Pittsburg, a sniper drives up a parking building, pays for his parking, sets up his rifle, fires 6 shots and kills 5 people. The police wastes no time in piecing the evidence and concludes that Barr, a former soldier, is the killer and immediately arrests him. Although overwhelming evidence points to Barr, he requests for Jack Reacher (Cruise) instead of confessing to the crime. Meanwhile, Reacher learns of the incident and immediately travels to the scene of the crime, originally to make sure Barr is sentenced.  However, after methodically studying the evidence, Reacher concludes that Barr is innocent and the random killings are conspiracy to cover up just one murder. Reacher teams up with Helen, the district attorney's daughter set to ensure Barr does not get the death penalty. And soon, the two are thrown into an action-packed quest for the truth.

The plot is easy to follow and surprisingly gives a tinge of excitement despite its predictability. Reacher`s character is honestly amusing and loveable as he represents a crude and sassy vigilante who cares for what is true and right. (Shades of typical macho heroes of our local films.)  Cruise tackles the role convincingly with his boyish looks adding to Reacher smooth charisma.  The script starts well with the eerie silence of the murders, turns funny with Reacher's deadpan cynicisms and even tries create existentialist conversations. The directorial vision is commendable with tight action, clever cutaways and riveting  scene stealing feistiness. The film will not be on the Academy Awards' list but is well made and delivers enough to merit sequels to Lee Child's franchise.

The movie is strong in its message about justice and truth. Reacher is the cool, arrogant knight in shining armor who will not start a fight, prefers to walk away from one but if needed will take every bad guy down. Reacher will make sure justice is served be it on a silver plate or a pile of rubbish. He may seem callous and arrogant but he shows concern for the needy (buying goods in a store only to drop them in the donation box), does not take advantage of a young girl coming on to him, responds to help a woman being abused by her boyfriend. But do we condone street justice? Unfortunately, the ends never can justify the means. So as much as viewers would like to root for Reacher, he is not a very good role model.

The film is a typical action flick with forgiveable violence but because the directorial interpretation of the killings at the start is powerful, a lot of conservative viewers will be upset and disturbed with the opening scene and the premise of the film. Further, Reacher, although the good guy, uses force and aggresion yet in a very charming way. Young viewers whose moral stand have not yet been formed may find it cool to follow Reacher. High intensity action and violence as well as the theme of the story may not be suitable  for high scholers.

Life of Pi

CAST:  Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Adi Hussein, Tabu, Gerard Depardieu.  DIRECTOR:  Ang Lee.  SCREENPLAY:  David Magee.  PRODUCER:  Gil Netter,  David Lee.  PRODUCTION DESIGNER:  David Gropman. ART DIRECTORS:  Dan Webster, Al Hobbs, James Truesdale. CINEMATOGRAPHY:  Claudio Miranda.  MUSIC:  Mychael Danna.  DISTRIBUTOR:  20^th Century Fox.  LOCATION:  India, Taiwan, Canada.

Technical assessment:  4

Moral assessment:  3.5

CINEMA Rating:  PG 13 (May be viewed by children below 13 with parental guidance)  

When their family-managed zoo in Pondicherry, India, is forced to close down due to poor business, Santosh Patel (Adi Hussein) decides to move his whole family—his wife Gita (Tabu), and sons Ravi (played at ages 7, 14 and 19 by Ayan Khan, Mohd Abbas Kahleeli and Vibish Sivakumar) and Pi (played at ages 5 and 11 by Gautam Belur and Ayoush Tandor)—along with the zoo animals to Canada.  Here begins the story that is told in flashback over a home-cooked vegetarian meal by an adult Pi (Irfan Khan), now a professor of comparative religion in Montreal, Canada.  Pi’s sole listener is a skeptic writer (Rafe Spall) who had heard from his uncle in India about Pi’s unusual ordeal at sea—a story, he is told, “that would make you believe in God.”  As Pi narrates, the family’s sea voyage with a shipload of drugged animals is aborted by a terrible squall that sinks the whole ship in minutes, leaving only the 17-year old Pi (Suraj Sharma) on a lifeboat with a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan, and a Bengal tiger.  One by one the animals go, until there is only the tiger with Pi.  How Pi manages to survive 227 days with a man-eating beast at sea forms the meat of the story.

The best selling novel of Yan Martell, Life of Pi, has sold over seven million copies, been translated into several languages, and was in the New York Times bestseller list for over a year, but it was considered an un-filmable story.   Now this Ang Lee directorial masterpiece for 20^th Century Fox ought to put to rest all doubts as to the novel’s “filmability”, having seamlessly and amazingly interwoven the best of the best of CGI and flesh and blood footage of live action.  Credit goes to Rhythm and Hues Visual Effects for the most work on special effects.  It is hard to believe that the Pi character, first time actor Suraj Shama, was never actually filmed with a live tiger on the lifeboat.  How could it have been faked when it looked so real?, one might ask, and the only explanation would be “computer magic”. 

Life of Pi is nothing short of magical, especially in the way it reveals the paradoxical marvels of the sea to the viewer: its rage swallows up Pi’s whole family, yet its bounty keeps him and the carnivore alive; it grips the boy gutless in fear for his life, yet its very emptiness fills his soul with hope for happier days.  At night when all is lost in its pitch darkness it stuns Pi with phosphorescence from a million jellyfish, and dwarfs him with a luminescent whale leaping out of the unfathomable depths. 

Experiencing nature in Life of Pi as it may never have been experienced before by the viewer definitely adds enchantment to the film.  It also ensures and justifies the viewer’s attention to the spiritual dimension of the story.  Not many may appreciate, however, the movie’s cosmic outlook in matters relating to God.  Having been born to Hinduism that introduced him to millions of gods, the child Pi cannot make sense of a man crucified for other people’s sins, and yet admits to an obsession with The Son powerful enough to make him announce to his parents that he wants to be baptized (a Catholic).  This aspect of the film is something that demands mature interpretation in and for the moviegoer.  While Catholicism is sympathetically portrayed here—a priest (Andrea di Stefano) is shown slaking the boy’s actual thirst by giving him a glass of water, symbolic of the Living Water?—Life of Pi does not pretend to offer catechesis but merely demonstrates a young mind’s search for God.  The boy eventually embraces three religions (the third being Islam), much to the chagrin of his rational father, but Pi’s naivete disarms everybody when he says he just wants “to love God”. 

A lover of God, a true follower of Christ, will not have a problem with Pi’s expression of the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love.  Love of one’s enemy is evident in Pi’s regard for the tiger—he could have let him drown when the beast fell into the sea, but instead, he goes out of his way to get the animal back into the boat.  He even fishes and collects rainwater for the animal to consume, hoping endlessly that the beast would one day recognize his goodwill.  Pi’s faith in a Living God in time of darkness is made apparent as well, when at the end of his wits he tearfully rails at the sky, “I surrender… I’ve lost everything… what more do you want?”

There is also a lesson in unconditional love and detachment which Pi cannot seem to learn: love without expecting to be loved or to change the beloved to your liking.  For 227 days he has bent over backward to keep the tiger alive, and yet in the end it remains a cold feline, leaving him behind without as much as a goodbye glance.

Life of Pi may engage the viewer on two levels: as a movie about survival, and as a meditation on the infinite.  It’s difficult to avoid spoilers in reviewing this film, so allow us this one last observation: towards the end of the narrative, Pi is bedridden in a hospital in Mexico, telling his story to two men sent by the Japanese Ministry of Transport to make a report on the shipwreck.  They do not believe his account with the animals, demanding “something we can report, we can believe!”  So Pi gives them a less incredible story, “admitting” that he was indeed with three other human survivors on the boat—the cook, a Buddhist sailor, and his mother.  The cook killed the two, and Pi killed the cook.  It is actually the same story, but using human characters in place of the hyena, the zebra, the orangutan and the tiger.  The Japanese men conclude that since both stories are hard to prove and neither is relevant to their investigation anyway, they choose to believe the one with the animals.  The writer listening to Pi’s accounts chooses the same, to which Pi utters an enigmatic, “and so it is with God”.  For isn’t it so with belief in God?  People may choose a God they cannot understand but can believe in, or a familiar God that will not strain their belief.  Perhaps we are reading too much into a movie, but honestly, if Pi’s story cannot make you believe in God, it can certainly make you think about God.