MMFF 2012: Sisterakas

SISTERAKAS (2012)

d. Wenn Deramas

p. Star Cinema

c. Ai-Ai delas Alas, Vice Ganda, Kris Aquino

Pitch: Half-siblings get separated and lead different lives. They meet again as clashing adults. Tapos may isang entity na sumisingit sa kuwento na wala namang rele. Si Kris Aquino ‘yun.

Catch: Halatang tinipid ang prod, and of course if it’s from Direk Wenn, there must be a DJ Durano in here!!! Lech.

 

‘Yung wala naman talaga akong balak pag-aksayahan ng pera ang pelikulang walang kuwenta sa akin dahil sa mga past works ng mga involved dito. Ilang beses na ba naming inokray nirebyu ang mga pelikula ni direk Wenn? Na di ko na talaga alam kung ano pa ang mga katuturan ng ilan sa kanila. Heniwey tapos andyan pa si Kristeta na ang huli pa yatang good performance niya ever ay ang ummmm hmmmm FATIMA BUEN STORY? Pinanganak ka na ba nung pinalabas ‘yun? Ewan ko ba. Hayst.

Anyway wala akong choice kundi panoorin ito kasi andito si Ate Ai-Ai at si Vice. Na sila lang naman talaga ang tumawid ng kuwento dito, na medyo lame-o na rin naman. Kebs na sa pagka lame-o, kasi produkto na naman ito malamang ng Star Cinema kind of meddling the story brainstorming. Been there been that! But anyway, may saysay sana ang kuwento in fairness kung ginawa na nilang uber-camp sana ito. ‘Yung todo na sa pagkaka-satire sana sa kung anuman ang sina-satire sana nila dito. Ibig sabihin, sana tinodo na nila ang pagkaka-lampoon nila sa kulturang ito ng fashyown-fashyown, sa katatawanan o humor, at kung anupaman.

Eh ang kaso, wala, typical movie story lang ito of rags to riches kuning then ex-rags turned riches now fights ex-riches turned rags. Or something. Actually, ni hindi nga klaro kung bakit imbey ang character ni Vice sa character ni Ai–Ai, ‘yung exacting revenge type of imbey na dahil pinabayaan nito daw ang nanay ni Vice noong bata pa sila eh napilay and such. Whatevs! Hindi klaro ang mga motibasyon ng karakter na gawin ang mga ginagawa nila sa buhay teh. Wafung itey.

Pero mas wafung ang istilo ng pagpapatawa nila. Kadalasan, self-referencing na naman ang moda ng mga taga-Star kung magsulat ng script. Meaning kung di mo alam kung ano ang mga lintek na TV shows ng mga artistang ito, kung di ko alam ang mga latest commercials nila (lalo na ‘yang lintek na rubadabango potang ‘yan) at kung di mo alam ang latest chismax sa mga love life nila (lalo na ‘yang lintek na hiwalayang James Yap na ‘yan), hindi ka matatawa sa karamihan ng real-life references ng mga jokes sa pelikulang ito. Same old same old, Star. Chakaness.

Pero I swear, kung wala ang mga hirit-banat ni Vice dito, waley itong film na itich. ‘Yung mga one-liner hirit niya na tulad ng nasa PETRANG KABAYO dati, ganun. Lintek, nakakatawa!!! ‘Yun lang ang keri dito, saka ‘yung pagpapatawa din ni lola Ai-Ai mo. ‘Yun lang. Kaya ‘yung character ni Kris dito, puwede nang itapon. Palitan na lang ng iba, tipid pa sa TF.

Speaking of tipid, ito rin ang isang imbey sa production mismo. Halatang tinipid nila ito. As in haller, may isang eksena dito na ‘yung potangenang PE tshirt nina Daniel Padilla ay potangenang plain white shirt lang na potangenang dinikitan lang ng potangenang sticker(!!!) ng school logo. Potangenah!  Ginagago niyo ba kami!??! Halata siya!!! Tengeneng trabahong tamad.

That stupid PE tshirt. Yes isyu sa ‘kin ‘yan!

Hay naku. Tapos may mga linya pang obvious na self-mocking ang Kristeta sa mga maraming bagay patungkol sa kanya. Di kinaya ng powers ko ‘yung unang bungad niya na parang “this is worse than a Kris Aquino horror film” ba ‘yun or something? Leche, self-deprecating humor doesn’t become her. Huwag na muling subukang sulatin; nakamamatay.

Ewan. Labo. Hayst buti na lang talaga andun ‘yung humor ni Vice Ganda. For that, naisalba. As for naitawid, o siya sige, highest grossing film siya chenes. Kayo na. Kung gagawa kayo ng sequel, utang na loob paki-chugi na ‘yung character na walang silbi.

At bumili ng totoong potangenang PE tshirt! Lech.

Next!

of wrong timings and wasting time

Cinema-watching, for me, is not really a waste of time as some people treat it. Kanya-kanyang habit lang iyan, I suppose. We all have our favorite ways of spending our time or we have techniques in wasting time. Walang basagan ng trip, ‘ika nga.

But it’s a totally different thing if a film wastes my time. Of course it’s not guaranteed that all films that look promising will make it worth your while. Some are truly time-wasters. But there are also those you will value for a long time.

Anyway enough segue. Here are two samples of how I spent my time one rainy evening in Cubao, while waiting for traffic to subside (which, in Metro Manila, is a loooong time).

Heniweyz…

PRAYBEYT BENJAMIN (2011)

d. Wenn Deramas

p. Star Cinema and Viva Films

c. Vice Ganda and a bunch of talents that appear as stringers in local cinema, meaning they string along as a cast of an ensemble to pad the story even if it’s not necessary

Pitch: an openly swishy gay man turns discreetly closeted, but not really, when he enters the military in order to represent his father and continue their heroic (read patriarchal) family lineage in combat

Catch: I sincerely hope the makers of this movie know that Goldie Hawn has a Private Benjamin film in the ’80s. If this is where they got the title, they need to buy a new pair of things needed in this industry, namely creativity and imagination.

I don’t know why I wasted my time watching this film. Maybe it’s out of curiosity. I like Vice Ganda’s humor which I saw on film for the first time in the PETRANG KABAYO remake. I found that totally funny even if it was ludicrous. But somehow, this time, this film doesn’t do it for me.

Sure, it’s a comedy not to be taken seriously, but lately, Philippine cinema doesn’t know how to do funny comedies anymore. They’re all crass, pander to the lowest of the low, full of cheap thrills for a few laughs. In short, we’ve lost the intelligent kinds of comedies. And I don’t mean lowbrow; what I mean is comedy that really makes us laugh because the humor is in the situation, and it’s not even pure slapstick. Something like that.

Sadly, this BENJAMIN film doesn’t cut it for me. Aside from having such a silly plot (simple doesn’t mean silly; this here is just plain pffft) of having the country under the rule of rebels who want to kill the top generals of the land that every misfit imaginable in crass cinema fare (don’t even get me started on characterizations) had to be drafted, the film carried very outdated views on being gay. Of course they milked this for whatever it’s worth, using it as a major plot device to heighten the dramatic irony of the plot, but it’s also dangerous because they’re propagating homophobia once again. I mean sure, the gay guy saves the day in the end, but to reflect deeper, quieter realities that discriminate against gay guys is just the pits.

What I’m talking about here is the fact that, in the end, the gay guy’s love interest — a hunky straight man (Derek Ramsay) — reveals that he has a girlfriend, and that girlfriend looks a lot like Benjamin (actually, it’s Vice dressed as a woman playing a woman). When Benjamin asked why his captain chose to be with this woman which looked like him instead of just choosing him, the captain answered “Because she’s a woman!” So dahil may keps and boobs ang babae, kahit kamukha siya ng gay guy, doon na ang het guy. How progressive. Please lang. Stop spreading this shit that LGBTQs are doomed because, in the end, the people they fall in love with will eventually end up with straight people din naman. How irritating.

What’s also irritating is the fact that the pa-macho lesbian is being promoted here. Not all lesbians are like that. This is also a step backward but hell, the pa-macho lesbian was more accepted in the military than the pa-girl gay man. Can you spell patriarchy? Sumasakit bangs ko sa pelikulang ito, sa totoo lang.

Another disappointing thing in this film is perhaps the humor. I don’t know if Vice Ganda is already overexposed on television, but I find the style waning na in punch. Or maybe that’s just me. With the ticket sales skyrocketing, I guess there are more people who enjoy his brand of comedy now more than ever. But that’s also cool. Maybe this part is just me. But that’s also why I’m worried, because as popular as this film is becoming, so is the spreading of discriminatory plot lines about gays and lesbians. Hay naku bakit pa ba ako naninibago? But the thing is, I sincerely hope that filmmakers become more responsible next time. It’s just sad because maybe they also carry the same prejudices in their body. I just hope they keep it to themselves na lang.

Anyway, win some, lose some. While that was such a freaking time-waster for me, this next one was not.

IN TIME (2011)

d., s. Andrew Niccol

dop. Roger Deakins

Costume design. Colleen Atwood

c. Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried

Pitch: In the not-so-distant future, people need time stamped on their being as currency to stay alive and buy things, but what happens if one gets an overload of time, and one runs out of time?

Catch: Nothing!!!!!! This film is plain awesome! Why wasn’t it hyped up!

And this is why I love this film: THE TRUMAN SHOW, GATTACA, S1M0NE, THE TERMINAL, LORD OF WAR. The dude who directed this film wrote all of those earlier films, which I happen to like a lot, especially THE TRUMAN SHOW and GATTACA. Are you freaking kidding me! Whoever could think up of such set-ups is plain brilliant for me.

Gosh, opening sequence pa lang, I already love the concept — people stop aging at 25 years. Once it kicks in, they are time-stamped, literally, on their arm, to reflect how much time they have remaining on earth. Once they reach 25, they’re given one more year lang. Thus, they have to work on it, like hard labor or stuff, and they get paid in time (haha gives a whole new meaning to working time and a half and such!). So of course they also use time to pay for stuff, like “How much is a bus fare?” “Two hours.” And if you didn’t have that much time, you’re doomed. Galing!!!! To use time as currency like that! Sheer genius.

I am completely blown away by such concepts because I always like concepts that play around with time, especially messing with it hehe or toying with it like in time travels and such. Plus I also have a similar concept in development (er, for years now) which also tells of playing with time just like this film. Grabe, I should finish writing that concept na! Hehe.

Anyway, I also liked the idea that people run out of time, literally, and they die if they do. The there’s also that concept of having people — Big Brother types — control how much time a person could trade around, kinda like oligarchs of time, to which Seyfried’s character belongs: the rich and the elite. Then we have Timberlake’s proletariat working class character who lives in a second-to-second kind of existence, because having one whole day’s worth is actually a luxury. This is where the concept of “I don’t have time” kicks in, especially when it’s taken both literally and figuratively, especially when Timberlake’s character Will Salas says that he doesn’t have time to fall in love or have a girlfriend. Oo nga naman, you’re dying and you have a girlfriend pa — time waster! Haha! Wagi lang.

Anyway, the premise and act one is interesting enough, but then here’s the inciting moment that changes everything: Will helps a stranger in a bar and in return, the stranger gives him a century. Yes, you can live forever in this concept since if you have much time on your hands, er, arm pala, then you’re set for life. But it also makes you suspicious because people can give each other time and people can also steal time from each other (by locking wrists).  Grabe, take away one’s time, literal! Sobrang benta ang concept na ito!

And then it gets complicated as Will crosses specific time zones where you have to pay for each boundary you cross, kind of like economic zones in a way, since you need more currency to pass through each one, the higher the zone, the higher the pay. So his goal is to reach the top zone where the rich people are (to discover how to redistribute the wealth–or time–which the stranger said the oligarchs are controlling), and one girl, Sylvia (Seyfried) notices it, also some of the workers in this rich zone. How could they tell that he doesn’t belong there? Because he moves too fast, always rushing as if he’s running out of time (which he is, in his lower class existence experience). But these rich people have lots and lots and lots of time on their hands, so they have time to take things slow, move slower, stuff like that. Wagi lang sa concept, teh!!! I tell you, I was so engrossed in this film’s details that I forgot to eat my obligatory chichirya hehehe. Yes, that’s how good this film is!

What I like about a film that has some sci-fi bent is the fact that it could tackle philosophical things like this on a practical basis. You know, without being highfalutin about concepts that make us stop and ponder or without being too melodramatic or cliche in approach (or appear as being “pa-profound” and hence “pa-deep”), such as having time, wasting time, and other more complicated things. And yes, being existential without being pa-profound lang. You know what I mean. S1M0NE revolved around manufactured existence, THE TRUMAN SHOW revolved around manipulated existence, THE TERMINAL revolved around an interrupted existence, and GATTACA revolved around a borrowed existence, and then IN TIME is about making one’s existence meaningful and relevant before time goes out. I mean my gosh, Niccol, can I sit down with you and have coffee while we chat about these things!!! Seriously!!! I am happy you exist! You are my man right now, my cinematic man. I can’t wait to discover what you’re going to write and film next. Grabe lang!

Anyway, enough fan girl mode-ing. I’ve never been excited about a film’s concept in a looooong time, so I have to celebrate these things in my own little cinematic way. What the hey. I hope they put this film back when the current (over)run of that film with that unsmiling girl with the sparkling undead boyfriend is over. I hope that’s tomorrow. Skipping that one! But please don’t miss this one. It’s really worth your time, I kid you not.

Go!

Awaaard si vakler dahil tegi sa logic

Or in short, here’s my review of the “independently-produced” movie still showing in commercial cinemas right now. Wagi in fairness sa longevity ha. Ikaw na, Remington! Chos.

ZOMBADINGS 1: PATAYIN SA SHOKOT SI REMINGTON (2011)

d. Jade Castro

p. Origin8

s. Raymond Lee, Michiko Yamamoto, Jade Castro

c. ayan read the poster obvious naman haller imbey ka

Pitch: A homophobic boy in Quezon province gets cursed to become gay when he grows up in a town where gays are being murdered and later turned into zombies until the boy-turned-teen’s curse gets lifted. Trust me, it’s really that convoluted.

Catch: It’s that convoluted. Did I already say that? It’s convoluted.

Yesterday, I accompanied one of my superfriends to watch a movie that has been running in cinemas since the end of last month even if I’ve already seen te film during the Cinemalaya closing last July. Not bad for a supposed independently-produced film, no? When I say “supposed,” it means the producers made this film outside the commercial mainstream studio systems that most — if not all — of them served at one point in their careers (or still currently serving it, actually, for some of them at least). I guess their sensibilities trickle down to the product they create, because it still reeks of commercial mainstream-ish fare. Let me elucidate.

The film is lost in its identity since it doesn’t know if it’s going to be campy or just a plain comedy. From what I discovered, the filmmaker said in a forum that they didn’t intend to make it camp. And this is where we hyperventilate. Kalurkey itey!

I don’t know if you trust the Wikipedia entry on it, but the first definition of camp there is “an aesthetic sensibility that regards something as appealing because of its bad taste and ironic value.”

Hmm may ganung factor? Maybe Susan Sontag’s “Notes on Camp” would help, as she wrote:

…the Camp sensibility is one that is alive in a double sense in which some things can be taken. But this is not the familiar split-level construction of a literal meaning, on the one hand, and a symbolic meaning, on the other. It is the difference, rather, between the thing as meaning something, anything, and the thing as pure artifice.”

Well, let’s just put it this way: Zombadings didn’t have that kind of camp sensibility to me because it felt more like it had a Star Cinema sensibility to it — a bad case of Star Cinema cookie-cutter formula pander-to-the-lowest-denominator type of comedy film which most of the time makes you want to slash your wrists because, even if it’s a comedy, IT AIN’T FUNNY. And since the director said nga in that forum that they just set out to do a comedy film, it gave me more shivers. As in. Chaka Khan ever.

Now why is a comedy film about gays being killed in a small town because they’re gay not funny? BECAUSE KILLING GAYS AREN’T FUNNY, PERIOD. (Or please educate yourself and read this article.) Regardless whether they get zapped by an out-of-this-world kinda-sci-fi-ish subplot of a thingamajig called the gaydar controlled by a macho man that would be later on revealed as a super-huge closeted homo, hmmm… perpetuating self-hatred, anyone? That’s project number one. Luz Valdez!

Project number two would be this: why is a comedy film about a straight guy cursed to be gay not funny? BECAUSE BEING GAY IS NOT A CURSE TO BE CURED FROM BY SHAMANS, DIVINITY EXPERTS, OR WHATNOT. We are gay because we are gay, people. And news flash, we love being gay, we’re proud to be gay, and we’re happy we’re gay — even if the rest of homophobic society isn’t happy for us. KEBS! We don’t mess with your life so don’t certainly mess with ours. Kajirita Jackson ha.

And why is a comedy film about a straight man turning effeminate gay not funny? BECAUSE NOT ALL GAYS ARE EFFEMINATE. There’s nothing wrong with the section of our populace who are effeminate, but the key word there is “section” meaning “not everyone” and hence do not generalize about us and most especially do not stereotype us as being just of one kind, as mainstream media has been doing for decades now. Like the rainbow flag we out and proudly wave during LGBTQ pride marches, we are a community of diverse people who come in all shapes and sizes, forms and content, so please, do not peg us to just merely one type and one type alone. Keribels?

Now the major major problem with this film is that we from the LGBTQ circles, those who know camp and could define it, who follow pop culture to a fault, who are academic/knowledgeable etc. etc. chenelyn boomboom (to quote my lesbian beki friend) about such issues regarding sexual orientation and gender identity or SOGI, we could very well distinguish if something is being literal or being symbolic, like what Sontag said. But if the film is not being camp, it surely will be taken on a mere literal level in the sense that the message people (who are not attuned to the issues and concerns surrounding the LGBTQ community) will get  is this: “See? [Parlor swishy] gays are doomed to die and become zombies because they’re a menace to society, so it’s good that this cursed-to-be-gay straight boy is being rescued by the girl of his dreams and his friends and family so he won’t be gay.” Of course I’m kidding about the being zombies part but what the hey, let’s just thrown it in na rin! For more!

Oh man. I don’t even know why this film was made the way it was made, given that I know the history of the producers and such, their backgrounds but most of all their own SOGI. Well yeah, I know, not all women are feminists and not all LGBTQs fight for equal rights but what they hey, they should have known better than to produce a film that not only reinforces general stereotypes about Filipino gays but also propagate such negative images of gays and gay behavior. And I haven’t even forgiven them for writing in the term “third sex” in the script, as uttered by one character. Yes, read about that specific rant here in my other article.

So is the film totally hopeless? I’d like to say so, but it really has its moments and it’s ironic that its moments are highlighted by non-gay scenes. It’s just purely hilarious whevener Eugene Domingo appears in the film as the grieving mother in rollerblades of the girl of Remington’s dreams. And I also like the way the latest gay lingo is incorporated there and propagated. Hey, I lurv the lingo! Read my articles about it here and here.

Hay naku. Anyway, there are still a gazillion things to say about this film but perhaps I will reserve my other thoughts for another time. For now, just relax and enjoy a movie — another movie, not this one.  And if ever they do take the title seriously, perhaps Zombadings 2 could be a better fare.

Taray lang ng lola mo.

Cinemalaya 2011: Ang Babae Sa Septic Tank

Since I’m currently in the state of straddling the line between the poverty of creativity (poverty of creativity talaga!) of other people, I should add, and walking out of their spheres of influence (don’t wanna be affected/infected/deflected on) wala lang, let’s review this film. And maybe later, I’ll decode for you that cryptic opening haha.

But first, we go septic.

ANG BABAE SA SEPTIC TANK

(THE WOMAN IN THE SEPTIC TANK)

d. Marlon Rivera

s. Chris Martinez

c. Eugene Domingo, Cai Cortez, JM de Guzman, Kean Cipriano

Pitch: Upper class Manila-based independent filmmakers plot out a film featuring poverty and urban squalor with the aim of joining prestigious film festivals abroad.

Catch: Inside jokes have limited humor for all.

I understand the hesitation of mainstream producers to create films and TV shows with the story and characters circling in the milieu of the media. They say that people who don’t work inside such industries, be it in the traditional or alternative media, won’t be able to relate to the problems, heartaches, headaches and victories that media-oriented people experience on a daily basis.

I disagree. Unless you make their story closer to “outsiders” in a way that they will be able to relate as an audience, then you’re fine. Take that Robert Redford-Michelle Pfeiffer 1996 starrer UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL where Pfeiffer started as a weather girl turned credible TV journalist and Redford was a veteran TV journalist helping her out. That one worked simply because their work was interwoven seamlessly with their personal lives. And we feel for them as they get promoted or if they get heartbroken. Add to that Celine Dion’s undying love song as theme “Because you loved me” (aminin, you like singing this sa videoke!) and voila! recipe for box-office ka-ching.

Now with SEPTIC TANK, I really, really, really love the concept of the film, simply because I myself share the same sentiment about filmmakers making films about poverty, urban squalor, dirty dingy crappy Manila, and all that garbage-in-yo’-face crap. In an earlier blog post/rant I posted about, oh, tagal na, maybe two-three years ago, I ranted about how such films have been cropping up like regularly since independent digitally shot full-length films revived the Filipino film industry last decade. Not that I’m not grateful, being from this industry, and being a cineaste. But sometimes, I want diversity. Yes, DIVERSITY.

And I guess that’s what the makers of SEPTIC TANK were also thinking. It’s basically a big critique of upper class independent filmmakers who use poverty as themes in their films simply because that image sells abroad, not because they want to make a statement about poverty in the Philippines, or not because they want to open up the people’s eyes to such issues in order for them to do something, to take action, to contribute to society, and all that advocacy pumping (in short, all the social realism stabs that our late greats were doing before, specifically our National Artists for Film Lino Brocka and Ishmael Bernal; and oh, how I miss them). But now, nada. Some films, sadly, are like that. And horror of all horrors, some filmmakers tend to think like that. And this is why the term “poverty porn films” cropped up in our existence within the last few years. And this is why I was also asked to speak about it as a guest in Jessica Soho’s GMA News TV channel 11 show Brigada last Monday, to discuss poverty porn. Sadly, since I was straddling nga that line with people suffering from the poverty of creativity hehe, I missed watching that segment. Oh well, somebody upload it online and tell me ha.

So anyway, in this film, we see an indie producer and filmmaker and a production assistant as they try to brainstorm a good poverty film concept and they poke fun at this poverty porn filmmaking “phenomenon” in all aspects — from the filmmakers having such shallow intentions (“Forget Cannes! Forget Venice! Pang-Oscars ito!”) to brainstorming the concept in coffee shops where they can go online with free wifi (“Gawin na lang kaya nating musical, set sa squatters area? Bago ‘yun!”) to casting indie-identified great thespians (“Gusto mo lang i-cast si Mercedes Cabral kasi crush mo ‘yun, e!” – Haha relate ako dito! Chos!) and of course poking fun at fellow indie filmmakers who have egos as big as the Payatas dumpsite because of their success in being poverty porn filmmakers (even poking fun at the entourage of such filmmakers, something that is so true talaga it really makes me roll my eyes).  So with all these, kudos to the filmmakers for showing us such things. Yes, in a way, it’s also being mean to such poverty porn films and filmmakers, but seriously, sometimes it’s *nice* to be mean ahehehe.

But after that, after the laughs, after the critique, what do you take home? Sadly, with SEPTIC TANK, nothing much, as well. And this is where it gets alienating for most, if not all, who have seen this and who do not inhabit this crazy yet wonderful world of media and filmmaking. It’s funny for me because I know the context, but if you don’t, then you’ll just get an unevenly paced comedy film where you will get hooked because Eugene Domingo is such a hoot here. If only for that, it’s a success but then again, the inside joke is not for everybody. And the film should have delivered a huge punchline after, the type that packs a wallop in terms of punctuating their statement about what it’s critiquing. Sadly, it didn’t.

But still, I recommend that you watch this. If you’re curious about how such indie filmmakers work — at least the pretentious upper class ones heheh — then watch this. And if only for Domingo, who won best actress for this role at the Cinemalaya awards night, just watch. I really like the way they reduced acting to three major categories, and the “TV Patrol category” is a hoot! Eugene, ikaw na! Basta, inside joke! Just watch this to see what I mean.

Then let’s discuss.

Isang bagsak: hagalpak, ligwak, wapak!

Or in short, here are a few movies I’ve seen in recent weeks. All in one go. Isang bagsak! May funny, may hindi, may ayos lang, merong swak. Pero all in all, iisa lang ang silbi nila sa akin — movies always save my life. In a manner of speaking. Ah basta!

Unahin natin ang may tatak-Academy Award, shall we? Well, at least the actor in the lead.

EAT PRAY LOVE

d. Ryan Murphy

story based on the book by Elizabeth Gilbert

c. Julia Roberts

Pitch: New York writer gets fed up with romantic relationships and separates herself from the New World to go eat pasta and pizza in the Old World, meditate with one of the oldest  civilizations/religions of the world, and hies off to expat isle. Wala bitterocampo lang ang synopsis-writing ko kasi I haven’t been to Bali and Italy. India yes pero not to pray though nagpa-ayurvedic massage ako. Authentic!

Catch: Well, who do you see? I see Julia, not Elizabeth. Aye, there’s the rub.

If you will re-imagine this film to fit any of the other Julia movies, it might be an interesting mash-up.

Roll cam, shall we?

Seq. 1. Ext. By a beach in Bali. Sunset.

Julia stands in front of Javier Bardem who’s still ruggedly handsome even if he looks unkempt. Julia smiles her Julia-smile and speaks.

JULIA

I’m just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to take me out to an island which an expat can buy but the locals can’t afford.

JAVIER

Ah mierda. Sorry, I thought you were Vicky. Or Cristina. Woody, what’s the next scene? I don’t like bitches. I mean beaches.

Seq. 2.   Ext. Streets of Italy. Morning.

Julia wanders around the narrow cobblestone streets on her first day in Italy, a few people scattered doing their businesses of the day. A dark-haired lean-looking Italian man in a scooter passes by and whistles at her.

ITALIAN MAN

Bella donna! (whistles) Kees meeh! Mwaaah!

Since Julia is still learning Italian, she frowns. She spots a huge-eyed blond woman also wandering around the streets following another woman, and stops her to ask.

JULIA

Uh, excuse me. You look like you’re American, so… W-what did that guy say to me, the one that whistled?

WOMAN

Oh, bella donna. Pretty woman. Kiss me. That’s what he said.

JULIA

Okay thanks. (to man) Not on the mouth! I don’t kiss on the mouth!

WOMAN

Hmp. Cinderfuckinrella.

JULIA

Excuse me, did you say something?

WOMAN

Nothing. I’m following that girl. Those that write letters. They seem to be sticking it to some wall of some building… addressed to someone named Juliet.

JULIA

Juliet? You mean Julia! I am Julia!

WOMAN

No, Juliet. Like Romeo and Juliet, duh.

JULIA

Wait, what set is this? We’re shooting Eat Pray Love, honey.

WOMAN

Excuse me, my name ain’t honey, it’s Amanda. We’re shooting Letters to Juliet here.

JULIA

Oh shut up and get your own street of Italy somewhere else, you tourist!

WOMAN

Oh shut up and do something else! This American-in-Italy shtick was already done, and in a better way, by Frances Mayes in Under The Tuscan Sun!

JULIA

Oh yeah? Well, I’m going to India!

Seq. 3. Int. Meditation place in India. Afternoon.

The hot afternoon wakes up Julia, who fell asleep during the group meditation. Richard from Texas who looks like James Taylor walks near her and nudges her.

JULIA

I… think I fell asleep.

RICHARD

Ya don’t say. Good thing you’re still neatly seated on that cushion on the floor despite dozing off. How’d you manage not to fall or tip over? Like ya got some sort of body balance thing or somethin’.

JULIA

They’re called boobs, Ed. I mean Richard from Texas who looks like James Taylor.

Okay iyan lang kaya ng powers ko hehe. Don’t let me go on. Aabot tayo hanggang MYSTIC PIZZA sige ka hehehe. At isasama ko ang STEEL MAGNOLIAS nakita mo.

And for local distributors, may suggestion ako. You could actually subtitle this as –

“Eat Pray Love”

Or, ano ba ang nais mo sa buhay, teh?

Okay end of review. Hehe.

Hay naku, ligwak. Wala, wala talaga akong napulot sa pelikulang ito. Siguro maganda ‘yung librong pinagbasehan. Makahanap nga sa Booksale.

Pero kebs dahil ito pa rin ang rerebyuhin namin bukas ng Biyernes sa aming CINE CHICHIRYA radio show. Listen to us. Live kami, via AM radio or streaming sa internet. Click here!

Buti pa sa isang pelikulang di ko inaakalang magugustuhan ko. May napulot akong isang golden nugget kahit di ko inaasahan.

WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS

d. Oliver Stone

c. Michael Douglas, Shia Labeouf, Carey Mulligan

Pitch: Young dude who works in the stock exchange chorva gets his baptism of fire by interacting with his fiancee’s dad, the erstwhile Wall Street old dude. Oh man don’t talk to me about stock exchange and other economics/business/financial-related thingie because my eyes just glaze over, like I was zapped by a raygun. Pramis. Hence this synopsis.

Catch: I still don’t like that Labeouf dude. He can act better than Keanu pero ewan, may kulang e. Di ko shia bet.

Oliver still has that directorial touch. Imagine making me interested in a topic that usually makes my eyes glaze over.

Since this has been in the trailers rounds for like the longest time, I felt I had to watch it, just because. And since there was no good release the week I watched this, well, no choice.

But I’m glad I did. It was interesting. When I was in New York last March, the thought of stopping at the subway station marked “Wall Street” didn’t interest me as much as stopping at the subway station marked “Christopher Street” so I never really saw all those buildings and stuff, the subject and location of the old movie version of the same title but with Charlie Sheen in the lead with Douglas. And oh yeah, Sheen makes a cameo here. So did Oliver. Kakaiba ang mga boylet na ito, ‘no?

I still think this Shia guy is not all that, since he seems to be taking over a lot of good second-lead roles in Hollywood lately. My first protest was his being in the latest version of Spielberg’s classic INDIANA JONES line, where he seems to be channeling the coolness of an earlier second-lead young actor in an earlier Indiana Jones film named River Phoenix. He doesn’t compare. Hay, I miss River and his films during the ’80s tuloy. Now that’s real talent.

Siya, ilang saglit ng katahimikan. Magbigay-pugay sa maagang namatay…

That’s me in front of Johnny Depp’s club where River dropped dead from a drug overdose years ago.  (April 2010, along Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, California. Photo taken by my friend Hazel)

So imagine the agony in this film. But fresh out of AN EDUCATION is Carey Mulligan, who sports this really trendy bob cut, and don’t be surprised if my hair looks like that like tomorrow, okay? She just looks nice here. And yes, it was her character’s nagkaroon-ng-lamat relasyon with Shia’s character that produced that golden nugget I was telling you about. It just blew me away when, habang mega-crayola siya sa harap ng jowa, she said:

CAREY

We’re supposed to make each other feel safe. If not, what’s the point?

Sabay alis at hiwalay na sila ng jowa.

Can you say WAPAK!!!

Kill me now!!!!! *saksak sa puso* Hanep, right? But that illuminated the whole month of September for me, something EAT PRAY LOVE didn’t do. Hmp.

Wala, ‘yan lang ang review hehe.

Tawa naman diyan.

PETRANG KABAYO

d. Wenn Deramas

p. Viva Films

c. Vice Ganda

Pitch: Isang baklitang batang inampon ng hacienderang may kabayuhan ang lumaki bilang malditang baklita kaya pinarusahan siya ng diyosa ng mga kabayo para turuan ng leksiyon sa paggalang sa kapwa at pagmamahal nang tunay. Echos.

Catch: Kung wala si Vice Ganda dito, bagsak ito!

Vice Ganda, the host/judge of the near-noontime show Showtime on ABS-CBN, brings his stand-up comedy bar-sharpened wit and punchlines to make this sorry excuse of a remake of a very funny ’80s film come to life. If not, dead on arrival na ito sa first day-last day moda sa takilya.

As usual, the characters are based on the story originated by legendary comics writer Pablo S. Gomez, so you know it’s good. Well, at least the origins siguro. Or maybe it was the way this film was directed. The film really didn’t have clear-cut direction and it again harks back to the old days of ’80s pastiche and kitsch, sans the good storyline aided by the presence of Roderick Paulate. Na-miss ko naman bigla ang Tonight with Dick and Carmi days anubeh.

Pero winner lang ang lines ni Petra aka Vice. Puma-punchline, all the time.

Ama: Anak, patawarin mo ako.

Petra: Tawad? Sa palengke na lang uso ang tawad!

*

Julalay: Ser, ipapasok ko na ho ba itong mga papeles sa loob?

Petra: Hindi, ipapasok mo sila sa labas! Kaya nga ipapasok e, o, sa loob kasi. Sige nga, lumabas ka, at subukan mong ipasok sa labas!

*

Secretary: Sir, gusto niyo ng coffee?

Petra: Sige…

Secretary: Black coffee po?

Petra: Blue, kaya mo? Sige nga!

Actually marami pa ‘yan hehe. I don’t know why pero benta siya sa akin hahaha! Kasi siguro bakla rin akong may caustic wit. May ganung factor.

I’m mostly paraphrasing some but you get the drift hehe. Makes me think that the scriptwriter actually just wrote the lines of the other actors and then Vice’s dialogue lines are left blank para makapagsaksak siya ng sarili niyang brand ng witty but sarcastic retorts. Hm interactive scriptwriting kung ganun! Puwedeh!

Well other than that, I like the animation inserts of the comedic horse. And then I don’t like the way the discussion of Petra’s father hurting him because of his homosexuality was just dropped during the latter half of the film. Walang closure ang mga plot points at cause and effect chains here. Wala, deus ex machina lang karamihan. Na naitatawid ng punchlines nga. What did you expect?

Oh well. Siya sige, isa na lang.

For the tanderrifics!

RED

d.Robert Schwentke

story based on the DC Comics graphic novels

c. Bruce Willis, Mary Louise Parker, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich, Morgan Freeman

Pitch: Retired extremely dangerous (hence RED) kinda oldish agents get roused from their quiet retirement when they become the targets of their seemingly old company (the CIA) under the covert bidding of a high government official.

Catch: Wala, cute siya. You know what to expect and it’s delivered to you, neatly packed in a sealed container.

It’s nice that they’re tapping more graphic novels and turning them into films. Even the not-so-popular titles I’ve picked up over the years in some book sales have good stories naman. E siyempre pina-sosyal lang naman na komiks ang graphic novels. Kinda like the old days of komiks in the Philippines during the ’80s where we all grew up reading them and, for some of the more imaginative and enthusiastic of us, devouring them. Ayus.

Dito, I like the way my favorite actors seem to gather together in a cool project that is reachable to audiences of today, whether young or old alike. Imagine Helen Mirren firing high-powered weapons while elegantly wearing a white dress. Sankapa!

Lavet, lola!

That made my night. Or John Malkovich in a rather one-dimensional but funny portrayal pa rin of a kinda-neurotic ex-agent, in contrast with the dapper gentleman agent of Morgan Freeman. Panalo ang casting. At hindi kailangan ng extra doses of testosterone to pull it off. Ahem, cough cough, EXPENDABLES ba kamo? Cough cough. But I digress.

And then there’s Mary-Louise Parker, a fixture of films of my youth since, discreetly, the films she has been in were touching upon–if not glossing over–some sapphic themes.

Like haller FRIED GREEN TOMATOES? Talagang nawala ang lesbianic subplot sa movie version ng book noh.

Or BOYS ON THE SIDE na siya pala ang kras ng tibamchi character ni Whoopi Goldberg. O devah sumubplot talaga ang ateh sa review na ito hehe. Wala lang. She’s just hovering over Hollywood, in TV and films, and I’m glad she’s surviving. Para lang may nag-iba sa fez ng lola mo now. Di ko mawari. Nose job? Pa-banat? Parang di nag-age, e. Oh well, good for her.

Maganda rin naman ang role niya dito. A necessary plot device to get the film going, which is typical of any male-female conflict-driven plot. The not-so-complicated espionage story was handled with a breeze by the director, who also directed THE TIME TRAVELER’S WIFE pala, and Jodie Foster my love’s FLIGHT PLAN. Puwedeh.

*

O siya, hanggang diyan na lang muna at magandang gabi. Hanggang sa susunod na sine. Kapag kaya na ulit ng powers.

Blindsided: sa mata ng pitik

Or in short, my reviews of two current Philippine cinema releases: IN YOUR EYES and MAMARAZZI. Sabi nga ng isang Carlo J. Caparas film — God, save us! Chos. Teka, siya nga ba iyon?

Whatevssss!

IN YOUR EYES

d. Mac Alejandre

p. GMA Films-Viva Films

s. Keiko Aquino

c. Claudine Barretto, Richard Gutierrez, Anne Curtis

Pitch: Americanized older sister petitions younger sister who brings along boyfriend who, upon younger sister’s prodding, marries older sister for US citizenship only to fall in love with older sister which wreaks havoc in young sister’s life who turns out hating older sister and brings boyfriend back to Manila but they also split so she reunites with older sister and flies to the US for good, only to casually bump into ex-boyfriend who’s there legally now and tries to rekindle his thing with younger sister. O ha, one-sentence pitch, kaya mo iyon? Charut.

Catch: Lumang panutsa sa bagong palara. Er, siomai saves the day? Or bring chicha when you watch this. You’ll need the distraction.

Where do I begin, sabi nga ng isang movie theme song dati. I don’t know if current film scriptwriters don’t watch old, old, old, old, old movies, both local and foreign ones, especially local ones. I think it should be required of them that they watch old films so that they’ll know what has been done, to give them ideas and cues as to what they could rework with what has been done, so that they won’t end up repeating, concocting and cooking up and serving us tasteless and stale cinematic fare.

That is basically what this film made me and my girlfriend feel. She kept on saying that it’s just like DUBAI, Claudine’s earlier film in her former home studio, where she as the woman comes in between two brothers in a foreign land setting. But that’s the thing with scriptwriting in Philippine cinema. Just change the location of the original story, change the names or switch the genders of the characters and voila! You have a “new” story-script. And yes, they option and greenlight such projects even if they suspiciously sound and look like other existing works. Don’t believe me? Ahem, um, ask Lualhati Bautista na lang kaya? But I digress.

I was quite excited to see this film because of the trailer. I saw where they shot part of the American scenes — in Los Angeles, California — and I was curious to see how they would pull off shooting there. Plus of course I also wanted to reminisce about my recent summer trip there, where I was left alone to explore the Hollywood area on my own by my friend. Yes, I wanted to see how they would treat it, shoot it like a tourist or from a local’s point of view and such. I guess it’s the filmmaker in me that created that curiosity. But even with those scenes, I felt shortchanged since they really didn’t show much, plus a lot of this-is-in-America scenes were obviously shot here. And that would have been okay, but sometimes, halata siya, at pangit iyon. So that’s a failure of the PD, I think. Hay, production design na naman? You know what I think of that now. Read my previous reviews for more insights.

But what about the story? Hm, like I said, old fare cooked up anew. Lasang panis na, teh. Iyan ang masama. The marrying-for-citizenship storyline is as old as the OFW phenomenon, sobra. And then magkaka-inlab-an ang dalawang arranged marriage folks? Ngorkzzz. Wala na bang ibang conflict? Tumbling ‘yan kung biglang sa boylet nainlab ang character ni Richard, na pinangalanan nga pala nilang Storm (Ewan ko kung bakit – binagyo niya ang buhay ng magkapatid? Chaka kung iyon, ha!) o kaya sa girlash nainlab ang character ni Anne Curtis. Hm, I think I’d like that storyline better. Or biased lang ako.

But a bad script could sometimes be overlooked if the directing saves the day, or fantastic special effects and superb acting. Sadly, this film had none of those. I guess if Claudine was handled by another director, say Lino Brocka maybe (yes, this is wishful thinking), then we could have felt more heartfelt hugot ng emosyon ng character niya. Her crying scenes look so automatic, like she just turns them on and off as she sometimes does on TV dramas. Iba ang on-off switch ng acting, iba ‘yung iparamdam mo sa audience na malalim ang pinaghuhugutan niyan kaya kami mas maniniwalang dama talaga ng karakter mo ang nararamdaman sa eksena. And sorry pero hindi lang ako echoserang frog na namimintas dahil I also underwent acting lessons for one whole semester back in college. So yes, may pinaghuhugutan ang critique kong ito sa acting. And yes, 1.5 ang final grade ko dun, but I digress…

You’d also think that Anne Curtis could give something extra here, besides her usual pretty looks and sexy body, which they obviously wanted to flaunt by the way she was shot in this film. At oo, gets na naming endorser siya ng GSM Blue na tinungga niya sa bar kung saan na-pick up siya ni Storm. Pero teka, ‘yun nga palang pick-up line. I don’t know much about current heterosexual pick-up practices but my goddess, Storm’s pick-up line was so lame that I don’t know if it actually works on pretty girls like Anne. “Excuse me, do you know where Legaspi Village is?” sabi ni boylet. Tinuro naman ni girlash. Tapos alis si boylet, tapos sabay balik, at sabing “One more thing. Could I have your number? Just in case I get lost?” Kill me now! *tumbling tumbling tumbling* Oh wait, I already died, and landed on the nth circle of hell where people with bad pick-up lines are punished! But man, I ask you, does that work, with hetero women these days? Hetero women with Anne Curtis looks?  Kakaiba. I mean haller, I was also once a  heterosexual girl out in bars and I’ve heard better pick-up lines than that! Susmaryosep. Kalurkey.

So with their characterizations, you’d think that what was established with Anne’s character was someone who’s strong, who didn’t need a man to make it happen, as the Pussycat Dolls sang. E pucha pini-pick up nga sa bar, e. Tapos nang tanungin siya ni Storm about their status, “Paano tayo?” ang sagot ni girlash e “May tayo ba?” Tapos kelangan pang i-rattle off ang characterization niya while driving in a badly executed scene where Storm was driving a rugged jeep without a roof and Anne’s character suddenly sits on him as he drives. Talk about unsafe driving practices, to which he says “Ganyan ka ba talaga?” at sinagot ni girlash like reading out her character mapping “Ano, fun, independent, spontaneous?” or something to that effect. If you’re not familiar with a character map, eto ‘yung sheet kung saan nakalista ang characters sa script with matching descriptions, like:

Anne – 25 years old, Claudine’s younger sister, fun, sexy, spontaneous

Ganun. And then all of a sudden, she’s spewing lines reminiscent of early classic cinema’s “Ate, mamamatay ako ‘pag nawala siya sa akin…” “Ipalilibing kita!” She said something to this effect, which I really didn’t understand, because it didn’t match her character mapping of fun, independent, spontaneous as earlier mapped.

But I think Storm’s was the character that is the most badly-written, and even horribly executed. I know that for dramatic purposes, they heighten the actions. But if they did some research as to how Pinoys behave in the US, especially non-legal ones, they stay out of perceived trouble there. So that scene where Storm got an under-the-table job as a photo processor in a photo developing store, where he showed attitude towards his American boss, to the point of bumping into him, as in bodily contact, when he stormed out of there when he was fired, is not very realistic at all. They could have shown his frustration in another way, I think, and that wasn’t the best behavioral execution of all. The director could have called that one. Plus need I mention Richard’s tuod style of acting pa ba, where, at the height of the sisters’ drama of discovering the infidelity, he just fucking stood there??? Like he wasn’t part of it all??? And let the sisters mouth off??? Ang labo, potah.

And this brings me to this dangerous implication of women in cinema as propagated by this scene. How come the man is spared from sin? How come the women are the ones punished? I was surprised to see that this was scripted by a woman, but I guess she’s not as enlightened as we want her to be. Even when Anne’s character went home, tagging along Storm, the guy still lived with her for a year in utmost misery??? As if his jowa was punishing him for falling in love with her sister? Ang labo potah. Again, why do they have to make the women weak (that they needed a man like Claudine’s character) or vengeful (like Anne’s character hating her sister and latching on to the guy afterward). Pero teka, reality check, bakit hindi na lang hiwalayan ni Storm ang girlash pagbalik sa Manila? Kasal ba sila? Hindi naman, di ba? At saka kung kasal man, e payag naman si PNoy sa legal separation, a, huwag lang divorce. But I digress again.

Hay naku. There are several other things wrong with this film, but it’s just wrong for me to belabor over them without having lunch first. Or baka kelangan ko nang matawa.

Ay, matawa ba kamo? Then… oh well.

Here goes the other one…

MAMARAZZI

d. Joel Lamangan

p. Regal Films

s. Ricky Lee, Chris Violago

dop. Mo Zee

C. Eugene Domingo, John Lapus, Diether Ocampo and a host of slight cinema newbies whom you see to death naman in TV shows

Pitch: An unwed single mom mortician dotingly raises triplets who have individual issues but is bound by their insatiable curiosity of knowing who their father is. O parang ganun.

Catch: You know there’s something wrong with Eugene’s film when our common friends in the theater circles don’t publicize it to death on their Facebook accounts. Seriously. I’m just saying. Pansin ko lang naman, mga teh hehe.

I was actually surprised to see the trailer of this film, that our reigning comedy queen of Philippine cinema, theater-trained Eugene Domingo, was top-billing a comedy film financed by Regal Films. Now you know you have arrived when Mother Lily trusts you enough to give you such a project. And sadly, you also know you have arrived when you actually have to star in a badly written and horribly directed film reminiscent of badly written and horribly directed ’80s comedy films from the history of Philippine cinema, complete with an uncalled for song-and-dance number. Yes, even if it appears in a (day)dream sequence, it’s still uncalled for, plus it was done in utterly poor taste. I mean hey, if we were still in the ’80s and I saw this, I would accept it gladly, because during that time, it was kitsch-y “cool,” in a way. It had (quirky) character. It was pastiche. But it’s 2010, and I’m not willing to travel back in time to experience kitsch and pastiche like that anew.

But that’s the thing. I thought Philippine cinema already graduated from these kinds of portrayals, treatments and executions. I don’t know why they are trying to revive it like how Sarah Geronimo or whoever’s popular at the moment revive and revive and revive old pop songs.  I mean hello, we have dozens of uber-talented writers today, still alive, living in the present, who could write you newer songs or newer scripts or newer storylines. Why hark back to the oldies? Labo.

So now you know why Uge’s (Eugene’s nickname as called by her friends) theater friends didn’t publicize this that much. It’s crap. It’s unlike what they did with HERE COMES THE BRIDE but of course that might be biased because that one was penned and made by one of their own, too. But regardless of the bias, that film was good. (I reviewed that before, see my older posts. Pak!) But hey, come to think of it, if you gave MAMARAZZI kaya to Chris Martinez, what would happen? Hm, flashback ako bigla sa isang segment ng Sesame Street, a. What would happen if I prick this balloon with a pin…

Well, for one, I think the comedy would have been better written. I don’t know what they find funny in a mother uttering her dialogue when all of a sudden her skirt is torn off to reveal her floral undies, to the horror of her only son. Or her son won’t be obligated to utter the title of the film so it would somehow fit into the scheme of things, during that scene where she was trying to convince her son to ride on their hearse after he talked to the girl of his dreams. And then when he said “Mamarazzi,” the mother said “Ay, mamarazzi? Ano ‘yun? Bago ‘yun, a. Ay, gusto ko iyon, gusto ko iyon, ahihihi!” and then proceeded to dance like a crazy woman who had no iota of intelligence in her persona. Hay mahabagin…

We already discussed to death–habang namatay kami sa kabagutan–the women in comedy characters of Philippine cinema in our Friday night Cine Chichirya radio show last week, so I’ll spare that. But there’s one characterization I so wanted to discuss, because I believe it is disturbing and dangerous regarding how homosexuality and bisexuality are portrayed in this film.

John Lapuz’ character is a respectable gay barangay chairman or something. He is not the macho-acting type of gay man but not swishy either; just right and discreet, but a bit flirty in private quarters with his babylove (their term of endearment), Diether’s character. I don’t know what type of portrayal they intended with Diether, but the first time he is introduced, his buff bod was overly displayed as he bantered with his babylove, and he was sweet but he was also asking for money. So are we going back to the straight guy-who-hooks-up-with-gay-men-for-money storyline? Ano nga ‘yung sabi sa kanta ng Disney film? Tale as old as time… Kaloka. I don’t know why gay writers or directors continue to characterize and portray gay men in films this way. Why are they insisting on putting homosexuality down? This really baffles me to no end. Fine, granted that there are still set-ups like this, but then again, this is an old, old, old story.

And what happens to the gay man in this film? He “donates” his willing babylove to his single straight best friend so she could have her wish of being impregnated by someone — doesn’t matter who — before they take out her ovaries or something reproductive health-related like that. But what does babylove do? He goes to bed with her, sure, but also runs off after, robbing her of money to boot — which is later redeemed as money he used to help his sick grandmother. Yes, you can roll your eyes now in disbelief. My own suspension of disbelief in this film already ended after the first 10 minutes.

So both gay and single straight girl best friends lose the guy, only for babylove to reemerge later on which mars their friendship. Babylove says he realized his mistake, is sorry for the robbery, and wants to be an active father to the children of the mortician, whom he says he realized that he is in love with her pala. Jusme. So of course, gay bff gets mad at mortician. Hay jusko, need I say more? Nagtapos din ito sa kasalan — heterosexual na kasalan. Luhaan nung una ang becky pero nagpaubaya na rin sa bff at sa ex-babylove. Horrible.

Again, why do they continue to put their own kind down??? Why do they insist, even??? Hay. Ako ngang becky in spirit lang e offended na offended. Paano pa kaya ang mga tunay na becky??? Kalurkey.

Hay jusme. I don’t know. Mag-iisaw na nga lang muna ako, para mas masaya. O siya, bahala ka na. Babu!

the thin line between comedy and corny

…or in short, here is what I think of two comedies I saw recently.

WORKING GIRLS

d. s. Joey Reyes

c. featuring the old Working Girls from Ishma’s movies with new stars of today

Pitch: The 1984 characters get their lives updated, but now featuring a newer batch of girls working for money, pride, and love.

Catch: Please don’t call it a sequel, lest you want Ishmael Bernal turning on his grave.

I don’t know why writers — and filmmakers, at that — have to hold on to something that’s already a classic and put in their, um, two hours’ worth in it to create another film. In short, I don’t understand why Joey Reyes had to get the characters of the great Ishmael Bernal’s 1984 film and update them. Fine, the guy has his moments but Ishmael Bernal he is not, and Amado Lacuesta he is not, either.

The reason why we love that ’80s classic is because the directing, the pacing and the brilliant storylines and characterizations all worked together well. Now please don’t touch that and make another movie instead. This is what Joey Reyes ought to have done instead of building on Lacuesta’s characters and making another movie out of it. Luz.

Imagine the classic lines that ’80s film gave us, most notably Carmi Martin’s lovelorn sexy secretary as she said over the phone “Sabeeeeel, this must be loooove!” sabay tumba nang gulatin siya ng crush niya sa likod. That is a classic. Now fast forward to 2010 and see a botox-acting Carmi Martin saying a rehashed version of that line delivered with the same intonation, this time not over the phone but in person to Rio Locsin, as she said “Sabeeeel, I am always in looooove.” Oh my gulay nalaglag yata ako sa upuan ko when I heard that. Come on! You do not “upgrade” classic lines of Philippine cinema like that! Haysus. Imagine if he “upgraded” another Ishma classic — “Walang himala! Nasa puso ang himala!” Sinasabi ko sa iyo, kapag bumangon si Ishma, tumakbo na tayo. Hayst…

I wish Reyes just opted to create a comedy without these Working Girls  reference. It certainly is not a remake, and the update is very lame. But if you take it as a totally new movie, and entitle it like THE LATEST EUGENE DOMINGO COMEDY VEHICLE, then it would have worked. This is because he had a good ensemble with him, with Eugene Domingo as the latest comedy queen of cinema dishing out her brand of humor as the lower middle class housewife who wants Arreneow-accented kids while running her bag-selling business on Multiply.Com, then there’s the call center young single mom saga by the pretty comebacking Jennelyn Mercado, a not-so-far-from-her-other-acting-roles glam widow Ruffa Gutierrez battling it out with her late husband’s relative Cherie Gil, then the nurse with a broken hearted past played by Iza Calzado, a young US-educated upstart Bianca King playing a segment producer in a network run by wolf-ish women (sound familiar?), and the sexy and hilarious Cristine Reyes as this model-model-an social climbing Facebook addicted girl. Ayus.

multihun kayo ni Ishma sige

But with so many good actors, there were not so many good storylines to carry all that talent. The basics were there, but in the end, it seemed like Reyes didn’t know how to end this movie, how to intertwine clearly and seamlessly the narratives of each character. Sayang. It appeared more like a two-hour pilot for a TV show, not a 2-hour movie. Oh well.

Bottom line: next time, don’t touch Ishma’s creations. With a ten foot pole.

Reyes could also maybe look at others who are doing something else, like the next one.

HERE COMES THE BRIDE

d. s. Chris Martinez

c. a bunch of talented theater actors who crossed over successfully to mainstream cinema

Pitch: One freak accident under an astronomical phenomenon produces a handful of out-of-the-body experiences right before a wedding.

Catch: Can you say FREAKY FRIDAY  times 5 set on a beach? I thought not.

Now this is a “written-and-directed-by” piece that we should watch, because it’s funny! The handful of theater/stage-trained actors in this ensemble thrown together with some mainstream cinema and television “veterans” (not of age but of longtime exposure in media) makes for a good film, if only they have the right material. And the material, while not very excellent in itself, is very commercial, hence it works for the kind of project it wants to make — a commercial comedy film.

The FREAKY FRIDAY basic storyline gets juiced up five times as we see not just two characters’ personalities invading each other’s bodies but we see many characters, all good ones I should add — an old-school gay beautician este image stylist who still believes that being gay meant not having relationships with fellow gays but with straight men (Jon Lapus) whose personality/soul was yanked out of his gay body and put inside the body of the conservative prim and proper bride (Angelika Panganiban), whose personality in turn was put inside her ninang who’s a longtime soltera but a successfully strong lawyer (Eugene Domingo), whose personality in turn was put inside a meek api-apihan poor Visayan yaya of a middle class brat (Tuesday Vargas), whose personality was in turn placed inside a  sometimes Spanish-speaking geriatric Valentino-type of old man (Jaime Fabregas), whose personality was placed inside the gay beautician este image stylist. Hay, nahilo ka na? Well, you get it.

So mix-and-match such oddball characters, place them within the set-up of a beach-side wedding, and you’ll get laughs galore, not some cheap tricks like remaking lines of classic movies. In fact, the mix-and-match produced classic lines right there and then, with Angelika Panganiban’s brilliant take as the gay beautician, as she speaks gay lingo and says “Pak!” whenever she gets her picture taken. If only for these “Pak!” scenes you should watch! Grabe benta! And then there’s Jon Lapuz playing it more than straight but macho even, wooing the character of Carissa Cortez hahah! Funny lot. And then the yaya spewing lines from the Labor Code of the Philippines whenever her “amo” and “alaga” would disobey or disagree with her hahaha! Galing ni Tuesday! Samaskom ‘yan, e. Actually, most of these peeps are from the UP theater circles, like Jon and Eugene and Carissa.  Hay naku basta funny ito. Just watch! Never mind that Kim Atienza as his Matanglawin self is there. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, just google him.

Now this one had an ending, although it felt a bit belabored because the comedy was kind of pushed (the let’s-recreate-the-accident-so-they-could-hopefully-go-back-to-normal scenes). Still, it was better than that other comedy.

I hope this is still out. Go and watch it. Now na. Pak!

ANG TANGING INA NIYONG LAHAT

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

 

ANG TANGING INA NIYONG LAHAT

d. wenn deramas
p. star cinema
s. a bunch of star cinema suki writers
c. aiai delas alas and a bunch of star cinema celebs of non-voting age (or pretending to be of non-voting age)

pitch:

another sequel about that single mom who has 12 children and has to cope with life, this time the coping stems from her need to “be important” in the lives of her kids, going as far as becoming the president of the philippines to achieve this goal. (hey, i am not making this up, pramis)

catch:

pang-ilang sequel na nga ba to? baka kelangan nang i-retire. nagte-threading na ang gulong ng katatatawanan, mga chong, sa pagka-pudpod…

when a film lists a lot of people in the credits for scripting, you know there’ll be a problem in the final product of the film. pero hindi rin. minsan it works, especially in assembly-line filmmaking industries like hollywood and france.

pero sa pinas, lalo na sa star, parang hindi. parang pass the message ang pagsusulat nila ng storya. isang major konsepto mula sa isang utak na ibang kamay ang susulat, na pag dumaan na ulit sa original na may utak at dadagdagan niya ng sulat ng kamay na nya, haller na ang labas, puwera na lang siguro kung genius yung utak at kamay.

but this is an MMFF film, so should i be surprised at my disappointment? the answer is, yes, kasi i expect more from this group this time of the year, na minsan naman i-suspend ko ang disbelief ko na they are just making hair-brained screwball comedies just for the money. of course, the content is another thing.

i particularly hated one scene there where the gay son of the ina was in love with a hunky actor, and he wanted to ask his ina, who became the president of the philippines (i am not inventing this stuff!) to pass a law so the gay son and the hunky actor could get married. ang sagot ng ina “huwag naman anak, baka pareho tayong makulong diyan.” homophobic. even if it was used in a candycoated comedy way, IT’S NOT FUNNY. HOMOPHOBIA IS NEVER FUNNY. and i am disappointed because some of the people behind this film are gay. gay to the max, gay to the core. saklap.

at a time when the world is reeling in fundamentalist backlash (giyera sa gaza, proposition 8 passed in california), the LGBT community doesn’t need to laugh at the fact that they/we are not allowed this basic human right of getting married to the person we want to spend the rest of our lives with. and no, it cannot be dismissed as “it’s just a joke” because jokes — and comedy, in general — has its deep, deep roots at the realities of our lives, na pinapakita lang in a humorous way, kaya matatawa tayo, pero pagkatapos matawa, dapat mapapaisip din tayo kung ano nga ba yung tinatawanan natin.but the joke on gay marriage here didn’t make the audience think; and that was not the intention of the joke, actually. the intention was to make the gay son appear silly in his wants and needs. since when was equality a silly want and need? homophobic.

i’m disappointed, because these kinds of jokes i associate with the likes of ISKUL BUKOL, kaya di ko pinanood iyon at ito ang pinanood ko. kainis lang.

the only consolation in watching this film is the fact na sinubukan nilang saksakan ng women’s rights discussion chenelyn, especially family code rules on the single mother’s employment rights, and the occasional funny moments delivered by ai-ai and eugene domingo. other than that, ipangkain niyo na lang ang 130 pesos ticket price niyo, or ipamalengke at magluto ng ulam. may ganansya pa.

but wait! there’s more. i also can’t let go one shot there, yung nag-dolly in ang cam from close-up to semi-extreme close up ng mata ni ai-ai nung malaman niyang nakidnap ang kambal niya. teng, nag-defocus. kamusta naman ang pag-rack focus ng cam movement na toh! and worse, nilagay pa rin nila sa final edit!!! taena ang unprofessional. ginagago nyo ba kami, ha, kala niyo forgivable ang techncal flaws na ganun ka-obvious? my god, hindi ito TV na puwede siyang palampasin! actually, kahit sa TV, di dapat ito pinalalampas, but that’s another discourse altogether.

and the thing about star cinema comedies lately, at least in the past 5 years, is that it has a habit of referencing to scenes in past star cinema movies, making it full of “inside jokes.” the problem with this is, hindi lahat ng tao napanood lahat ng star cinema movies in the past! writers, please go out of the conference room and breathe fresh air and see the world outside ELJ building, so you could write in more universal jokes and scenes there. ha? i’m just saying. payong kaibigan lang.

hay. next!

PUCCINI FOR BEGINNERS

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com
———————————————————–

PUCCINI FOR BEGINNERS (2006)

d., s. maria maggenti

c. justin kirk, gretchen mol, elisabeth reaser

pitch: a lesbian new york writer, fresh from a break-up, finds herself having relations with a man and a woman at the same time, not knowing that the two were lovers

catch: wala! happy din ito! biased ako e bakit ba hahahaha

 

 

 

this one’s another good one ha. kakaaliw siya. i love justin kirk esp in ANGELS IN AMERICA and in LOVE! VALOUR! COMPASSION! buwisit yun kasi sa lahat ng mabibigyan ng nominations for acting sa ANGELS, siya wala! bad trip! e role niya kaya yung may pinaka-bearing dun, haller. oh well.

katuwa itong film. nakakatuwa kasi feeling ko, halaw sa tunay na buhay ng writer-director hahaha. i read somewhere na maggenti’s not identifying as a woman-loving-woman daw kasi lately, which is kinda ironic, coming from directing another pivotal lesbian film in the 90s called THE INCREDIBLY TRUE ADVENTURES OF TWO GIRLS IN LOVE. yes, that film kung saan semi-baby butch pa si tina, yung actress sa THE L WORD. yes, siya yun! look at the eyes. they have the same blank stare.

feeling ko ganun nga ang film. isang biyaning na malaki ang commitment issues kaya napasok sa isang masalimuot na hetero at homo relationship at the same time, kasi nagpapatianod lang siya. eto yung mga may rason sa buhay na “it just happened…” like “bakit mo ko pinagpalit? bakit ka nainlab sa iba?” at ang sagot sa iyo ay “it just happened…” hanlabo. nakakainis kung tutuusin pero i let it go kasi kyut yung actress eheheh. i am biased that way. madali akong bentahan.

ayokong ibigay ang ending pero nakakatuwa naman siya, but not in a star cinema mainstream cinema film type of way. in an indie film type of way and in a lesbianic way din. basta happy siya. nakatulong ang magandang script. ito halatang nagdaan sa pagbubuno ng mga makikilatis na mata at utak, at mabuti ang kinalabasan. winner! watch!

THE THANK YOU GIRLS

[FROM MY OLD MULTIPLY SITE]

originally posted at leaflens.blogspot.com
———————————————————–

THE THANK YOU GIRLS (2008)

d., s. charliebebs gohetia

pitch: a group of visayan gay/trans people, whose livelihood is to join gay beaucons, goes on a roadtrip to find their own inner journeys and outer fabulousness despite the odds

catch: a bit longish, could be edited down a bit pa

congrats to upfi student bebs for helming this first full-length of his. maganda ang topic at hindi siya seasonal: mga gay beaucon joiners na ang tawag pala sa kanila e “thank you girls” kasi lagi silang natatalo o hindi nakakaabot ng first place. premise pa lang, panalo na! kakatawa siya hahaha.

nainis lang ako at hindi ako marunong mag-bisaya. gusto ko pa naman maintindihan yung nuance ng gayspeak nila doon kasi kakaiba e. but the subtitles work naman.

what doesn’t work is that repeating narrative cycle style sometimes, reminiscent of other nonlinear narrative films like some mexican films na di ko na maalala title, basta andun si gale garcia chorva kyuti. may malaki dapat dahilan kung bakit babalikan ang ikot ng isang parte ng naratibo, at dapat e sa ibang anggulo naman ito i-take. yung nangyari kasi, parang iisang anggulo lang, at tight lang ang isa at yung isa e wider shot. weird lang.

may feel din siya ng PRISCILLA QUEEN OF THE DESERT, this aussie film of yore na ganito din ang tema, na ni-ripoff naman ng american film na TO WONG FOO THANKS FOR EVERYTHING JULIE NEWMAR about the same time. inevitable ang comparison kasi road trip ito ng trannies at may eksenang nasa top ng bubong ng jeep at nagpapalipad ng colorful cloth.

the VO also reminds me of Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN na di mo alam kung sino ang nagsasalita tapos marami siyang alam sa buhay ng mga tao sa film. iffy lang na in the end, yung jeep pala ang nagsasalita. siya ang VO. actually, i think it could work better kung walang VO na lang, totally. ngayon ko lang naisip. hm.

pero other than that, masaya naman. the acting was good, the lines are witty and funny, lalo na yung nagpapraktis sila ng mga QnA portion while travelling. pinaka-paborito ko ito:

maitim na vakler: i have a question for you. define darkness.
vakler na nagre-rehearse: darkness is here beside me.

or something like that. hahahaha! basta aliw ito! if only for the lines. hahaha! saka maganda yung kuwento. nga lang, minsan it felt pepered with advocacy, with the beaucon women spewing lines straight out of taskforcepride hahahahah! well, this is good pero it might not be a bit realistic, kasi sa totoo lang, hindi naman masyadong advocacy-aware ang karamihan sa mga beaucon joiners na ganito e. siguro dapat tinimpla lang. i get the point but sana hindi nasobrahan.

all in all, happy ako na sasali ito sa vancouver. sana manalo! congrats guys!

isa pang naalala kong exchange, thanks to lush’s blogpost.

vakler 1: okay, here is your question. what is your waistline…and why?

hahahahaha nakakatawa! ang dami pa nito e. basta! watch!!!!!!!!