Miscom
Review by Vives Anunciacion
Inquirer Libre September 23 2009

In My Life
Directed by Olivia Lamasan
Star Cinema

Maybe I don’t get it. Hindi ko gets. Did I miss anything in the seemingly endless cryfestival? So what’s the movie about, really?  Acting? Missed connections? Some points fail to connect to me. Please try your call later.

Separated from her husband, elementary school librarian Shirley Templo (a joke of a name even if it was her parents’ way of remembering their favorite Hollywood icon) decides to leave for New York when her eldest daughter insists they sell off their property and move Down Under.

Shirley moves into her son Mark’s apartment where Noel, Mark’s boyfriend also lives. There is fuss about adjusting to life and new jobs in New York, but there is more fuss when Noel ends up taking care of Shirley more than Mark does. Shirley always has difficulty in accepting and adjusting to new things (like the faulty computerized library database), especially if she thinks she can do better. Especially if it threatens to take away her “motherhood” from her children, even if her children are all busy, grown up adults.

Everything separating Shirley and Noel comes crashing between them when tragedy strikes, but towads the end the two make gargantuan efforts to resolve their complex emotions.

From the onset, I was surprised to see Big Acting in the movie. Not “acting” but “Acting,” with a capital A. This coming from the director who tamed Sharon Cuneta in Madrasta and made her a real actress. I thought I was watching a Danny Zialcita movie (Langis at Tubig, Ang Kabiyak, Lalakwe and Dear Heart all rolled into one). It’s not necessarily bad, but I thought the movie screamed for acting awards. No subtlety there. Grand Slam, here we come.

Some people complained that there was too much “tourist” New York scenes. I say there were too few. New York – Manhattan – didn’t have a character in this movie. Maybe that was a creative decision from the writers, but Big Apple could have been Beijing. Which could have made the homosexual non-plot a political statement. Again, no statement there.

Which finally comes to the movie’s real point: the Acting. There is truth in every word the actors say. That’s why the audiences cry. There’s real emotion delivered painfully, each time Noel, devastatingly portrayed by John Lloyd Cruz, and Shirley, impeccably lived in by Ms Vilma Santos, make arguement. They could be talking about losing their favorite toy and you feel it – because that’s what’s on screen – truth in acting.

Interestingly, Santos’s Shirley isn’t the same kind of mother here as her Josie in the quintessential parenthood movie Anak.

But what is the movie really about? Human relations? That pretty much covers nearly all movies.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe In My Life is a masterpiece that I have yet to recognize. Maybe it’s not the Big Sermon About Parenthood movie that I see it to be. There are a lot of things in it that say it works. Maybe I’ll like it eventually.

After two years.

I’m not sure when this review came out. Posting it anyway.

The more, the many-er
Review by Vives Anunciacion

Night at the Museum 2: Battle at the Smithsonian
Directed by Shawn Levy

More of the same. As in, more exhibits coming to life, but the comedy is just the same as the last Night at the Museum – lightweight, dull and uneventful. The more isn’t always the merrier.

The idea seems promising: take what made the exhibits at the first museum come alive and bring that to the largest museum on earth. Sounds fun? Ben Stiller returns as Larry Daley the night guard in Night at the Museum 2: Battle at the Smithsonian.

The movie begins some time after the events of the first movie. Larry Daley has become a rich businessman of sorts, with his own company selling items he has invented himself. A surprise phone call from Jedediah (Owen Wilson) alerts Larry of an emergency. Transferred to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC for permanent storage, many of the exhibits from the first museum (New York’s Museum of Natural History) are literally fighting against the Smithsonian’s exhibits – all brought to life by the mysterious golden tablet, no thanks to Dexter the monkey.

Larry travels to Washington to solve the wild predicament, but gets entangled in the big mess in the world’s biggest museum. Amy Adams appears as pioneer female pilot Amelia Earhart, while Robin Williams and many others in the first movie reappear in the same roles.

The problem with the first movie was that it didn’t have enough Robin Williams and Ricky Gervais to make it funnier (because Ben Stiller is starring.) The problem with the second Night at the Museum is that it has even LESS Robin Williams and Ricky Gervais, plus Hank Azaria as fictional Egyptian pharaoh Kahmunrah is a lot funnier than Stiller. Everyone else is a lifeless paper doll. Lots of effects making all those exhibits come to life, big deal. Is this an educational trip about American history? Not even. So what’s the point, make museums interesting to kids? The first movie sort of did that already.

Honestly, I thought I lost two hours of my life watching this. Big, pointless, neither-here-nor-there movies like these make watching in theaters unnecessary. At least make a statement. Be really good, or really bad.

If there’s a third movie, don’t bother at all. As far as franchises should go, this movie is history.

Original scene

Review by Vives Anunciacion

Inquirer Libre May 05, 2009

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Directed by Gavin Hood

Based on characters from the Marvel comic books

SPOILERS beware, may contain story spoilers for those who haven’t seen the movie.

Manny vs Godzilla. Manny vs Chuck Norris. Manny vs Wolverine. Sigurado ako na hindi pa naikakasa ni Wolverine ang matatalas niyang kuko, pinatulog na siya ni PacMan.

I really wasn’t expecting anything from this movie, coming from (X3) X-Men: The Last Stand, which I found inferior to the first two. Having said that, I find Wolverine a decently made summer movie, a lot of times laughable and a few times impressive, but eventually the weakest in the X-Men franchise. It can be argued that the Dark Knight model of “darkening” the superhero movie won’t work with all comic book characters, but, hey, not all men are created equal, particularly in the comic book universe.

Sabi nga ng title, this is an origins movie. X-Men Origins elaborates in nearly two hours the origins of Wolverine, formerly John Logan (Hugh Jackman), his arch-nemesis Sabretooth, formerly Victor Creed (Liev Schreiber), the nature of their relationship, as well as roles in General William Stryker’s Weapon X program and the emergence of Charles Xavier’s X-Men.

The movie jumbles up storylines from the comic books, which was why my friends and I kept asking each other what really happened. As far as referring to the source material, the movie is remarkably distant from the events in the comic series, which means purist fans may be get confused, at the very least.

The best part presented by the movie is the dichotomy between Logan/Wolverine and Victor/Sabretooth, kung saan ipinapakita ang kaibahan nila sa isa’t isa each time that they encounter each other. In much the same way that The Joker was played very significantly as a thesis/antithesis of Batman in The Dark Knight (which made that movie great) this movie could have easily gone the same route because the filmmakers took liberties with the story anyway.

Unfortunately, Wolverine suffers from another Studio requirement to feature as many other characters in the franchise for future movie spinoffs, this story had to go to many turns left and right to make way for The Blob, Gambit, Silverfox (the beautiful Lynn Collins), ad infinitum. Add to this issue are the numerous laughable effects and action scenes (Agent Zero, played by Korean drama superstar Daniel Henney, is mala-Lito Lapid, while the final confrontation between Weapon XI and the feral duo has a what-the-hell-yun-lang ending. Twice my friend laughed at the crane shot when Wolverine cried over Silverfox. Nahawa ako sa kaniya.)

Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool and Danny Huston as General William Stryker are pretty good in this movie, but Liev Schrieber takes away the shine from Wolverine’s adamantium claws because he’s really good as Victor/Sabretooth. Sabi ko nga, sayang na hindi kinoncentrate ang kwento sa kanila ni Wolverine.

In film terms this isn’t a terrible movie, it actually is a decent one. But for all the promise this beloved character could have been in his own movie, this is just meh. Parang Pacquiao-Hatton, exciting na rin, pero 2 rounds lang pala.

I’m not sure if this already came out in print, and if it hasn’t, I’m preempting the print version.

Hot wheels              

Review by Vives Anunciacion   Inquirer Libre

Fast & Furious        Directed by Justin Lin

I race cars, but only the ones that come in small boxes and run on plastic tracks. Does that count? Eight years since the first movie that made street racing a worldwide interest, the original cast is back together doing the same things that made them famous in the first place.

Vin Diesel again plays driver exemplar Dominic Toretto, now leader of a small-time criminal gang hiding in the Dominican Republic. The movie begins with his group hijacking and stealing several tankers of fuel gasoline. In the group are girlfriend Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) and Dom’s close friend Han (Sung Kang from Tokyo Drift).

A tragic event forces Dom to return to the States to seek revenge against a large-scale underground drug kingpin. Meanwhile in Miami (ever since 2 Fast 2 Furious), FBI agent Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker) is working on a case to bring down the same drug lord. In search of this common enemy, Dom’s and Brian’s paths cross once again where they must infiltrate the drug lord’s trafficking network that operates from the streets of Los Angeles, through tunnels under the desert border and all the way into Mexico. Success depends on their speed and driving expertise, so long as Dom and Brian haven’t killed each other considering all the issues between them. Jordana Brewster also returns as Mia –Dom’s sister and Brian’s ex.

In the first three installments, the car modifications and the car stunts where the main focus of the franchise. This installment attempts at balancing story and action scenes, in completing the story arches between Dom, the original bad guy behind the wheel, and Brian, the boy scout who wants to be the bad guy behind the wheel. 

I would say it’s action-packed, but it’s not Terminator or Bourne. Let’s be honest, this is an adrenaline-oriented movie about fast cars, booty shot close-ups and pumpin’ music. It doesn’t aspire for acting awards or social commentary and it’s like a genre all its own, impervious to criticism.  One thing I really like with this series is that all four variants of F&F have multi-ethnic cast of actors, which show a culturally diverse world that’s not often seen in other Hollywood flicks. 

The car races entertain, especially the one in the tunnels. Brian is still convinced he can out-drive Dom, which can be funny sometimes. The movie provides an artificial adrenaline rush for a particularly boring weekend, but nobody said the movie is art. It’s a one-dimensional, muscled-up National Lampooner whose sole purpose is to pimp racing cars, girls and music. To that it delivers satisfactorily. Maybe (hopefully?) Fast & Furious is the franchise’s closure, Dom and Brian’s destinies coming full circle. As they say, don’t fix it if the parts ain’t broken.

Kung kaya mo
Rebyu ni Vives Anunciacion
Inquirer Libre March 27, 2009

SPOILER WARNING, this review may contain spoilers.

Seryoso si John Cena sa bago niyang pelikula. Ganun din si Nicholas Cage. Guess niyo kung sino sa dalawa ang nakakabilib this time.

12 Rounds
Directed by Renny Harlin

Pagkatapos makatakas ng kulungan, reresbakan ng criminal terrorist na si Miles Jackson (TV actor Aidan Gilen) si police detective Danny Fisher (WWE superstar John Cena) by kidnapping Detective Fisher’s girlfriend Molly Porter (Ashley Scott), kung saan dapat tapusin ni Baxter ang 12 challenges para sa kalayaan ni Molly.

Palaki nang palaki at pahirap nang pahirap ang mga challenges kay Fisher, mula sa pag-drive ng firetruck nang mabilis hanggang sa pag-solve ng puzzle kung saan talaga nakatago si Molly. Natural may lag time at boring portions sa pagitan ng Rounds 1 at 12, lalu na kung hinihintay mo na lang ang Round 12 hangga’t hindi nana-“knock-out” ni Fisher ang kaniyang kalaban.

Ang okay sa 12 Rounds ay hindi OA ang drama at hindi OA ang action – alam ng filmmakers na hindi tutoong actor si Cena, at dahil he’s very bulky, hindi rin siya bagay sa Bourne-type action. Pero mahusay ang build-up ng suspense, believable ang stunts at sumatotal, hindi masagwa ang pelikula. Actually ang hindi ko gusto ay yung acting ng kontrabida, pero kontrabida naman siya kaya dapat lang siyang kainisan.

Knowing
Directed by Alex Proyas

This one is really disappointing, kasi ang director nito ay ang promising director ng I, Robot at Dark City. It’s a confused sci-fi / horror disaster flick that mashes supernatural horror, the Bible’s Four Men of The Apocalypse, UFOs and Aliens. Meron tayo nito dito sa Pilipinas – si Father Tropa at ang kaniyang Spaceship 2000.

Matatanggap ni Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) ang isang pirasong papel kung saan nakasulat ang maraming numero. Madidiskubre ni astrophysicist John (Nicholas Cage), ama ni Caleb, na ang mga numero ay lista ng mga petsa at location ng mga major world disasters, kasama na ang September 11 New York bombing. With this information, susubukan ni John na bigwan ng warning ang mga posibleng madamay sa sakuna. Pero mahihirapan si John lalu na kapag buhay na ng kaniyang anak ang nakataya.

Pwede na ang suspense, mukha namang may budget at nagastusan ng matino ang effects kung saan nakakabilib ang destruction sa mga disaster scenes. But are we supposed to applaud in these scenes of death and destruction?  Kung disaster flick lang ang pelikula, tigilan na yung fake debates about science vs. religion. Pero kung gayun man, ano ba talaga ang mga Whisperers – angels or aliens? At ano yun sa ending, Tree of Knowledge?

I know what this movie is. Hindi ko ‘to kinaya.

REVIEW IN FILIPINO

Love = power
Review by Vives Anunciacion
Inquirer Libre, March 20,2009

Taob ang superpowers ng Watchmen sa power-hug ni Sarah. Kung like niyo ang seriousness sa relationship, andyan naman sina Kate at Leo sa Revolutionary Road.

You Changed My Life
Directed by Cathy Molina

Nagbabalik ang pagpapa-cute nina Miggy at Laida sa You Changed My Life, kadugtong ng saksakan ng matagumpay na A Very Special Love noong isang taon.

Ilang buwan matapos mag-rain dance sa gitna ng kalsada, inuulan ng swerte ang mag-bebeh at ang kanilang mga pamilya. Promoted si Laida sa Flippage publishing company at promoted naman si Miggy bilang OIC ng Clean Living laundy company, samantalang lumalago naman ang sapatusan ng mga Magtalas at lumalawak ang empire ng mga Montenegro.

Pero sabay ng mga bagong responsibilidad na ito ang realizations ng magsing-irog na hindi lahat ng bagay sa buhay ay napadadali by simply changing their ring-tones into “bebeh ko.” Ibig sabihin, parehas na mababatukan ng reality sina Laida at Miggy kapag dumating na sa situation na ino-offer si Laida magtrabaho sa Canada, at pupuyatin naman sa trabaho sa Laguna si Miggy.

This small dose of reality is what makes YCML work as a better movie than the first one, because it gives the characters room to grow, with room to spare for a possible 3rd outing. In a way YMCL serves as a small critique of its own genre, since most romantic comedies in the Philippines are just cutesy vehicles for its stars. Hindi lahat ng bagay nadadaan sa pagpapa-cute lang. In that sense, YMCL is a true improvement of AVSL, making this second trip worthwhile. Both lead stars Geronimo and Lloyd-Cruz are effective in their roles, with the right amount of chemistry and just enough mix for the dramatic and comedic parts. Mikee Cojuangco-Jaworski is a fresh addition as Art’s (Rowell Santiago) ex Cristina.

Revolutionary Road
Directed by Sam Mendes
Based on the novel by Richard Yates

In Revolutionary Road, Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio reunite in a movie that tries to define how a marriage works (or not work, as the case may be) in 1950s suburban America.

The Titanic stars play young suburban couple Frank and April Wheeler na nakatira sa isang magandang bahay sa kalyeng Revolutionary Road. Di tulad kina Laida at Miggy na matagal ang ligawan, sa ikalawang eksena ng pelikula pa lang, mag-asawa kaagad sina Frank at April, at hindi na sila masaya.

Frank is bored to death working as a copy writer for an office supply company in New York, while April is a frustrated theater actress na nagtitiis sa routine bilang ordinary housewife and mother. Sa gitna ng kanilang mid-life crisis, maiisipan nilang lisanin ang simple nilang buhay at magsimula muli sa Paris. This idea will briefly rekindle the fire between them, pero unti-unting malulusaw ang pangarap na ito when Frank gets a promotion and starts to doubt if the transfer to Paris will really work, at the same time, April only seems to care about leaving for Paris because she’s no longer interested in her married life, in general.

Winslet does remarkable things here, showing how suffocated, confused and angry she is with the ordinariness of her days. Mahusay din si DiCaprio, pero hindi kapantay sa level ni Winslet, kaya minsan lutang ang performance niya versus Winslet na very grounded and palpable.

Ang hindi ko mapigilan ay hintayin kung saan at kalian lilitaw sa eksena sina Ate Vi at Boyet, at parang nanonood lang ako ng sangkaterbang sigawan noong 1980s at 1990s gaya ng sa Relasyon or Broken Marriage (minsan palabas pa ang mga ito sa CinemaOne, try to catch them). May kaunting Celso Ad pa with the mentally unstable character played by Michael Shannon, na siyang nagbibigay ng reality check at social commentary. Parang American Beauty rin ito (na dinirek din ni Mendes), minus the funny moments. In a way, there’s nothing new here except Kate’s great performance.

[Or the WATCHMEN review that's not going to see print]

Whatchamacallit

Review by Vives Anunciacion
March 16, 2009
Makati, Philippines

Watchmen
Directed by Zack Snyder

Based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, although Alan Moore has had his name stricken from the credits. Yup, his name isn’t in the movie. On the other hand, Mr. Gibbons is mighty fine with and has actually worked on design aspects of the movie.

More than a week ago, over cocktails while waiting for the screening of Revolutionary Road to begin, fellow reviewers and I were merrily digesting the movie Watchmen unmindful of the presence of the movie distributor’s  publicist  in our midst. We were literally having fun with the discussion, as it was not often that we talked amongst ourselves, shared views and found a good movie to take apart. We would have continued further but then it was Leo’s and Kate’s time for bashing.

The consensus was that it was a disaster primarily from the point of the source material, but also with the abusive technique and the phlegmatic proceedings. Surprisingly, I was the most lenient among the group. Let me get down to it.

First off, this is a review of the movie and not the novel, and every so often I’ll interject ideas where the movie deviated from the novel, as my memory would permit.

SPOILERS AHEAD (if that were still possible) DON’T READ IF YOU HAVEN’T READ THE NOVEL, JUST GO SEE THE MOVIE.

Set in an alternate 1980s America where Nixon is on his 5th term,  the Cold War with Russia is at its doomsday peak and masked crime fighters are part of the ordinary world, WATCHMEN begins with the violent death of one of the Watchmen, The Comedian aka Edward Blake (played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan.) “It’s all a joke,” he guffaws, just before his assassin throws him off of his condo’s window. I sense that the statement is a portent of things to come.

The vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) investigates his fellow Watchmen’s death, seemingly the mark of a plot to kill and discredit past and present masked crimefighters (obviously I’m trying to avoid the use of the term, “superheroes”.)

One by one Rorschach revisits the other Watchmen, all of whom at that time have retired and given up the costumes, in a manner of speaking. As Rorschach uncovers an entrenched conspiracy, he himself becomes a victim of the plot and is put behind bars. While Nite Owl (Patric Wilson) and Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman) manage to rescue Rorschach from prison, the god-like Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), the only Watchman with real superpowers, further detaches himself from earthly concerns and is seemingly unconcerned to help.

Here’s the deal.

BY ITSELF, as a film without reference to the source material, it is visually engaging, sometimes thought-provoking, convoluted, self-absorbed in its own mythology and eternally slow. The production is top-notch, the music calls attention to itself (99 Luft Balons? Why not Boom-boom-boom instead of Hallelujiah?) and for some reason, something which I have noticed since 300, Snyder seems to be unable to get the best performances from his actors, whose portrayals range from wooden (Akerman) to misfit (Wilson) to suave (Matthew Goode’s Ozymandias) to too-cool-to-be-human/in-Gotham-I’m-the-Batman (Haley).

It has some politics (which is good I suppose, because most movies don’t), but that is lost almost entirely because this movie neither cares for its characters (despite the flashbacks, which were its main strengths), nor cares for its plot (which, because it is in an alternate reality, renders itself pointless in the real, post-9/11 world).

WITH REFERENCE TO ITS SOURCE MATERIAL, as adaptation, it is visually stunning, generally true to the mood and feel of the graphic novel but IMO is an insult to the core of the novel itself (which I read in college, BTW).

First, Snyder’s own admission that his treatment (The Slo-Mo) is to capture the feel of the comic’s glorious frames. In this sense I believe Snyder misses the point of adaptation, because that is why it is called a MOVIE. It should move, and not slow to a standstill. And the comics in general had nine frames to a page, which to me were like storyboards in themselves, a dynamic one. So keeping one still frame at a time, which seems to be Snyder’s explanation, is against the novel’s dynamic layout.

Next is the novel’s editorial on superheroes, because, as the novel portrays them, the Watchmen, save for Dr. Manhattan, are just ordinary people wearing masks who happened to be determined to help society. The movie loses that, because, somehow, the Watchmen are still superior in strength, agility and speed over “ordinary people” – negating the novel’s very point that people need not look for superheroes, because there are none.

I know the novel’s story came in 12 installations or chapters, but the movie need not have been structured the same, OR, the extended running time could have been devoted to further backstory (as, say, how Rorschach seems to be an intelligent, tertiary-educated person if he was detached from society by his own doing; or, say, why was Laurie Juspeczyk REALLY devastated to learn that Blake was her dad?)

Last is the ending. The novel’s way of ending made sense, squid and all. This one gives a hint of the squid, shows the tiger (what for) and the corniest comic-book ending worthy of Spider Man.

In these terms I think it was a failure in adaptation, but a wonder in presentation. By all accounts Watchmen is still better than the average Hollywood presentation, but its main handicap is that it is based on a monolith of towering proportions, and the film is but a small block of stone standing under its shadow.

Please, no sequels. The novel didn’t have any.

Banks gone bad
Review by Vives Anunciacion
Inquirer Libre February 28, 2009
Makati, Philippines

The International
Directed by Tom Tykwer
Possible SPOILERS; watch first, read later.

Here’s the deal: currently there is a global financial crisis resulting, largely, from a flawed US financial system based on credit. The International is a movie that fictionally portrays the largest bank in the world as a manipulative, corrupt organization that keeps third world countries in debt. You, the audience, can either A) see this movie because it is a decently-made, but mostly slow, thriller, or B) keep your money in your pockets, because there’s a financial crisis.

Clive Owen is Interpol agent Loius Salinger investigating the criminal transactions of the International Bank of Business and Credit (IBBC) involving multiple countries and governments. Naomi Watts plays District Attorney Eleanor Whitman who assists Salinger in the investigation, which takes them from Berlin to Milan, Istanbul and New York. 

The movie is largely inert and boring, mainly because the villain is a bank and not a person, so there’s no person to get mad at while the good guys are being hailed by bullets. Also, not too many things happen plot-wise or character-wise in the first half of the film because, as described in the story, the bank is so good at cleaning up its tracks that Salinger et al find little or no evidence, and potential witnesses always end up dead. Salinger ends up doing little, and we don’t care about his past life. In fairness, the little that Salinger does is enough to push the investigation forward.

Its centerpiece action sequence is the best reason to see the film. Returning to New York following a lead in the investigation, Salinger and a handful of NYPD detectives track down the bank’s main assassin and one of the bank’s owners (Armin Mueller-Stahl) inside the white walls of the beautiful Guggenheim Museum. (Spoilers) There is a terrible bloodbath, with a big body count, but the complete destruction of the museum by bullets is the most appalling thing. (Additional) Owen was quite the better action man in the Ritchie-esque 2007 action romp Shoot ‘Em Up – but then that was a comedy, this one wants to be taken seriously.

The International reminded me of political thriller The Interpreter, directed by the legendary Sydney Pollack, in that the Clive Owen-starrer is a faint reminder of the Nicole Kidman-starrer. Both tried to be smart movies, but at least within its premises, The Interpreter was more urgent and involving than The International. Maybe German director Tom Tykwer, despite his stylish Run Lola Run and the erotic drama Perfume, could use some tips from the veterans. Too bad Pollack passed away last year.

Also currently showing, in limited release, is The Reader which recently won Kate Winslet an Oscar for Best Acting. See it for Winslet’s acting. The premise is engaging, the production is elegant, but the narrative is clunky, muddled and sometimes emotionally hijacking.

Wizards of Oz
Review by Vives Anunciacion
Inquirer Libre January 30, 2009

Australia
Directed by Baz Luhrmann

It reminded me of that old classic Gone with the Wind. It really did. Scarlett O’Hara, cowboys and lots of burning buildings. Not as good, but maybe just as huge. Australia is a big, bombastic throwback to grand ol’ Hollywood filmmaking, overflowing with everything Ozzie. If that’s a mouthful, wait till you see the rest of the movie. It’s 165 minutes long.

The most expensive movie ever made from Down Under is director Baz Luhrmann’s ambitious tribute to his beloved homeland, a tall tale that is both a sensational romance between an English aristocrat and a brutish cattle driver, and an over-the-top tour of Australia’s colorful past.

Film begins in 1939, the beginnings of World War II. Socialite Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) travels from London to Darwin to salvage her failing marriage and sell the cattle ranch owned by her husband. Her travel to the Northern Territories is facilitated by cattle driver Drover (Hugh Jackman) but on her arrival she finds her husband murdered, and the ranch, called Faraway Downs, in ruins.

Urged by the magical mysterious boy Nullah (Brandon Walters), Lady Sarah decides to revive Faraway Downs and enlists the help of Drover to manage the ranch. Lady Sarah has taken a liking for Nullah, who is the illegitimate son of an Aboriginal mother and a Caucasian father and has been in the hiding from the authorities who forcibly take half-breeds like him (called the Stolen Generation) to an isolated island run by missionary priests.

The film is an Ozzie version of a country Western where the sophisticate learns the severe conditions of the outbacks. Lady Sarah becomes a full-fledged rancher, even as she falls into the charms of hunky Drover as they drive 1,500 head of cattle to the port of Darwin across barren desert and deadly terrain. Before they can even sell their beef, their story has its enemies, they are King Carney (Bryan Brown) and his henchmen led by Fletcher (David Wenham), who run the largest cattle ranches that side of the world. Of course Carney won’t let Sarah bite on his heels that easily.

Just when you think that part of the story gets finished, the Japs come bombing Darwin. There’s still another 30 to 40 minutes before the movie ends.

It is a stretched narrative, maybe sprawling but not epic, full of melodramatic flourishes but uncomplicated, as expansive as the terrain captured by Luhrmann’s sweeping vistas. Kidman and Jackman share comfortable chemistry, most of the time comical, and yet the romance is acceptable. Sarah’s maternal attachment to Nullah is one of the cores of the film, and Walters provides that necessary magic to make us understand why Sarah cares for him.

Visually excessive yet narratively shallow, it is no different from “old” films our generation calls simplistic and melodramatic. This is Luhrmann’s physicalization of the metaphor of Oz, the reason that other classic The Wizard of Oz pops into Australia’s branchy story every now and then. If only Australia ended soon after they returned home.

Last notes: curiously, the final musical notes as Australia fades to black are from Edward Elgar’s 1899 classic orchestration Enigma Variation #9, called “Nimrod,” referring to Elgar’s best friend Augustus Jaeger. Jaeger and Nimrod both mean “hunter.”

(ADDENDA)

Even at 500 words, I still manage to miss mentioning a few points in the print version of the review. I must volunteer a few more observations.

The main reason I think that Australia is a throwback to old Hollywood is Kidman’s Lady Sarah. I believe Ms Kidman to be an intelligent and capable actress, and the impish, uncomfortable, singular-minded Sarah she puts onscreen can only be a reflection of Vivien Leigh’s Scarlett O’Hara or Katharine Hepburn’s Rose Sayer in The African Queen. Or any of the ladies from our old black-and-white Sampaguita or LVN pictures. It’s like that. Her Sarah is not entirely her own, half of it is dictated by Luhrmann’s tone. And it’s like that because the entire movie is like that – an old movie, but in gorgeous color.

I miss mentioning the other narrative of the film – Nullah’s struggle to find and assert his own identity, at the time other children like him are treated by the whites as aberrations of humanity that must be “corrected” and isolated from the rest of society. In the end, with the help of Sarah’s and Drover’s affections, Nullah embarks on his Walkabout. Newcomer Walters does his magical act more than just fine.

The first half of the film (right after they come back to Faraway Downs after driving the 1500 head of cattle to Darwin) is rousing cheesy romance, but still a romance. After that, the movie reverts to large doses of teledrama revenge storytelling, especially with Fletcher, performed by Wenham who feels unsure of how to tackle the role between caricature and character.

We often describe old film romances and cowboy adventures as “corny” or “melodramatic” or unsophisticated in today’s terms. Is Australia corny? Yes. Is it melodramatic? Absolutely. The same things can be said about Australia, because it is exacly that – an old-style film romance and cowboy adventure, with a little magic spice sprinkled inbetween. Seen in that perspective, Luhrmann was successful with his treatment. His grave excess was the long running time.

Float like a butterfly
Review by Vives Anunciacion
Inquirer Libre January 26, 2009

The Secret Life of Bees
Directed by Gina Prince-Bythewood
Based on the novel by Sue Monk Kid
Showing exclusively at Glorietta and Greenbelt Cinemas

Call this a comfort movie for the cold season. The weather is getting cold again. The Secret Life of Bees is an emotionally earnest, simple coming of age drama about women, for women, by women.

Set in 1964 rural South Carolina right about the time racial tension was at its highest and the Civil Rights Act was just signed into Law by Lyndon Johnson, the story of “Bees” is about a young girl’s search of her mother’s past life, kept secret by an abusive father. Sometime at the beginning of the movie (and therefore it is not a plot spoiler if I reveal it) fourteen-year-old Lily (Dakota Fanning) reveals the reason for her emotional journey – “I killed my mother when I was four years old,” Lily says, “that’s all I know about myself.”

Lily runs away and leaves her father T. Ray (played by Paul Bettany) and their small peach orchard. Accompanied by her nanny Rosaleen (Jennifer Hudson), they travel across the state to Tiburon, where Lily thinks her mother stayed before she died. They are taken in by the Boatwright sisters who keep a bee farm (August, played by Queen Latifah, June, played by Alicia Keys, and May, played by Sophie Okonedo). There in the loving care of the Boatwright’s pink house, the once-emotionally distant, secretive and terrified Lily blooms into a happy, lovely, independent-minded young lady.

I haven’t read the book, which means I can’t make a comparison. If you liked Divine Sisters of the Ya Ya Sisterhood, you’ll probably like this one too. In fact you may need a couple of folds of tissue with “Bees.” I didn’t like Ya Ya Sisterhood, but it’s more a matter of taste than a measure of technical excellence.

In that area of filmmaking I find director Gina-Prince Bythewood’s visual composition simplistic (I think the more appropriate description is tableau-ish) and I was particularly disturbed by the editing’s emotional truncating. Sometimes an act starts or ends abruptly, but there seems to be no philosophy behind the matter.

Individually, performances by Latifah, Keys, Okonedo, Hudson and Bettany are inconsistent, most of the time hit and miss. Sometimes they’re ok, sometimes just blah. But together they share good chemistry, which is why, simplistic as the movie feels, the story comes out honest and truthful.

Fanning, no longer the little girl she was in I Am Sam, no more confirms that she is a future star in the making – she is a thoroughbred actor. I know for a fact that it’s difficult to film a breakdown scene, but she seems to have handled this very well, even if her most important line (“I’m unlovable”) drowns a little under her tears. But this young woman can teach over-actors a lesson or two about internalization.

I want to be clear that the film is good enough. It has good moments, maybe not great ones. But like Fanning’s performance that’s one level short of being nomination-worthy, “Bees” is just good enough but not great enough, even if points indicate that it could have been so.

Yes we can
Rebyu ni Vives Anunciacion
Inquirer Libre January 22, 2009

Yes Man
Direksiyon ni Peyton Reed
Inspired by the memoirs of Danny Wallace

Presidente na si Barack Obama, kaya makisama na sa pagdiriwang ng mga Amerikano sa pagsambit ng, “Yes we can” para sa pagbabagong buhay, lalu na kung puros “no, no, no” ang sinasabi mo last year.

Sa Yes Man, kaka-divorce lang ng loan bank officer na si Carl (Jim Carrey) sa kaniyang asawang si Stephanie (Molly Simms) kaya buong araw siyang nagpapaka-killjoy, nagmumukmok sa bahay, sa opisina hanggang sa pag-uwi. Tuwing iimbitahin siya ng best friend niyang si Peter (Bradley Cooper) sa mga gimik nila, pahirapan pa. Sa lahat ng tanong, “no” ang sagot ni Carl, at mukhang hindi siya masaya sa buhay niya.

Sa pilit ng ilang kaibigan, isang trip sa self-help seminar ni New Age guru Terrence Bundley (Terrence Stamp, yung gumanap na General Zod sa Superman 2) ang magta-transform sa dating “no man” na Carl na maging “yes man” – yes sa lahat ng oportunidad na humarap sa kaniya.

Mismong pagkatapos ng seminar, domino effect ang swerte na darating kay Carl. Ang highlight ay nang makilala niya ang kakaibang si Allison (Zooey Deschanel), at hindi magtatagal ay mahuhulog ang kanilang damdamin sa isa’t isa. Siyempre may catch – eventually Carl will realize na may katumbas na halaga at responsibilidad ang lahat ng bagay na sagutin ni Carl ng “yes,” lalu na yung mga bagay na may kinalaman kay Allison.

Nakatatawa pa rin si Jim Carrey kahit na medyo gasgas na ang mga gags ng Yes Man. Hindi na ito naiba sa mga dating niyang komedya na Liar, Liar at Bruce Almighty, kung saan malalagay ang karakter niya sa isang sitwasiyong hindi niya malusutan kung hindi niya lalampasan ang ilang test. In fairness walang toilet humor sa Yes Man, at naroon pa rin yung brand ni Carrey ng physical humor na nagpasikat sa kaniya. Pinakanakakatawa ang eksena sa building na nag-gitara si Carl. Alam niyo na yun pag pinanood niyo ang pelikula.

Wala akong feelings sa message ng pelikula na live life to the fullest – siguro dahil ilang beses ko na itong narinig. Hindi ko sinasabing mali iyon, sinasabi ko lang na gasgas na ang mensahe. Pero ang nakabawi sa kakornihan ng mga joke sa Yes Man ay yung mellow romance sa pagitan nina Carl at Allison, na mas naging heart-warming sa warmth ng pagkaganap ni Deschanel. Pasado ang pelikula if we consider it a romantic comedy instead of just a comedy. Agaw eksena rin ang veteran kontrabidang si Stamp, who’s amusing to watch making a fun of himself. Kung si General Zod ang self-help guru mo, makakatanggi ka ba sa kaniya?

May kaunti pang katatawanan hanggang sa gitna ng end credits, kaya huwag kaagad aalis ng sinehan. Kung alam mong maiinip ka lang this coming weekend, you have the option of saying yes to Yes Man, but you can also say yes to other things. The important thing is that you do something, rather than nothing.

Gerapatani
Rebyu ni Vives Anunciacion
Inquirer Libre January 16, 2009

Bride Wars
Directed by Gary Winick

Eto ang nangyayari when an old idea gets overworked. Every year, merong isa o dalawang comedy na targeted sa female viewers, pero dahil masyado na sigurong madalas kaya nauubos na ang mga ideas. Ok lang kung kakatawa talaga ang palabas. Sa pagkakataong ito, medyo lang.

BFF since childhood sina Liv (Kate Hudson) at Emma (Anne Hathaway), at pareho silang nangangarap ng magarbong June wedding sa sikat (at mahal) na The Plaza Hotel sa New York. Nang magkataong halos sabay mag-propose ang kanikanilang boyfriend, agad nilang kinuha ang services ng pinakasikat na wedding planner na si Marion St. Claire (Candice Bergen).

Magsisimula ang gera ng best friends nang dahil sa isang clerical error ng secretary ni Marion; sabay na mabu-book on the same day ang kasal ni Liv at Emma sa The Plaza. Siyempre hindi uurong ang power attorney na si Liv, at lalong hindi patatalo ang matagal nang nagtitimping schoolteacher na si Emma.

Ang labas, agawan ng bridesmaids, patalbugan ng presentation at pagandahan ng trahe.  Kung dati Best Friends Forever, ngayon para silang Hamas at Israel sa Gaza, at nasa crossfire ang fiancé ni Liv na si Daniel (Steve Howey), fiancé ni Emma na si Fletcher (Chris Platt) at ang younger brother ni Liv na si Nate (Bryan Greenberg). 

Kung napanood niyo ang trailer, yun na yun. Andun na lahat yung buong pelikula. As far as performance is concerned, Hudson is at ease doing comedy. She only needs to smile and the screen warms up, even if she has bad hair and make-up. Hudson gets all the funny lines because she can pull them off, di gaya ni Hathaway na parang hindi pa sanay kahit may ilang comedies na siya (Princess Diaries 1 & 2, Devil Wears Prada, Get Smart).  One joke in particular falls flat (yung kinukwento niya kay Fletcher tungkol sa mga cheerleaders).

Yung kakulangan ng comedy sa side ni Emma ang dahilan sa aking palagay kung bakit binigyan ng siya ng “sidekick” na dysfunctional co-worker played by a known comedienne (Kristen Johnston) at ng minor plot tungkol sa romantic inclinations ni Nate sa kaniya. But the story is really about the strength of relations between best friends Liv and Emma and not about Liv’s younger brother Nate, which is why I think the small plot about the brother is irrelevant.

I seriously think pwede sana si Fil-Am Alec Mapa (who appears in Ugly Betty as showbiz reporter Suzuki St. Pierre) sa role na wedding planner, baka naging nakakatawa pa yung character ni Marion. I found the reactions of the guys totally realistic, dahil na-experience ko na yung mamagitan sa away ng mag-best friend na babae. Pero kung bakit hindi na lang tinuloy na comedy ito ng isang double wedding, hindi ko alam. Lumalabas kasi na napakababaw ng dalawang matalinong babae na pag-awayan ang petsa ng kanilang kasal, lalu na kung tutoong mag-best friend sila.

Sabi ni Liv sa dulo ng movie, “This fight is ugly.” I almost said the same thing about Bride Wars, but it’s really not entirely terrible. Medyo lang. Sometimes it’s funny. But it’s better if women bring their girlfriends instead of their boyfriends to see this movie, kasi, the sight of bridezillas can be horrific to potential grooms.