Posters are intriguing, mind-boggling, and most of all crazy. Since films are made of hundreds of thousands of still images, posters are only made by a single picture. The hardest, harshest, and critical part in making a poster for a movie is that everything should be there; the general tone, mood, feel, and all major elements should be consolidated and at the same time should cohere to one another and at the same time catch the attention of people for it to sell, totally advertising in a sense. That is why some movies have more than one poster, usually they have two, but others even have new versions everytime they show the film in different countries. That is why I collected a list of all the movie posters that caught my attention renting them in my favourite video shop and watch them. Though some posters are better than the movie and vice versa, posters are a fantastic part of any film. In fact, I even want to see a Best Poster award included in award giving bodies for films.
1. Sophie Scholl--The Final Days (Marc Rothemund/Germany/2005)
2. Departures (Yojiro Takita/Japan/2008)
3. Burn After Reading (Coen Brothers/USA/2008)
4. The English Patient (Anthony Minghella/USA/1996)
5. Rang de Basanti/*Paint it Saffron (Rakeysh Omprakash/India/2006)
* English Transalation
6. Nuovomundo/*The Golden Door (Emanuele Craisele/Italy/2006)
7. Little Miss Sunshine (Jonathan Dayton & Va\lerie Faris/USA/2006)
End of the world is the end of all the splendour, advancement, beauty, love and even the evil of all living beings who have stepped foot on the 197,000,000 square mile total surface of the earth. Among the infinite number of the souls who have been able to do so, “Knowing” focuses on a father William (Nicholas Cage), an astrophysics professor who learned about a prophetic code leading to what everybody won’t wish to ever occur—the end of the world.
After finding out that the numbers on a weird student Lucinda’s drawing 50 years ago from the school where his son Caleb is now studying has an astonishing correspondence to the dates, number of casualty, and location of the world’s major terrifying disasters, he is set to at least do something. But though proven that a man couldn’t alter a prophecy unless you are Jesus Christ; he has seen a plane crash and witnessed in his disposal the literally burning and pleading for desperate help passengers; and also, he is one of those who have survived a dreadful railway accident killing hundred of lives after being unsuccessful keeping the prophecy latent. But the final one of these prophetical code is much worse, a tragedy that is apocalyptic, a solar flare so tremendous that it will engulf the planet with the sun’s overwhelming power of fire, thus wiping away the face of the earth. William though has learned that Lucinda was trying to communicate a safe place before the final catastrophe happens.
They say that things come in threes, and that comes here in the movie: two calamities at first with increasing intensity and number of casualty and then finally the ultimate blow that will make everybody helpless. Alex Proyas, the director has provided us with a fake and a differential which has been a unique part of the film all throughout, and is a very fine technique of twisting a thriller plotted movie. The place crash scene has quite a generic look and feel for a suspense film—the rains, the dark clouds, running people, despicable plane debris, and the haunting hum of dying people, but the introduction of the scene from the part where William is still on the car worried about the traffic, minding the numbers on Lucinda’s paper, and seeing them at the navigator of his car, then he steps out of car where he can see police officers attending or guarding something that is not really known. That point of uncertainty swallows up our nerves to an abyss of terror and then a plane came from nowhere swooshing right in front of the troubled William and all of the deposited anxiety at what we thought has already happened scuttles with the crashing plane and found ourselves in a painting of sorrow, disappointment, fear, and danger. There is also a fake and differential scheme in the second one—the train accident. William has called the police and informs them that something wrong might happen in a particular corner of the busy city of Manhattan, but like what a usual saviour experiences, no one will believe him. He sees a suspicious guy and he follows him until the subway only to find out that he is only a DVD thief, and that couldn’t really lead them to a monstrous incident. Until the moment they realized that in the subway they are all in, a derailment has just occurred and now everybody’s lives are then at stake.
While William is moving heavens and earth just to solve a worldwide concern, his son has been hearing whispers since they learned about the prophetical codes. With the whispers come a group of vampire looking people, pale-skinned, blonde, and whimsy. These people or entities pretending to be human beings are annoying and kills the film’s very pop culture subject matter. Probably, with the popularity of freaking vampires out of the overrated Twilight series, they thought that vampires or at least vampire-looking anthropometric figures could adjoin sleek elements to an already promising movie. A petty and pitiful surmise though it has proven because it made the film pathetic and desperate for inter-textual congeniality. The worse is, the rest of the film is great less that part. But the worst of them all, the function of these vampire scamps is so ambitiously gorgeous. They are actually extra-terrestrial life form aiming to send a couple of human beings to another planet where everything could be started anew, and in which case Caleb will serve like the earth’s Adam. I find it a serious problem that these “aliens” don’t appear as cinematic as they are supposed to be considering the grandeur of their matrix. The whispers the kids are hearing adds a great coherence to the genre especially with the darkness-in-the-forest visual template the cinematographer creates. The inclusion of this side-thrill gives an interesting intonation that cleverly supports the major structural narrative thread of “Knowing”. That scaffolding even though noticeable, but since it is annoying prevents me from having a serious read of it and yet at the end redeems itself for the very well, astute manipulation of the audience’s reactions.
The cinematography at times is breathtaking, especially the two last major scenes at the end of it: first, the scene where the young supposed Adam and Eve running at the eternity of the new beginning, where everything is just perfect, the visual tone, the rhythmic pace, the musical accompaniment, the costume design, and total outlandish atmosphere; second, which I have mentioned above, is the scene where William and his family calmly wait for their last second, the everyday yellowish tone of a simple American home and an example of a usual grown-up family (old parents, middle-aged son, and young adolescent daughter) holding each other tight consolidate with the beauty of the sadness that will soon evolve to an adulterated form of beauty.
“Knowing” is quite similar with “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, both refer to the end of the planet in the presence of extra-terrestrial (though not as physically close with the late 90’s stereotype of ETs: big red eyes, huge heads, green-skinned, and others). The two have humanity/familial love at its emotional core, the basic difference between the two though is that “Knowing” is a hundred mile better than “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. Speaking of what a more realistic scenario is not quite the matter between the two, but to how much authentic extent the approach to the over-all atmosphere of these two films have been. Aside from the superiority of the special effects of “Knowing”, that actually makes the other film looks like having a special effect scarcity, the internal urgency of human change is so forced in “The Day the Earth Stood Still” like Helen (Jennifer Connelly) has been repeating the same line more than twice pleading to Klaatu (Keannu Reeves) that we can change. Two things I hate about that is that first it is desperate and second it is extremely desperate. That on the other hand is the exact reason why I love “Knowing”, the hearty component of it comes and flows as natural as it should be. Particularly in the part where William, together with his father, mother, and younger sister hug each other as they welcome (not just helplessly accept) the end of things, and the fires of the powerful sun eat up the once everlasting days of the earth. The scene is very sentimental, it is not scary, at most, I know the director together with the great help from its cinematographer and musical scorer wants it to be like that. A film that will capture love amidst the most feared catastrophe, a premise that M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Signs” awfully and frantically tries to be, this movie is a post-thrill strategized piece resorting to a peaceful and sentimental solemn and ultimate moments.
The Diamond Star playing the “Inang Yaya” role despite her “Taray Queen” image, still manages to carry an excellent, emotionally- loaded, and unrelentingly passionate job. There could be no other better option for the role than her. In fact, I would even say that if there is only one Independent film Maricel Soriano could be leading then that is “Inang Yaya”, and the reason is simple, she is totally convincing. You won’t argue with me if I say that this movie gave her Best Actress nominations in FAP, FAMAS, URIAN, YCC and even winning the award in Golden Screen. The calmness, the posture, the projection of the voice, the timidity that is usually associated with the economic status of a person and the nature of her job sweetly uniting with the merged stereotypes of a mother and a ‘yaya’ elevates the very simple and almost uneventful narrative. Thus, I can say that the film is not imagining itself as something bigger than life but instead something as little and yet as loving as creating a ‘cupcake birthday cake’ for a stuffed toy, reprimanding over a 50-peso sticker, and crying because of an unappreciated pink and imitation rubber shoes, which nevertheless results to one of the most undemanding but satisfying films I’ve ever seen.
The cast is not just one of the strongest part of the film but actually, one of the strongest cast ever been done at least for me of course. Aside from the captivating performance of Soriano, the girls Tala Santos as Ruby, the dark-skinned and a little deprived from the comfort of being a rich kid and almost disheartened by the comfort of living in a big house and being friends with her mother’s ‘alaga’ Louise, played by Erika Oreta. Sunshine Cruz and Zoren Legaspi as the employer of Norma and parents of Louise are both cinematically believable transforming their sequences into familiar real-life images of a well-off workaholic couple.
The film is about the extension of a mother’s love, from her daughter to another one she has treated like a daughter as well. During Norma’s soliloquy at the late part of the film, when she is saying that when is asked who between her daughter Ruby and ‘alaga’ Louise she loves the more, the answer for her is that she doesn’t has to choose. She loves both of them and not because Ruby is her daughter (by blood, and all the legal and cultural connotations it may bring to it) doesn’t necessarily means she has to opt her, and that she loves Louise less because she is only an ‘alaga’ and not a real daughter. Another thing that is actually impressive about the film is that it is an aberrant one but still it manages to keep the non-conformist aspect of it in the heart-warming form and content of Inang Yaya.
Almost a realist approach, and understandable is the independent filmmaking technique of a single camera and less flashy camera movements, the film has a collected pace of the plot. Pablo Biglang-awa and Veronica Velasco understand how great the tendency of the film being a bore if not for the good and ardent handling of simple sequences and turn them into experiences that will make us appreciate the two sides of life: tiresome but loving working life of an adult person and the colourful and happy playing lives of children. To put it in other words—of one’s present and the reminiscing of her past, and of one’s present and ignorance of the future.
Inang Yaya is a simple and a beautiful piece of film. Subtle and smooth, the movie tells the story of being a mother times two. The ending where the family of Louise has to go to Singapore and say goodbye to Norma and Ruby punctuates not the love, but only it left the end open to whatever must be happening in the thereafter of a connection divided by seas and distinguished by two different lands. I do not wish to think of this as a reason to say that the mother should be with the daughter and therefore should be away from the ‘other’ daughter. The ending as I’ve mention is not the ending but rather a proof how great the times were when they were all been together, as well as reality is concerned.
Drag me to Hell is a distinctive post-modern fusion of horror films and something technologically youthful, like a video game, that makes almost every single sequence in this film demonically thrilling, dynamically accented, and crazily choreographed.
The title is literally the ultimate conclusion of the curse, the protagonist Christine (Alison Lohaman) is suffering. Inflicted by an odd old Mexican woman, Christine is forced to outplay the evil that is waiting for her to be dragged to the fires of hell.
I am extremely convinced that this film is a product of the continuously evolving aesthetics (visually, temporally) of human beings doing the more than a century craft of filmmaking. Its very youthful, very pop culture approach as if it is an adaptation of a certain video game gives the movie a way too original package in totality. It is not even a derivative of horror films that creates the same old eerie, disgust, and supernatural fear. “The Exorcist”, M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Sixth Sense”, and even Stanley Kubrick’s “The Shining”, these all time favourite and well-acclaimed horror films are all austere-atmosphered movies. Never a combination of horror and craziness has been this great, especially when you can think of the Scary Movie as its closest competitor. Drag me to Hell has just got the innovative horror, coalescing eerie places, creepy people (imps pretending to be people), tormenting evils, and combating them and artistically exaggerate everything with scenes originating from the usual purpose of disgusting people bringing real fear but were modified. Thus, using the same purpose, creating a knock-outing punch, the disgust didn’t generate the fear that has been generated by previous horror films we watch, instead, producing a relaxed fear and vivid satisfaction out of the crankiness that is poured.
Sam Raimi director of the Spiderman 1-3, and now the upcoming fourth, delivers a great piece of survival and salvation. The ground cracking in Satan’s scorching fire witnessed twice in the film (first, during the first encounter of the powerful medium (Adriana Barazza), and second during the end where Christine is swallowed up by it. Co-written by Ivan Raimi, the major twist happened when Christine thought that she can pass back the curse to the spooky woman who wreaked it out to her, but accidentally giving it to her boyfriend, which doesn’t mean she has passed it to him, rather unable to pass it to anyone until the time the blight will take place.
The people in the film are divided into two parts: the Americans and the non-Americans. Americans are the protagonists and her boyfriend, and her boss, which simply means the normal or the ‘main’ character. The non-Americans vary from one to another, the Chinese represented by the co-worker of Christine, who would do anything to get the promotion against Christine by all means. The Indian is represented by Rham, the fortune teller who tells her about what is haunting her. The Mexican is with Shaun San Dena, the medium who is supposed to free Christine from the evil of the curse, and of course the frightening old woman, Ganush, who imposed the demonic curse.
Supremely admirable and in every angle charming, Jay will surely keep me enthralled forever. So to speak, it is one of the best Cinemalaya has predestinedly produced and will give a mark in the exciting journey of Philippine independent filmmaking in the auspicious future of the country's national cinema. Winning the most important award, Best Film, at the 2008 Cinemalaya Awards side by side with a Best Actor award for the spellbinding performance of Baron Geisler, Jay is Francis Xavier Pasion's debut film.
Jay is an exciting story of a documentarist named Jay (Baron Geisler) who is moving heaven and earth to create an episode for their show about the poor victims of different crimes. He investigates, explores, and shoots the death, the burial, and how the family, relatives, and friends accepted the horrible fate of a gay man found dead by terrible stabs at his apartment in Manila, who is coincidentally his a namesake of him. This coincidence of similarities grows as the plot thickens, and eventually, and unfortunately, even is namesake's murder will be a similarity he would never ever wish. Formally rich, jay revolves around the narrative pattern of similarity and repetition which in a high degree is a docile yet effective technique of nailing the audiences' consciousness into engagement with the film. These resemblances of the two Jays: firstly their names, their sexual orientation, the mother's sentiment of seeing her deceased son into the documentarist Jay, and the comfortable moments of the living Jay with the dead Jay's ex-boyfriend are not superficially playing the mere purpose of feeding the assumption that men's minds work in approximations. Nevertheless, these witty analogical connections all lead to the final scene and implied ending—documentarist's death, which is the over-all and ultimate likeness of the two Jays. The indirect reference of the final sequence to death has an intrinsic and intertextual intelligence with Alejandro Gonzales Inarittu's “Babel”, where the final scene of the Japanese father embracing the barenaked daughter (Rinko Kikuchi) in their terrace as the camera movers back revealing the dark and beautiful modern Tokyo city at night suggests the somber sexual relationship of the two. This ending of Jay assumes an ending out of what the whole film convinces us to assume is at least on the film language, almost as good as that of Babel's ending, but beyond, in the language of what it speaks about gays in our society, it is actually has nothing quite new to add. As a matter of fact, it still submits to the long-time and repressed emancipation of the homosexuals. The film may actually say that any gay man has to be killed brutally, not even just simply die, but brutally. The implied resolution seems to play a safe statement and leaves the audience baffled whether we have to strip all the supporting elements of the narrative off our minds, violate film coherence and hope for a more queer-loving ending. At this point, I believe that Jay reports, more than it criticizes. That is why it borrows an external form of documentary films, to emphasize that it pretends not to be a solution to an elusive societal understanding of homosexuality but rather, like a documentary, reveals and presents reality and let the viewers do the rest. Aside from deconstructing or exposing the real notoriety of the manipulations of the famous media it likewise leaves very much open how gay men live in what is thought to be a less homophobic society.
Complementing the truth, the film Jay wants to achieve while the protagonist Jay tries to alter for cinematic purposes, is an ultra-realistic approach to the philosophy of filming it. The attracting silence, zero-musical scoring of the entire film, except the final cut of the documentary playing at the beginning of the film, expands the volume of its realism. The difference between the presence of music in the documented story airing on television and the absence of non-diegetic sounds at the whole process of the documentation distinguishes the boundary of what is purely real and what is the mediated real. The connection of the story to real events such as Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, and even Manny Pacquaio's fight also contribute to the achievement of the film's objective. The acting is as natural as it gets. Choosing amateur actors is a tried and tested formula to achieving realistic acting, but witrh crying sequences just like in jay, the purpose is not fully done, though it didn't cause much devastation to the whole. On the main hand, Baron Geisler is a flamboyant choice for the lead role. He for me is absolutely perfect for the role. I can't almost reckon that an actor so unfavorably known as bad, prodigal, and drunkard can play a gay role so well that every single bit of the tone of his voice and minute details of his mannerisms would totally oblige you to pay this actor the most towering respects. Coco Martin, who simply and quietly did his job plays the shy ex-boyfriend of the murdered Jay. This affectionate character is his comfort role. He does this type of character more convincingly and admirably than the fierce character he used to play in the T.V. Series “Tayong Dalawa”. Geisler's surprising and endearing femininity creates a good juxtapositional blending with Martin's timidity which glimmers commensally with the incandescent character of Geisler.
The cinematographic use of space in Jay is admirable. There are scenes where a frame is not totally consumed by the subjects and lately reveals the role of the empty space. In an early scene, the van of Channel where Jay is working for parks at the middle of the frame while the house of Jay's family in Bacolor occupies the right portion. A noticeable space at the left portion is then vacant, lately it serves as a space for Jay making a call for his producers. Another is observes when jay together with the mother of the victim jay is talking. There is a strikingly unused space in the composition where a cabinet is placed. Later, Jay finds photographs of the mourned Jay together with his ex-lover inside.
Undeniably engaging, Jay is a highly captivating film.
Screenplays adapted from stage plays do not usually display and flaunt flashy technicalities on the film, what they ostentatiously create for themselves however is a gaudy treasure of film actors performances. These films talk ravely, defiling any human attitudes, behaviors, and ideologies just as from where and what form they are borrowing the content. What films from theater can develop is the character's proximity to the much desired empathy from the audience through what films have and theater don’t—editing.
Doubt has really been interesting for two reasons: superb acting and the compelling conflicts. Meryl Streep plays Sister Aloysious Beauvier, a strict and conformist principal of St. Nicholas Church School. This Oscar-winning actress verifies all her awards and nominations under her name worthy of every single dime by rendering a frightening, unapproachable, austere and bigoted character. In fact, I even think that Streep has surpassed what Kate Winslet delivered in “The Reader” which for me, should mean another Oscar win for Meryl and none for Kate yet. He is just so dexterous, satisfying, and most importantly—true, all throughout the film. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Father Flynn, the beloved priests who Sister Aloysius insistently accuse of infringements, and implicitly personally dislikes. Hoffman, another Oscar-winning actor for his very memorable acting in “Capote” made Streep’s job and internalization very tractable. His pleasing aura gets more and more noble as his lovely character is being indicted, an artistic phenomenon only few are capable of. His voice carries with it a thundering authority that resounds through anxiety and fury in the most critical scenes of him with Streep. Amy Adams plays Sister James, an uncorrupted young nun who is tattered between the now loathsome result of what she innocently surmises and of the hopeful redemption of kindness and of elusive truth. Adams is tremendously mesmerizing. I succumb to her purity in acting. I do not wish to overstate, but she is really a conspicuous gem that shimmers alongside the veterans Streep and Hoffman. This demonstrates how adequate the screenplay is for no actors can absolutely be good out of a bad script.
The film is very character-driven and very conflict-based—very much a characteristic of plays. Doubt is made up of a human pageant of instinct which is an undoubtful uncertainty, of wishful judgment which is a doubtful uncertainty, and of the repressed truth which is an undoubtful certainty. This convolution of human disposition in a religious atmosphere comprises the good structure of its titular ‘Doubt’. Though it is not clear whether father Flynn is really the man that Sister Aloysius thinks he is, its resolution constrains us to muse over the severe nun bursting out in tears telling she has doubts of what she thought and ponder about the impeccant priest’s freeness from the tainted accusations. The film’s contents are fully honest and scrutinizing creating a paradox of honesty in a surmised foundation. This paradox surprisingly is present in every human beings in the world whether consciously or unconsciously and much as the film is concerned, it is one of the gravest loophole of our psyche.
Speaking of loopholes, I think that the underbearing part of Doubt is its vague and delayed establishment of the point of view and of the characters. Sister Aloysius only appeared after more than 15 minutes, as well as Father Flynn and Sister James. Given that the film is adapted from theater, we are expecting a lot of lengthy sequences that makes a couple of sequences look very long where we almost don’t keep in mind what previously established characters might be doing at the present time, or worse completely forget them and be surprised of their next appearance in the film. The film’s major objective and conflict only made sense only after 30 minutes or more, though it is forgivable by seeing brilliant actors on their top form even without any life-rending conflicts yet and you can also add tot hat a congruous cinematography of Roger Deakins, especially at the scenes at the church.
The film is a battlefield: first of creating an exceptional transformation of a stage play into silverscreen, which it kinda fell short of; and of a smashing, tenacious, and formidable personalities that Doubt absolutely achieves. Doubt, if not the best, is one of the best-acted Hollywood films just as much as I render it due.
Swimming polls killing people because of retaliating spirits is actually an impossible idea even if you ask seasoned spirit questors. Pools may be haunted but for them to engulf unfortunate human beings is only a cinematic exaggeration. This in reality makes Villa Estrella a real fictional-horror film. By that, it means that you don’t have to worry about what is happening in the film to happen as well once you find yourself amazed over a swimming pool. The film is made up of a typical ghost film plot and twisting it in ways where some is predictable others surprising and eventually end up in a way unconventional ending that though may cause unsatisfaction to normal audience, causes awe at least for me.
Ana (Shaina Magdayao) finds herself helpless against her ex-boyfriend, Alex (Jake Cuenca), with the permission of her dad Eddie (John Estrada) to e in a certain dilapidated resort called Villa Estrella that they have a plan to revive. Ana though having comfortable times with Mang Gustin (Ronnie Lazaro), Suzy (Rubi-Rubi), and Giselle (Maja Salvador/Eda Nolan), still can’t get easy with her ex-boyfriend’s manipulation, her father’s pressures, and the many weird things for her happening in the place: Jennifer (Celine Lim) talking to an invisible friend, Mang Gustin’s missing daughter, and her near death experience, almost drowning in the pool. Together with Dennis (Geoff Eigenmann) and Otap (Empoy Marquez), Ana makes an attempt to get out of the place but ends up staying the whole night after Otap can’t be seen anymore in addition to when she learns that her locket is no longer with her. The next day, Eddie and Dave (John Arcilla), fathers of both Ana and Alex respectively, arrive at Villa Estrella. Dennis, after searching friend Otap, learns about a certain Andrea buried under the swimming pool. Ana finds out that Giselle is not the Giselle she has known the day before but a ghost wanting to avenge her death. Ana learns that she is Andrea, the daughter of Mang Gustin. To her outmost surprise, Dave and her father, Dave, killed Andrea. Dave shots dead Dennis after knowing what he just discovered. Eddie is killed by Mang Gustin. Andrea tells Ana that she wants her body. After saying I can’t to what Andrea has just said, the latter vanished, and what appears to her at the neck of a statue towering the pool is her locket that her deceased mother gave her. In attempt to get the sentimental locket, the statue collapses, diving down the pool with Ana. After a year, Andrea has taken over Ana’s body without Mang Gustin and Alex knowing.
Villa Estrella is a little above average horror film. The screenplay is well thought of. The well-kept secrets and the horrifying process of their revelations are impressive. The swimming pool is a good metaphor of a buried secret that even after many years resurfaces terribly gruesome and thrilling. The twist that Maja is a spirit is not totally surprising especially with her unfathomable and stern looks. Living after The Sixth Sense has been released makes watching anything like this very easy to decipher. What is really unpredictable is her killers—the two fathers of the troubled Alex and Ana, where an early comment of Suzy about the two missing uncles of Alex said that men couldn’t last a night without women, which is what exactly Eddie and Dave did to Andrea. I love the fact many things in the film are well planted—Mang Gustin’s dead daughter, Suzy’s daughter, the locket, and even the kid ghost—Danica, though looking overrated with her shocking appearances without direct relationship to Andrea actually is a well planted element of the film for she diverts the audiences’ reading that Andrea is the real force of horror in the pool.
The film’s foxy handling of information is a good part of it. Maja Salvador’s acting is another one. Her acting is brilliant. In fact, the best I have seen from this young actress. Cabalistic enough to be suspicious, she creates a fountain of interest leading towards her. The scene where she is being drowned by John Estrada is the best part of the movie for her. she surely, as it shows, understands the word helpless—as it defines the scene explaining the mystery that impels everything. But what I really admire about the film is the surprising and unusual failure of the protagonists. Ana has three objectives: to stop Andrea's retribution, to get out of the shadows of her ex-boyfriend Alex, to be with Dennis, and even to get the found locket if you want to add, then make it four And she, completely achieved nothing, because aside from the very minimal, almost negligible efforts, all she did in the film is actually to walk-out, to run, and to escape. Andrea, the antagonist and supposedly the loser, wins the film. If we take a look at the people who died in the crucial night of Villa Estrella, we will see that Eddie and Dennis are both Ana's loved ones while those who survived, Mang Gustin, Alex, and Ana's body, are what Ana needs if she is to live in the person, in the life of, and in the body of Ana. This is an unusual ending, thoough not absolutely unusual for we see some similarities with Jun Lana's "Kulam" but this is something that you will not always see in Star Cinema.
The fortitude of Villa Estrella comes from its boldness (though not absolute) of rejecting a staple happily and victoriously ended horror films.
The year 2008 has added two horror films (“Kulam” and “Shake Rattle & Roll 10”) into the long list of Philippine horror movies--a genre that never failed to at least get back what the production companies have spent filming them. A number that is quite unimaginable for a country so fond of this type of films. This year, it seems that there is more faith to that assumption. Two months before closing the year, moviegoers have already seen two horror films in the local commercial line-up: GMA’s “Sundo” & “Patient X”, Regals’s “Tarot”, some independent production like “Manghuhula”, and Star Cinema’s “Villa Estrella” and “T2”
T2 is a riveting narrative of dilatory confrontations of our lives’ painful and unacceptable realities embellished with real accounts of supernatural encounters with engkantos researched during its concept development period. The movie tells the story of Claire (Maricel Soriano), a travel agency owner who volunteers in an organization that ensures that every orphan in their custody will have a family they will grow up with, being an orphan herself. Claire together with Elias (Eric Fructuoso), sends and accompanies an orphan named Angeli (Mica Dela Cruz) to a mentioned aunt in a certain tenement in Manila where the title T2 comes from. The journey back to Manila has been ensued by weird events while Claire continues to ignore Jeremy’s (Derek Ramsey) calls, being mad about Jeremy breaking up with her. At the tenement, Claire learns that the people who want to get Angeli as the girl has been trying to keep it herself are engkantos. She is a daughter of a human and an engkanto and her mom wants to get her but she has been convinced by her father never ever come together with her mom in due time. She has felt so much unforgettable love from her father, and from this is where she hold on tight to reject the grandeur, the immortality, and the heartlessness of her mother’s world. Claire with the help of a neighbor (Tetchie Agbayani), who also has a story to share about their magnificent civilization, she is left with few minutes to save Angeli from the eternal destitution of spirit.
The film is a beautiful delineation of a point in every person’s life where we want to escape but just could not possibly do so. The domination of journey in the film provides an easy picture of life superimposed with escape. This journey-horror theme is also something new. We always see horror films about vacations on places, going back to Manila, and going back again to the province after they experience inexplicable things they need to find answers before everything becomes late (“Ouija”, “Siquijor”), but seldom we do see a film that treats journey as an adornment to a horror story more than just a logical explanation of moving from point A to point B.
Clair is trying to get away from the painful break-up with her partner. We see the passion she has to the organization she is involved as she immediately find it as the first and probably only resort from her extreme disappointment. Her character sets aside her own horror by helping a little girl who also wishes to run away from her own horror. Unbeknownst to the two of them, they need one another to resolve each other’s problems. This has been exemplified in the scene where Claire realized that the reason why they have met is because they can fill each other’s long deprival—parents for Angeli and a daughter for Claire.
What I really like about the film is that it is not just a horror film that tries to disgust audiences with their gross monster’s clammy green saliva or to shock them with growling gruesome ghosts. I can actually label T2 as a drama-horror film more than a horror-drama movie. I felt the fear of the characters through their emptiness that surely will have no other means of filling it up but by the security of familial protection. I love the fact that the film is very Filipino—the mystique of the supernatural, the importance of a family, the drama, the horror, the tenement. This has even elevated the level of family in Philippine drama by affirming a family related by heart and not necessarily by blood.
A film will never be good or bad without the performances of the actors. Have they remained to the characterization faithfully, or have they been confused with the hundreds of characters they have been once with their actual selves? Are they convincing enough to love or to hate them, or at least empathize them? Maricel Soriano, is at least for me Philippine Cinema’s Meryl Streep (though she even have more acting awards than Streep). Soriano is an acting chameleon. I actually adore her. You can always see her do decent acting. In T2, Soriano is again consistent and strong. This is not her best nor her worst, though her worst is still better than other actor around. Mica Dela Cruz is a fantastic revelation. She has contributed so much to the suspension of disbelief in the film. This is a wonderful, commendable act for a child star giving quality support to a Philippine movie icon. Eric Fructuoso’s acting is also impressive. He doesn’t have any scene of ultimate moment in the film that you can see award giving bodies show in awards night as a nomination clip for acting, but he is faithful throughout. This is actually one of the reasons why I felt sad in his character has to die.
Oftentimes we hear stories about people who have been to that mystical world of engkantos telling of their blinding world. That might be the biggest challenge of mounting T2 I suppose. Practically, Philippine cinema can only achieve that by pure special effects. A third world country cinema can’t build phantasmagoric sets to depict such place, a sad reality but will continue to be a dram for film enthusiasts. Most of the special effects are awesome, something that you will be proud of. The façade of the palace where Claire stands before and the overview of the whole place at the background where fireworks are displayed are stunning amazing. For some time, I thought I was watching a Hollywood fantasy-adventure film. But nothing can just be perfect yet. Inside the palace, the design is still worth seeing but other production values wanes. The number of people/engkantos inside is very small, the central platform where the higher ranked engkantos are standing is also very small and uneventful looking, even the costumes are too simple for a place that is supposed to be fanciful. The cinematography and special effects at that point have seemed to overlook the phantasm of the scene. The lighting is very even, I can’t get out of my mind that the world I am seeing is just shot behind green screens. This could have been a scene where the best lightings could have been experimented and explored. This is what I love about “Pan’s Labyrinth”, where the cinematography and visual effects at the kingdom where Ofelia turns to be a princess is very immaculate. It just dramatically melts in your eyes like a chocolate melts in your mouth. But lingering the difference in the cinematography will be a waste of time, again this will remain a dream for future Filipino filmmakers.
T2 is a very good story, a good film, what it lacks is what a third world country cinema lacks—technological filmic advancement. But I definitely do not and will never condemn this for lacking that part because it has created an interesting mix of genre. The film is coherent with many elements that have something to do with journey. T2 for me is one of the better films our country ha produced at least for the year. Keeping the heart at the forefront while clinging to the horror that is economically and even artistically tested, T2 succeeds to show us that Philippine horror films are continuing to be original and that we can create them excellently and even more so with advanced filmmaking techniques/equipment in the future .
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (David Fincher/USA/2008)
A fantasy treated like a reality—this doesn’t always happen with the same ethereally dazzling result like David Fincher does it. Winning 3 Academy Awards—Best Art Direction, Best Visual Effects, and Best Make-up, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button grabs what they just deserve by bringing in the screen an incredible story captured in a sophisticated, classy, and grand cinematography and a production design superbly done. The movie is an affirmation of of human interaction with people and what these people do as brought upon by a very significant and vital element of life and of the film—time.
The film follows the unusual and even grotesque life of Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) who is born looking like an 80 year old man. He is abandoned by his father and adopted by Queenie (Taraji Henson) who attends a home care for the old men and women to whom Benjamin seems to be just one. He grows older, but looks younger. He learns more but looks less old. He meets Daisy (Cate Blanchett) at the shelter, they become friends and will eventually be together. After they leave each other for personal pursuits, they finally decided to live together, this time looking more of the equal age. They are given a daughter but Benjamin is not prepared to be a father in the state of his bizarre condition. He leaves Daisy and their daughter, asking his wife to look for a normal father that will give their daughter a normal life. The next time Daisy meets Benjamin, he looks much younger while she looks much older, and their daughter already grown up very loving of her known father. Benjamin continues to get old and yet look very young. He dies a baby being cradled in the arms of the old Daisy.
Time is the core of this film. It explores an extraordinary reverse life process of a man creating pumping curiosity. There is no need finding logic or exhausting our faculties for answering such curious case because what we need to find is a heart that can understand what the intellect can not answer. The heart of a single moment is the purpose of that exact moment. We may unconsciously appreciate it but our hearts do consciously so. The turnaround of Benjamin’s life—growing young instead of growing old is only physical; and it is the matrix that provides us with the explanation that human beings do what they can possibly do and that human beings are just generally the same—that we all pass through life whether we grow old or grow young physically.
Where it gets most of my veneration for the film is its technical elegance. A visual achievement definitely made possible by its shimmering visualization, remarkable make-up, and startling effects. The classy feel from all the flashback scenes blend with the grandeur of its production values. While I am blown away by its excellent visuals, I am bothered though by some of its parts. I have always had a problem with films trying to tell a life-long story in a film. There are times that the three hour narrative justifies the 70 year story or more but there are also some that doesn’t. I think that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is one of those. I think this is due to the seemingly rushed ending and prolonged beginning of the film that makes the time frame distorted. Since the most important part of the film, at least for me, happens in the point where Benjamin is to leave his family, the concentration of actions and time should have happened also in that later part of the film. There are also points in the film where I can’t let go of my adoration to the film because there is a feeling of awkwardness that draws me back. I materialize that awkwardness in the realistic treatment of the film that is really fantastic. I can’t say that even with the likes of Fincher, this type of approach always works. The sensitivity that you see something you know will never happen in the real world devised that it really does happen somewhere and sometime consists of that awkwardness.
Nevertheless, the film is still a first-class film. I f you set your mind to thinking that the purpose of a film is to let you visualize strange stories you will never ever witness yourself, then this film has absolutely done its purpose. The curious Case of Benjamin Button’s filmic excellence is completely enough for you to see this Oscar multi-nominated work of creativity.
