In Review: The Impossible

Directed By: Juan Antonio Bayona
Stars: Naomi Watts, Ewan McGregor

What I Liked
Heavyweight performances from Watts and McGregor. Ultra-realistic depiction of the tsunami. Harrowing depiction of the tsunami, meticulously detailed and executed. Great mother and son chemistry between Tom Holland and Watts.

What I Disliked
Harrowing narration with tiny emotional rewards. The needless insistence that the film is based on a true story. Forced casting of Watts and McGregor, remaking the story to be about a British family instead of Spanish.

Gist
It's an emotionally taxing film with great investment from its cast and its director, but as the emotional dividends pay off, you feel a little too drained to realize the payouts.

Maria and Henry Bennett (Watts and McGregor, Maria and Enrique Belon in real life--Spanish) with their kids Lucas, Thomas, and Simon decide to spend Christmas vacation in Thailand. While on vacation, the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 hit, separating the family and greatly injuring Maria. The film chronicles in great detail their survival of the tsunami as well as their eventual (and seemingly magical) reunion.

In 2004, a devastating tsunami hits Thailand and other countries in the Indian Ocean, claiming thousands of lives. The Impossible details the accounts of the Belon family, masked as the Bennetts, as they survive the tsunami and piece their family together through happenstance and good fortune.

The Belon family with Watts and McGregor

Bayona developed the movie with intensive participation from Maria Belon (who is credited in the movie, "Story By Maria Belon") to keep things as real as possible. Watts was cast as Maria Bennett, with Belon saying that she loved Watts in Inarritu's 21 Grams. To remedy this casting problem (instead of actually turning Watts to look Spanish), they simply made everyone British. The Belons became The Bennetts Enrique Belon was renamed Henry, while their sons Lucas and Simon kept their names (or the spellings at least as Spanish names are accented differently), while Tomas was Anglicized to Thomas. Oddly, Maria was not chastised into becoming Mary, perhaps because Maria wanted to keep her name out of vanity, but whatever.

Maria Belon with son Lucas Belon at the premiere of The Impossible,
8 years after the tragedy in Thailand

As with most true stories, we can count on directors to take dramatic liberties. Moviemaking has so many factors--how the producers and financial backers think it should sell, how the actors want to treat their characters, how the screenplay writers want to create cinematic affectation--that the final product may bear little resemblance to real life events--and sometimes for the better. In real life, Maria Belon loses half of her right leg, while in the movie, Maria keeps it (at least until the film ends) amidst becoming death.

My problem with The Impossible is how it managed to echo a fraction of The Passion of The Christ for Maria Bennett. It was a practice of stressful coincidences--owing perhaps to how graphic (and real, possibly even accurate) Bayona chose to portray the tsunami incident, with its fortunate events bordering soap opera territories that seems diluted in all that tsunami water. Was it bad? Far from it, but it is stressful to watch--it actually felt like experiencing the tsunami first hand that I'd say it is a movie experience that would mark on you and assure your distancing from the beach for the foreseeable future. Had Maria Bennett lost her leg, it would have been the nail to the coffin and cinemas might flood with tears--causing mass casualties. At least the family reunites and The Bennetts survive. Happiness! But for some reason, this joyful coincidence just couldn't compensate for the amount of stress I harbored over the 105 minutes running time. Of course, we wouldn't know for sure how much of all these is real, except that it felt real

Bayona depicts a tsunami event so graphically real, it's scarring.

Kudos to the cast. Watts and Holland portray believable mother and daughter, while McGregor, Watts, and Holland all have convincing and powerful performances that court tears.

The direction was grueling and meticulously detailed and the acting was powerful, but I don't know, maybe it would have been wiser for them to have allowed more happy scenes--or at least let us in on what kept Maria Bennett going, or arrange the eventual reunion in a less soapy manner and eventually depict Maria losing her leg: yeah, we can handle it the way we did with How to Train Your Dragon though that one did have its enchanting and happy moments. It's an emotionally taxing film with great investment from its cast and its director, but as the emotional dividends pay off, you feel a little too drained to realize the payouts. Not something you'd love to watch on a lonely day.

Judgment: Probably it was a bad idea to watch it with an overcast mood and a penchant for heading the beach this summer. I may have been expecting for Bayona to Hollywood-ize this film a bit more, make it more jovial and celebrating, but it ended feeling like Hostel with water. But maybe if he had, I'd call it sappy and cheesy. So maybe it's all for the good. They could've really just made Naomi and Ewan look more Spanish though, I mean come on, how hard is that? 3.6 out of 5 stars

For this movie, I'm willing to pay, 170 to 190 pesos. I paid 191 pesos. And Eastwood Cinemas decided to show me a grainy version with Thai subs. What a rip-off, Megaworld!

In Review: Les Miserables (2012)

Directed By: Tom Hooper

Stars: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried, Helena Bonham-Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen

What I Liked

Powerful performances from the cast, particularly from Anne Hathaway

What I Disliked

The whole thing felt like a needlessly long music video; Hooper failed to create an atmosphere that engrosses its audiences. The whole sing-song conversations that felt over the top. Russell Crowe's singing.

Gist

Needlessly long and often coming across as over-the-top, Hooper's need to saturate the near three hours running time with closeups failed to engross the audience with the atmosphere of France in revolt. Thankfully, the cast delivers powerful performances, particularly from Hathaway and Jackman.

Jean Valjean (Jackman) was sentenced to 5 years of prison after he stole a loaf of bread. His attempt to escape slavery in prison lengthened it to 19 years. After serving enough time, he obtained a parole, but couldn't get any decent job and continuously gets discriminated because of his papers stating his previous incarceration. One night, he strayed onto a church where the Monsignor allowed him the night and some food. Valjean however thought it better to steal some of the church's silver instead and run off. But he got caught and brought to the church and was given a free pass by the Monsignor telling him that he should use this silver for a new chance at life. Moved by the priest's kindness, he promised to live a new life of helping others from whatever riches he gains from the silver.

Coming off as one of the, if not the, highest profile adaptations of the stage musical, Tom Hooper's Les Miserables features an ensemble cast comprised of Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, and Anne Hathaway to name a few. Hooper's Les Mis holds distinctions over other adaptations for being shot primarily using a Steadycam, allowing a more creative take on filming, and with the songs sung live on-set, while the orchestra was dubbed in post-production. Set in 1815 and succeeding years that ultimately lead to the June Rebellion--a failed rebellion lead by students, Tom Hooper's take on Les Miserables is supposedly intimate and as and alive as the stage musical is (or to replicate the experience of watching the musical). While his intentions were good, I do not believe that he was able to meet the goal of creating an intimate film, something that speaks to the soul. I will be frank early in this review that this movie drove me frustrated and sleepy. I just didn't understand the choices that Tom Hooper made.

First off, let me mention the few good things I can raise about this film: Anne Hathaway. Her overall screen time is less than 20 minutes for a film that goes on for 160 minutes. But those 20 minutes were put to good use. Her scene-stealing performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" is so heartfelt and emotional even if I keep on getting distracted by the way it was filmed (but more on that later). She managed to put so much emotion and power into that song that you can feel the pain she is feeling. Things go downhill after that, though, and quite quickly.

Since I've picked on how Anne's performance was shot, let me start with that. The performance begins with Anne on a bed--after doing her first person as a prostitute. It wouldn't take long for the camera to slowly zoom in and present the whole performance close up. This works in a sense that you can see the pain on Anne's face. At one point you can even see the bloody gum where her tooth was plucked from. Anne at this point is very unsightly. And we are presented with this along with a very moving song of dreams lost. But! Where is she again? Is she wearing anything? Why does she keep looking that way or this way? What is in that space that she is looking at? What does her dress look like again? Oh wait, is she still wearing anything? The whole thing was shot at close up that you would soon lose interest at the pain that registers on her face and start feeling uncomfortable that you are confronted by an unsightly Anne Hathaway for two minutes non-stop: face to face. And there's nothing to distract you from that. Nothing but a black background which does not help you remember where she is. And no, the camera doesn't move around to show her back or her surroundings or her interacting with her surroundings. In fact, at one moment, when Anne looks up at the ceiling, the camera moves up with her head and we don't even get to see her neck anymore, just 5/6 of her face. You might not realize this on your first viewing, but I noticed this and wth, there was nothing interesting above, Hooper, just more darkness, to justify your taking away Anne's neck for like 5 seconds. I was actually afraid that the camera would go up higher and never come down because the scenes prior to this were so poorly framed. In fact, I felt like the whole I Dreamed a Dream was an overlong music video, reminiscent of Janet Jackson's Everytime.

First thing that comes to mind: what was the scary thing she saw that side
of the screen, why can't the cameraman show it to us? 

The whole time Anne Hathaway was singing I Dreamed a Dream, I can't help
but get reminded of Janet Jackson's Everytime, mostly shot shoulders up.

Some may say in defense that the way it was shot and framed was perfect because the director wants us to focus on Anne's performance rather than what's on the background. But what about her body language? I wanna see that too. I wanna see her clench her fists in sadness and anger over her present situation. Was she pressing her fists to her chest or stomach in utter disgust? What about her feet, those can express displeasure, too, or disgust over what she has just endured. What a missed opportunity!

I think that Hooper chose to film a majority of the film (and almost all of the 50 songs) in close up because, perhaps to him, close-up meant intimate. Yes, perhaps, physical proximity might amount to intimacy, but no, not in this case. Unfortunately, the closeups eventually alienate the audience in a sense that it didn't bring the audience to the same environment as the characters. I felt that Hooper kept the audience as viewers in a separate environment and they don't feel like they can participate in the scene. They're just watching the faces and have no clear idea where they are exactly. Take this example. Didn't you feel engrossed in James Cameron's Avatar? With Avatar, we are given a clear picture of Pandora--a full exploration even. That movie wasn't just about its characters or their CGI faces, it was about their settings, too, their world, their culture. In Les Mis, we are only allowed to interact with the characters and are only given glimpses of France in revolt--why are even they in revolt, was that discussed or was it expected of the audience to have some knowledge in history before stepping in? And those glimpses are quite the odd glimpses, too: shots that are angled weirdly, like the picture below (compared with Winding-Refn's Drive):

The movie is chock-full of shots that attempt to overuse shallow focus to
poor effect. The angle feels off and you don't exactly get a good idea of
what the shipyard (is it even a shipyard) and if Javert is wearing pants. You
also feel a tad shorter than Javert at this angle and feels awkward compared to:

This. Winding-Refn frames this conversation scene perfectly in Drive. We are
given an idea where THE DRIVER is and we are set to him on eye level,
equal height. Making it feel more intimate and less alienating unlike Russell Crowe's. 

Comparing those two, we are seeing France from Russell Crowe's chest. I am not sure what Hooper wants to present to his audience, too, in that shot: Russell Crowe, who is too far on the left, or France, which is too blurry and blocked by a Javert whose face is also poorly lit? In Refn's Drive, everything is clean. There are shadows, but we can see Gosling's face. We can also see Gosling and the whole environment in one glance.  We can also see where he is and the park is allowed to play background by letting us focus on the center where our eyes are trained to be at often, with the peripheral vision capturing minor details as we focus on the center. Since the background also seems elaborate, we know where he can go if the deal goes wrong, we are allowed in to explore this place where the scene is happening. With Hooper's off-angle style, I felt confined, distracted, and asked to choose whether to focus on the sky or on Crowe because everything is big and competing for attention.

And this style pervades throughout the whole 2 hours and 45 minutes running time.

But don't get me wrong. Sometimes this choice works. Sometimes the off-angled camera takes gorgeous shots, especially when it lets go of the shallow focus (blurred background). There were some shots in the opening "Look Down" that looked fine--some even gorgeous, though much of it was devoted to Hooper experimenting with closeups and shallow focus. "Master of the House" plays it safer and was actually enjoyable. "Do You Hear the People Sing?" is another one that wasn't peppered greatly with closeups and poor angle. Again, another enjoyable part. But such things come rare in Hooper's showcase because he filled the whole thing with close-ups and weird angles that belong better to fashion magazines.

And shame! The set design is lush and grand even if I only catch glimpses of it--but ultimately not enough glances to make me feel everything. Same can be said for costume design, which I get to see chest up only most of the times. And worst of all, the performances--all great--easily negated by the framing choices, unable to involve the audience into the whole environment. Again, to me, the whole thing felt like a needlessly long music video filled with closeups (to focus on how pretty this new POP IT girl even at close up) and shallow focus; Hooper failed to create an atmosphere that engrosses his audience, and I almost fell asleep half way because I was tired of seeing closeups after closeups or shots from the chest and tilted weirdly. The whole sing-song conversations that felt over the top didn't work for me, too, which also contributed to the padded length of 2h and 45 even if Hooper had actually shortened some songs by a minute.

Maybe this treatment would work for some people. But in the group of 10 I came in with for this movie, at most only 3 were pleased or OK with the final result. The rest were severely frustrated and felt it was boring, and that's mostly because the movie couldn't immerse people properly since it kept throwing faces at its audience. On the plus side, this treatment allowed me to count Eddie Redmayne's freckles when I was ready to walk out.

Judgment: Hooper dreamed a dream, but to me it felt like a 3-hour nightmare. Do people need to watch this? For me, not really, but people would and I wouldn't try to advise them against it simply because this film is so current, it would be a shame to have missed it, kind of like the Avengers of period films. Even if only for the sake of discussion, people would watch Les Mis because it's an event, rather than a movie, though a pretty bad one at that. My suggestion to those people is to skip the theatre and get a copy, legally or illegally, I don't think it should matter, because once that I Dreamed a Dream performance of Anne hits YouTube, then you can skip the movie entirely and save 3 hours of your life. 2 out of 5 stars.

For this movie, I'm willing to pay: less than a hundred bucks, then I would walk out and ask for a refund.

Revised: 20 Favorite Movies from 2012

2012 was the year of the franchises and big studio movies. This is the year where Nolan's Batman ended and Wheddon's Avengers began. The Hunger Games also began this year as with the journey of The Hobbit (which I have not seen yet as I opted to skip it). If you look at it, 2012 seems like a year of sequels: we have Skyfall, Expendables 2, Taken 2, Men in Black 3, Madagascar 3, Ice Age: Continental Drift, and Underworld: Awakening continuing their respective runs while Spider-Man gets its (rather unnecessary) reboot as well as the Bourne Legacy, sort of restarting with Jeremy Renner as its new lead. And finally, the Twilight saga closes, with boyfriends everywhere singing hymns of joy and praises that the nightmare is over. Tom Hooper's grandiose (and snooze-inducing) production of Les Miserables, The Charlize Theron and Kristen Stewart-starrer, Snow White and the Huntsman, and Seth MacFarlane's Ted also produced big numbers for their big studios.

Honestly, I feel that last year was more for the big studios than artsy indies. While last year, my top 4 was dominated by limited theatrical releases: The Artist, Weekend, and Drive, with the exception of Bridesmaids being the only one given a wide release, I feel like my overall melancholy in 2012 resulted in my liking big studio comedies, while my intense love for Breaking Bad and Homeland made me like suspense thrillers over complicated, serious, and heartbreaking indies. Well, since I've been blabbing about these movies, might as well present the complete and revised list. Here is my 20 favorite movies from 2012.

20. Your Sister's Sister

Directed by Lynn Shelton

Stars Emily Blunt, Rosemarie DeWitt, Mark Duplass

The Offering: Struggling to get over his brother's suicide, Jack (Duplass) takes an offer from his bestfriend and brother's ex, Iris (Blunt), to stay at their isolated cabin to think. Upon getting there, he encounters Hannah (DeWitt) and has a one-night stand with her only to wake up to Iris joining them at the cabin the day after.

Admission ticket: Amazingly crazy, Your Sister's Sister begins like an average affair, but as it progresses, it becomes more endearing with every crazy turn it takes that pay off. It also helps that Emily Blunt was extremely likable, while Duplass, a rather odd choice for a leading man, works his part well. DeWitt is also equally likable, rounding up the amazing cast that weaves the insanity in every turn.

19. Six Degrees of Separation from Lilia Cuntapay

Directed by Antoinette Jadaone

Stars Lilia Cuntapay

The Offering: Mockumentary about a Philippine cinema extra Lilia Cuntapay receiving an award after 30 years of hardwork. Packs an unsuspected philosophical punch about recognition and self-fulfillment.

Admission Ticket: Jadaone's Cinema One Originals effort is one rife with heart. She did to Lilia Cuntapay what Letters of Iwo Jima did to the Japanese soldiers. She humanized a horror icon that haunted most of our childhood. The mockumentary format matched its quirky humor and Jadaone's tendency to show her lead in a comedic light.When humor is turned off, however, Cuntapay goes for the kill with her unique brand of philosophy, or her own brand of human drama that grips.

18. Dredd 3D

Directed by Pete Travis

Stars Karl Urban, Lena Heady, Olivia Thirlby 

The Offering: Karl Urban plays Judge Dredd in a world where the police is setup as the jury, judge, and executioner. He takes along Judge Anderson on what seems like a normal day until they're lockdown in a drug complex. Urban does not reveal his full face, not even once. And oh, Cersei Lannister is here, too!

Admission Ticket: Set up similarly to The Raid: Redemption, Dredd won me over by its tendency to be trippy and the effective battle of wills between Karl Urban's Dredd and Heady's Ma-Ma. There are no fist fights, but Dredd's tendency to make fun of itself and its dark humor it derives from its brutality makes it witty and well-adapted in its own right.

17. The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Directed by John Madden

Stars Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, Maggie Smith, Dev Patel

The Offering: Britain's most prized veterans join forces as seniors who retires in India's "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" that apparently is crumbling and aging. Their stay in India, however, changes them, and as they start to grow fond of their stay, The Marigold Hotel becomes endangered of being sold.

Admission Ticket: Marigold Hotel may seem like an uninteresting British equivalent to The Expendables, but if given the chance, it's actually charming, sweet, and heartwarming like a grandma. Dench was charming as usual, while Maggie Smith begins dour but ends up lovable. Dev Patel as the enthusiastic Sonny is also a delight.

16. Skyfall
Directed by Sam Mendes
Stars a bunch of British people JK! Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem

The Offering: James Bond gets and presumed dead, while he actually enjoys lounging around in some tropical island. Silva, a terrorist goes for M's neck, and pretty much wrecks England in the process, prompting Bond to go out of hiding.

Admission Ticket: Best Bond film ever! Seriously, this is the only Bond film I've seen other than Casino Royale. And since the internet is in agreement that Casino Royale was the best Bond film of all time, then my finding of Skyfall better than Casino Royale as the better Bond film supports my claim that this is the best Bond film ever. Seriously, crazy action plus a great villain in Bardem makes this Bond film one for remembering.

15. 21 Jump Street
Directed by Phil Lord, Chris Miller
Stars Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Ice Cube

The Offering: Two underachieving cops are entered into the 21 Jump Street program after failing to read the Miranda Rights to the person they're arresting. Just when you think a movie with Channing Tatum is bound to suck, 21 Jump Street proves you wrong.

Admission Ticket: Perhaps the funniest comedy movie this 2012, the bumbling duo Hill and Tatum hasn't been this funny or good in a long time. The jokes are perfectly timed for Jump Street and it can be credited to producing one of 2012's most profound movie quotes "Fuck you, science!" Tatum goes under the influence of the drug they are supposed to stop the spread. It's crazy and stupid fun, something you can watch over and over.

14. Pitch Perfect
Directed by Jason Moore
Stars Anna Kendrick, Rebel Wilson, Skylar Astin

The Offering: Bring it On meets Mean Girls meets Glee. Probably not the best way to describe Pitch Perfect. Anna Kendrick plays goth girl who wants to be a music producer but instead becomes an a capella girl that she did not think she'd become.

Admission Ticket: Rebel Wilson. Anyone who says otherwise will be slayed immediately. The numbers are just great and the secret lead Rebel Wilson is given enough opportunity to display her talent. The commentary exchanges between Gail and John are also laugh out loud offensive.There's also a fat heart somewhere in the movie and we are told that if we love each other enough, we will win an a capella contest.

13. Seven Psychopaths
Directed by Martin McDonagh
Stars Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson

The Offering: Farrell plays Marty, an Irish writer struggling to come up with a screenplay for a movie while Sam Rockwell plays Billy his bestfriend with psychopathic tendencies who kidnaps dogs for a living. Billy one day kidnaps a mobster's Shih Tzu which begins a crazy spin on their lives.

Admission Ticket: Absurd by design, darkly fun, grandly entertaining, and overwrought with crazy, McDonagh's Seven Psychopaths features a fine performance from Sam Rockwell as the crazy Billy Bickle that buoys the whole story along.

12. Ruby Sparks
Directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris
Stars Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan, Chris Messina

The Offering: Calvin Weir-Fields is a celebrated young  writer whose sophomore project just wouldn't materialize. While consulting with his psychologist who helps him get through his fear of being a one-hit wonder and his breakup, he was given a writing assignment that soon turned to a book idea that soon materialized its main character in his kitchen.

Admission Ticket: Dayton and Faris' follow up to Little Miss Sunshine is no less quirky. Paul Dano starts a bit awkward and unlikable but finishes strong with a little help from Zoe Kazan. The idea that we reduce people to expectations that we don't state until they start not meeting those expectations is the central premise of Ruby Sparks that just works for me.

11. Silver Linings Playbook

Directed by David Russell

Stars Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert de Niro, Jacki Weaver

The Offering: Pat Jr. (Cooper) is a (hardly) recuperating bipolar who's had a restraining order from his estranged wife after beating his wife's lover severely. After getting out of the Baltimore facility, he tries piecing his life together to eventually win his wife back. He sees a silver lining when he meets Tiffany (Lawrence) who can help him communicate with his wife through letters.

Admission Ticket: Released at a time of rom-com recession, SLP manages to be fun, funny, smart, and sensitive, with Lawrence at her most convincing and human performance of a recuperating sex addict, while De Niro and Cooper were equally terrific as father and son with explosive tendencies, rounding up to make a rare rom-com gem.

10. Holy Motors

Directed by Leos Carax

Stars Dennis Lavant, Edith Scob, Kylie Minogue

The Offering: Trippy as fuck, Holy Motors is about a man named Oscar travelling Paris in a limousine, assuming identities that people completely accept as his. It's a surreal ride filled with allusions and terrific performances with each identity change.

Admission Ticket: Holy Motors will catch you in surprise. Carax keeps an air of mystery around the premise that would make one think for days about what the film is actually about.  Who pays Oscar for these appointments? Why is his identity change fully accepted? What are the actors really? Does the Holy Motors company name relate them to, uh, God? Why do the limos talk?

9. Marvel's The Avengers
Directed by Joss Wheddon
Stars Robert Downey Jr, Jeremy Renner, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Evnas, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, and Samuel L. Jackson

The Offering: 4 years in the making, Marvel's Avengers is (Disney's) Marvel Studio's culmination in everything it learned about making a good superhero movie. 

Admission Ticket: There's just too many to mention here. The great CGI for starters, the epic moments of The Avengers fending off the huge floating aliens, Thor teasing Iron Man about using mom's curtains for his cape, The Hulk cleaning the floor with Loki, Thor flooring Iron Man, Iron Man flooring Thor, Jeremy Renner being badass, Scarlett Johansson being flexible, you know where this is heading. It's the most fun you can have in cinema, and Wheddon's reward for being an unnoticed talent.

8. Chronicle
Directed by Josh Trank
Stars Dane DeHaan, Michael B. Jordan, Alex Russell

The Offering: Three high school seniors stumble upon an underground cavern where a crystalline boulder lies, emitting strange lights that eventually give them telekinetic powers that they agreed to keep secret. Soon enough, one of them begins acting out of line, endangering their secret and the people around them.

Admission Ticket: Chronicle at first glance feels like a normal cash-in movie: Superhero origins, found footage format, but a charmingly depressed Dane DeHaan, a boy who wanted to do good, but ends up doing the opposite, would propel a could have been vapid film into a thrilling superhero flick that works. And best of all, the found-footage format works with Trank playing with inventive ways of mounting the camera to make it feel floating.

7. Pieta

Directed by Kim Ki-duk 

Stars Lee Jung-jin, Jo Min-su

The Offering: A man working for a loan shark who cripples the clients to get their insurance money for payment comes across a woman who introduces herself as the mother who abandoned him 30 years ago, fills a hole in him, and changes him. But who is this woman, really?

Admission ticket: The Golden Bear winner this year (by means of disqualification) is a South Korean film that echoes a common element of Korean drama: a manic pixie dream girl. But this time, the MPDG is a mother who teaches her son to be a good person. Some scenes may be difficult to watch, but the film's resolution is so breathtakingly gorgeous and haunting, it deserves a re-watch.

6. Wreck-it Ralph
Directed by Rich Moore
Stars Kristen John O' Reilly, Sarah Silverman, lots of video game characters

The Offering: A video game villain is tired of not being appreciated in his job and so he travels to other arcade games to get himself a medal and be treated like the hero Fix-it Felix. The movie features a lot of video game characters and humors.

Admission Ticket: Rich in nostalgia and humor, Wreck-it Ralph is Disney's closest to becoming Disney Pixar. There hasn't been anything as joyful and nostalgic as Wreck-it Ralph (other than The Muppets) in recent memory, that's why it claims the 5th spot. And how cute was the Sugar Rush game and characters? For me, this is the best animated movie of 2012. Hands down.

5. The Dark Knight Rises
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Stars Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Marion Cotillard

The Offering: Nolan's Batman trilogy ends with a Billion dollar bang. Bruce Wayne mourns and becomes a recluse after the death of his love. But a certain burglary leads Bruce Wayne to a man they call Bane who's out to destroy Gotham City.

Admission Ticket: Some will say that The Dark Knight Rises pales in comparison to 2008's The Dark Knight. But let's be fair, Bane is hardly as popular a villain as The Joker. Yet, he worked (though that accent, ugh! Feels like he's in a cooking show)! Plus that twist somewhere near the end and Nolan making us think that someone will be making a Nightwing movie even Gordon-Levitt couldn't even throw a punch without hurting himself.

4. Beasts of the Southern Wild
Directed by Benh Zeitlin
Stars Quvenzhane Wallis, Dwight Henry, a bunch of other unknowns

The Offering: Set in a Louisiana bayou community cut-off from the rest of civilization by a levee, Beasts explores Hushpuppy's journey into adulthood after a violent storm threatens their carefree life in the bayou and her father's health further sinking to deep mud.

Admission Ticket: In a nutshell, it's a poor man's Pan's Labyrinth with a tendency for vivid pictures of poverty and to stick to its convictions, right or wrong. Rife with childish stubbornness, imagination, glee, carefree, and bayou-survival brand of wisdom, Beasts seesaws between fantasy and reality and often emerges imbalanced thanks largely to its dedication to create its own problems. But even so, Wallis's performance pays its own emotional dividends while the movie wraps itself up with a fantastic score.

3. Amour
Directed by Michael Haneke
Stars Jean-Louis Tritignant, Emanuelle Riva

The Offering: Simply put, Haneke's Amour is a tale of love surviving even after death. But to capsulate it as such is careless. Amour's a painful look at the trials of growing old together and keeping in love amid the difficulties that accompany old age.

Admission Ticket: It's easy to name Amour as one of 2012's best, watching it is a more difficult task, however, especially if you can identify with the characters. A heart-wrenching tale of growing old together and love surviving even the test of physical death, Amour is a fine work from Austrian director Haneke, laced with subtle symbolisms and an emotionally shattering final act that redeems as much as it stabs.

2. Argo

Directed by Ben Affleck
Stars Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman

The Offering: Based on the clandestine CIA operation known as the Canadian Caper during a tumultuous time in Iran during the 80s, Argo sees Ben Affleck as CIA officer Tony Mendez trying to smuggle American diplomats out of Iran after the American embassy was taken over by the Iranian government.

Admission Ticket: Precision. Tension. Ah, Argo, without any doubt, is Affleck's best directorial effort to date. So much that it's scary for Affleck to be making a new movie because it may not equal Argo's masterclass in control and build up. It's one of the few movies that kept me literally on the edge of my seat. The actors, bar Affleck, are lovable: Cranston, Arkin, Goodman, and even the Iranian guards at the airport that speak Farsi. 

1. Zero Dark Thirty

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow
Stars Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Jennifer Ehle, Joel Edgerton 

The Offering: An unsweetened dramatization of the decade-long search for Osama Bin Laden, Zero Dark Thirty centers in on Maya, a CIA analyst stationed in Pakistan, as she comes to terms with the nature of her work and how she battles terrorism and bureaucracy to accomplish her job--find and kill Bin Laden.

Admission Ticket: Bigelow's and Boal's take on the hunt for Bin Laden possesses the same quiet explosive tendency that Hurt Locker has but has twice the control and tension. It's hard to pinpoint exactly which of the factors of Zero Dark Thirty would stick out as its most defining one. With Argo, that would be Affleck's direction, but in Bigelow's everything just works: the editing, the quiet script that suddenly explodes, the narrative, and Chastain's Maya that goes toe to toe (in terms of cool) with Gosling's Driver in Drive. It edges out on Argo by a small margin, possibly because Argo has no central character to anchor you in on the story, but this one has, and a very cool one, something that Affleck's Tony Mendez had some trouble with.

In Review: Zero Dark Thirty

Directed By: Kathryn Bigelow

Stars: Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Jennifer Ehle, Joel Edgerton

What I Liked

Bigelow's no-nonsense direction, Chastain's powerful performance, narrative is fast-paced, controlled, and quietly intense

What I Disliked

Carrie and Saul's missing cameo in Langley. Why, Bigelow, why?

Gist

Bigelow respects her source material by not over-dramatizing the harrowing experience of her subjects. She instead delivers an intelligently executed gripping thriller possessing the same quiet explosive tenacity as her previous war movie, Hurt Locker, but with twice the control and surprise, thanks to Jessica Chastain's incredibly reserved cool and intensity popping out unexpectedly from her seemingly frail frame.

Maya (Chastain) was recruited to work for the CIA in highschool. 2 years after 9/11, she got her first overseas assignment in Pakistan where she accompanies a colleague, Dan (Clarke), to a CIA black site where a detainee is held. Initially, Maya distastes at the sight of torture, but eventually grew unflinching and sly--outsmarting the detainee even after failing to prevent an attack. The revelations from the outwitted detainee soon lead her to a trail rife with peril, putting her at odds with insurgents and superiors as she try to prove what she believe is the right trail to avenging her nation.

When I was 22 or 23, can't remember, and I haven't seen a lot of movies, I went to see Hurt Locker on DVD (as is the usual case of non-moneymaking machine movies, it didn't get shown in my country until it was up for like Oscars for Everyfuckignthing). Initially, I couldn't finish it, not because it was too intense--that would come a bit later--but because it dragged a great deal for the first thirty minutes. Besides, who was Jeremy Renner then, though? He played bad guys mostly (primarily remembered for his role in SWAT as an antagonist, and last billed among the list) and wasn't particularly likable at the start if the movie. Months after my first attempt, and I had no social functions to go to (i.e. get drunk till I needed to be driven home for my own good), I picked up my copy and managed to finish the whole thing. It was a rather emotionally harrowing experience of the war on Iraq and I understood why Bigelow got the nod in 82nd Oscars. It was an intense thriller that had multiple build-ups of tension and release.

Bigelow's Zero Dark Thirty (ZDT) does not stray far from Hurt Locker's atmosphere. But it had tighter control. It was noticeably quieter than its predecessor, with its build-ups going in unnoticed until it's time for the release. And what a release! The only sort of suspense that could've equaled it is this year's Argo, which, for the sake of comparison, only had one monumental build up and release, and quite a joyous one. ZDT had multiple build ups, multiple acts that build up tension and release them, all of which are as masterful as Affleck's, and, I daresay, a step ahead of him. The sort that needed good editing to quicken the pace. One climax: boom! There you go. Let's move on to the next one, shall we? Bigelow shows us how it's done.

And since we're on the topic of comparing ZDT and Argo, I might as well finish. I have to say that it's a toss between the two for my favorite movie of the year. The similarities: both are about CIA intelligence operations, both are rife with suspense and have masterful direction and storytelling, both have endings that are part of history and already known to the audience--and yet they still manage to be an engaging watch, amid having its audience spoiled. The major difference between them, and I would need an analogy here, is this: if they were orange juice, Argo would be the sweetened sort, having spiced itself with delightful characters (Goodman and Arkin) and good old drama. ZDT appears to be the unsweetened sort, no drama, no delightful characters, just pure orange-y goodness. Some people would prefer one over the other, but both are orange juice and orange juice is good for you unless your hyperacidic, or in the sense of these suspense thrillers, tachychardic.

Not to say that Affleck has been curt with Argo, but Bigelow respects her source material by not over-dramatizing her subjects and their harrowing experience. She delivers an intelligently executed gripping thriller possessing the same quiet explosive tenacity as her previous war movie, Hurt Locker, but with twice the control and surprise, owing perhaps to Jessica Chastain's incredibly reserved cool and intensity popping out unexpectedly from her seemingly frail frame.

Both Chastain and Danes play strong CIA female analysts,
and the physical similarities align nicely, too: wide eyes,
deep eye sockets, big thin lips, thin nose, strong cheekbones,
delicate frame. 

Chastain's "Maya," a role she has performed with reserved cool and quiet tenacity that goes toe to toe with Gosling's Driver in 2011's Drive in my book, has drawn several comparisons with Danes' Carrie Mathison, prompting people to look up their inspiration. After all, both Carrie and Maya possess the same love for poring over details and obsession to what they think they're right about, clashing even with their superiors to arrive to the truth. Some digging in the internet suggests that they are based off from the short story "No Easy Day" whose central character, a "Jen," is a female CIA analyst. Whether their similarities are coincidental or not, Chastain's Maya is more controlled than Danes' Carrie who tends to employ dangerous assumptions and equipped with a penchant for reckless abandon. And I think that's what makes Maya work for ZDT's brand of suspense. She has no drama that she throws on about (even at the death of a close friend, she remains calm), she sticks to the plan, and keeps everything toned down. The sort of storytelling that ZDT came up with demanded control and Chastain delivers that to Boal and Bigelow. Her Maya is our guide, connecting to our minds rather than to our hearts (that is handled by the events depicted in the movie), the voice of calm in a shitstorm of clusterfuck, pardon the language, and if she has gone over-the-top, it would not have helped the audience understand the goings-on in the movie. And does Chastain deserve all the accolade she is getting? Yes, and she'll probably even get the Oscar.

Perhaps, that was the problem with Argo. It didn't have a Maya. We are presented with a Tony Mendez, performed by a less than likable (as an actor) Affleck, who isn't as sure as Maya in his convictions. He couldn't calm the storm the way Maya. Mendez knew his plan can fail, and when that happens, God help him--he is sure they're fucked. With Maya, there was no failure. She has data and she even wants to drop a bomb because she is that sure. In a movie full of suspense, a Maya would be more preferable than a Mendez as a guide.

Judgment: 2012's Best Picture? For me, it's no question. Bigelow delivers a mastefully executed thriller,  doubling the control and tension from her previous war movie. The result is a film that has a heavier weight than any of the competition--one that entertains as much as it educates. 5 out of 5 stars.

For this movie, I'm willing to pay: 250 to 320 PHP.

In Review: Life of Pi

Directed By: Ang Lee

Stars: Suraj Sharma, Irfan Khan, Rafe Spall

What I Liked

Ang Lee's visual poetry is spot-on, a pretty straight out adaptation that respected its source material

What I Disliked

Some magic was lost in the translation and the film felt hurried, providing symbolism but not fully fleshing them out

Gist

Ang Lee's adaptation of Life of Pi is visually spot-on, and his choice of narrative fits the material perfectly. It can't be helped, though, that some poetry was lost in translation. The film has a spirit and an emotional pull but not one as intense as its source material.

Piscine Molitar "Pi" Patel is son to a zoo owner. He is named after the "best" public swimming pool his Uncle has swam on in France. When Pi reached his 16th birthday, India found itself in a political turmoil, and his father decides to sell the zoo animals to North American zoos and move permanently to Canada to ensure their future. On board the cargo ship Tsimtsum, they sailed through the Pacific with all the zoo animals on board. But things go wrong when a storm in the sea caused the Tsimtsum to sink. Pi, awake during the storm, managed to escape death and soon finds himself on a raft in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in the company of an adult Bengal Tiger.

***This review does not contain spoilers, but may affect your experience of the film***

In 2002, writer Yann Martel won a Man Booker Prize Award for the book on which the film is based on. Before getting published, his manuscript was rejected by at least 5 publishers. Subsequently, the tiger in the book is called Richard Parker, a play on the coincidence that the name "Richard Parker" often appearing in several shipwreck stories. The source material isn't as unfilmable as some may think (Cloud Atlas is more unfilmable, actually, owing perhaps to length). Ang Lee's adaptation was pretty spot on, except that he didn't go into excruciating detail of Pi's hardships in the sea--which could've given the movie a deeper emotional tug. Not that the film skimped on the emotional beatings, but the book was more punishing and stressful to the reader.

The actors that played Pi did well, particularly Sharma, whose performance was central to the film. His is the human voice that put things into perspective: the guide to the journey and our connection the film and the trials at sea. In my book though, Sharma plays second fiddle to a domineering CGI tiger in terms of importance to the movie. Life of Pi, the book, is full of symbolism, and if you read through them, you'd see that the sea represents a difficult journey or life itself, the boat represents our limited resources, reaching civilization is our destiny, and the tiger is our inner struggle that we need to control as well as our will to survive--in short, the tiger is our spirit. This pretty much worked the same way in the film. Richard Parker, though made of CGI, is the movie's spirit. He is the life and the propeller of Pi as well as the story. The CGI work was done so well that you will forget that Richard Parker is nothing more than 3D modelling with fur. It is quite impossible to not fall in love with and be frightened of the magnificent Richard Parker. Pi's struggle with Richard Parker is so affecting that it will stress you and compel you to rejoice with him when he trains him. And that would not have been possible if Richard Parker wasn't as lifelike as in the film.

And since we're on the topic of CGI, majority of the film is strongly in CGI, thus I entreaty everyone who will be watching this to watch this in 3D. The film will possibly lose some value if seen in 2D. It's just more beautiful when everything pops. Scenes like the fish, the sunsets, the storm, and the like would stun you. A major kudos to Ang Lee's vision of bringing the story with such picturesque execution.

Ang Lee's adaptation of Life of Pi is so visually spot-on, and his choice of narrative is perfect for that approach. It can't be helped, though, that this approach loses some poetry in its translation. The film has a spirit and an emotional pull but not one as intense as its source material. Life of Pi's emotional pull is that it's a story people can relate to in a sense that we all have struggles. The struggles were pretty short-lived in the film, not fully capitalizing on their effects on its audience.

***The succeeding part may contain spoilers, but I tried my best to keep it clean***

The biggest complaint I can give perhaps is how Ang Lee did the meerkat island (you saw this on the trailer, technically not a spoiler). In the book, Pi spends weeks in the island, developing a deeper relationship and understanding (or fear) of Richard Parker as the tiger was nourished back to full health. In the movie, he spends a day and a night before setting sail again. The meerkat island represents the comfortable endings that we settle for in exchange of fulfilling our destiny--Pi admits that he would've wanted to stay in the island for as long as he can. The book describes the meerkats in the island as oblivious to the danger of predators so much so that they accept their fate as Richard Parker's dinner wholeheartedly. The meerkats represent the people who have accepted these comfortable endings as a way of life that when problems (or dangers) happen, they are easily overcome. My problem with that is that Ang Lee did not fully flesh out that symbolism. It was an important symbolism and a missed opportunity.

But still, Lee stands as one of the most poetic directors and his mistakes are forgivable if you haven't read the book and relate to it in a manner that you wouldn't in the movie. The struggles are still intense, picturesque even, conjuring a spirit of humanity that would speak to its audience.

Judgment: I'm still sad over the poetry and symbolism that Ang Lee didn't fully capitalize on. I wouldn't mind spending another hour in the theatre if those were fleshed out properly. But I guess majority would prefer the film as it is. I am torn because I loved what I saw but I wanted more out of it.But still, they are pretty intense and the visuals conjure a certain sense of spirit that would speak to you. My recommendation is that if you are to watch this film, you best pay for 3D. 4 out of 5 stars.

For this movie, I'm willing to pay: 250 to 300 PHP, but only if in 3D.

La MMFF Est Mort, Vive La MMFF!

Finally, after today, it is over! Metro Manila Film Festival's monopoly of local cinemas is finally no more. And quite nicely, our first foreign film for January is none other than Ang Lee's Life of Pi contrast this with last year's The Devil Inside. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Filipino film, but not the sad sort shown every MMFF and was this previous film fest a punishment, with Thy Womb not even measuring up in my opinion. In earnest hope that next year some brilliant young director (or returning veteran director) will bring at least 1 sensible entry into the filmfest that respects our intelligence as consumers, let's look at the different type of movies shown every MMFF since the late 90s to present.

The Barrel Bottom Scraper

examples: Enteng Kabisote / Okay Ka Fairy Ko franchise, Tanging Ina franchise, Mano Po franchise, Shake Rattle and Roll

Once upon a time, some director managed to make a hit of a movieof genuine charm. Since it broke box office records, the studio thought to make a sequel. And show it on the MMFF. But since there isn't any more story that can be made of the material, the upcoming film now banks on its prequel(s)'s box-office to get buzz and revenue. And surely it would. But people would be so appalled by what they saw that next year, since it earned big bucks, the studio will produce a sequel and the people who detested it will watch it again anyway, in case it gets better, or just because, continuing a vicious cycle of feeding crap and the studio scraping the bottom of the barrel of a tired franchise in need of retirement.

The History Class

examples: El Presidente, Jose Rizal, Rizal sa Dapitan

It perhaps started with 1997's Rizal sa Dapitan then soon followed by the much lauded Cesar Montano vehicle Jose Rizal. It was a legitimate excuse of an entry. After all, an exposition of culture and history is more acceptable than a melodrama. Soon enough, they became a staple on our film fest, continuously proving that we don't want to take risks into creating a period drama about the common man during the Spanish colonization era. But we could. We just don't think we should because who'd like to see that? Personally, I think a lesbian / gay love affair between a slave and an educated mestizo would be an interesting film because we don't have any idea how homosexuality is treated during then. My Catholic School history textbooks didn't acknowledgment that homosexuality exists even in Rizal's Days. Or how about a brother-sister attempt to rescue their father arrested for charges of treason using their innocence and charm, but ultimately ends up with one of them killed and the other decapitated, left to wander the streets of Manila, ultimately inspiring a young Rizal (not revealed to the audience) to write against the Spanish.

The Family Affair

examples: Tanging Yaman, Dekada 70, Filipinas, Mano Po 1

Tanging Yaman was actually a good film, though I was like 4 when I saw it. Nevertheless, it was top-billed by great performances from Gloria Romero playing an ailing mother to two irreconcilable sons, Manzano and Delgado. The confrontation scene where Manzano promises that he'd leave not a single centavo to Delgado's name is perhaps one of early 2000s cinema's most memorable scenes. That was 12 years ago. Things have gone bad since then. Delgado has succumbed to cancer, Romero has modeled for Ricky Reyes, and Manzano ran for VP and had humble pie for dinner, now living on a career on TV game shows. What followed after Tanging Yaman's strong influence was a slew of cheesy family dramas that ape it. The tepid Dekada 70 and Filipinas, attempted but to no avail and soon we had the Mano Po 1, starting a another Bottom Barrel Scraping franchise for Regal Films. Family Affairs are either hit or miss, but mostly miss, with nothing but melodrama to buoy it along and an ensemble cast that struggle with poor material. I daresay, the fabled Oro Plata Mata was a Family Affair in a way Dekada 70 was not.


The Star Cinerma Cash Cow

examples: Dalaw, One More Try, I Love You Goodbye, 

A prominent and imposing studio in Filipino film industry, Star Cinema once delivered sensible films to the filmfest, but having suffered setbacks in their attempts in Dekada 70 and Bagong Buwan, films that failed to top the MMFF, they have since played it safe with formulaic melodramas or horror films or the Tanging Ina franchise. As per practice, a Star Cinema Cash Cow competes with another Star Cinema movie that is less advertised in their commercial breaks. By theory, a Star Cinema Cash Cow is less crappy than a Regal Film cash cow, but is almost always formulaic, safe, and sappy.


The CGI Mess aka A Bong Revilla Movie
examples: Bong Revilla films

Bong Revilla Sr. was decidedly Nardong Putik. Unfortunately for Jr here, he had yet to find out what he wants to become when he grows up. He has tried his hand at being Panday twice, then he became a robot maker from recycled junk in Resiklo, then he's Exodus, then he's now with Enteng and Juday. But if there's anything we can be sure of, it's that Bong's assumed identity is one to wear a sleeveless outfit revealing enough to highlight his thick arms but conservative enough to hide his man-boobs and flabs. And another, when there's a Bong Revilla film, trust his Imus Productions to color his film rife with poor CGI and a story written by an 8-year old kid. While we wait for Senator Bong Revilla to find his iconic identity, we would have to suffice with these CGI messes he is so proud of. Ladies and Gentlemen, Manila's Michael Bay, sadly.

The Tardy Horror Film
examples: Kris Aquino films (her acting alone is scary)--Segunda Mano, Dalaw, The Strangers, Sigaw

I have some reservations classifying Shake Rattle and Roll because more often than not, those movies are more of a comedy and a slap on our faces. Surprisingly, we are faced by these films, too late for Halloween, scaring us at Christmas Day. Almost always, these horror films do not intend to win any award. They are the most straight-forward and honest of the film fest entries. They are there for lovers who wants to chance a hug from their frightened mate. They are the most honest in a sense that they are only competing for money and not for awards and are the first to acknowledge that the MMFF is a money-making machine.


The Retirementville Special
examples: FPJ films, Dolphy films
When Dolphy was dying, people were saying all good things about the man and how he is an icon industry and how he made great comedy films. But in the not-too-distant past, Dolphy made several worn out comedy films like Home Along Da River, Nobody Nobody but Juan, and Father Jejemon, films that earned him tongue-lashing from not so forgiving critics. Prior to that, who could forget FPJ's attempts at Alamat ng Lawin, which was basically Panday that grew old and wanted to bond with kids. Today's Barrel Bottom scraper masterminds would soon find themselves taking up the shoes of Retirementville veterans.

The Pacquiao / Jinggoy / Currently Famous Person Vehicle aka the Oddball that No One Watches
examples: Wapakman, Panday (with a motherfucking shotgun)

If you remember that time when Pacquiao wore Spandex and acted to horrible script then I know how that feels, bro. Apparently, it is worth the cinema time. Almost always no one watches these films but their relatives and are the lowest of low in filmmaking, exploiting the starpower, if any, of the top-billed star in the movie.


The Rare Gem That No One Remembers
examples: Panaghoy sa Suba, Crying Ladies, Bridal Shower, Markova, RPG: Metanoia, Tanging Yaman
Color me weird by citing the above movies, but most of those were actually watchable movies. Panaghoy sa Suba was a brave attempt, using primarily Bisaya as its language and is composed with picturesque imagery. Crying Ladies was a great directorial feature by then-new Mark Meily, featuring a Sharon Cuneta casting off her leading lady image, opting for a more mature and motherly role that made the audience laugh and cry. Bridal Shower is a movie that made Alfred Vargas a name--his stripper paired with Cherry Pie's insecure aging single woman was the best part of it, making the movie work. It was a charming comedy that worked and was possibly Seiko Films' last good film. Markova featured Dolphy in probably his most heart-breaking role as an ageing gay man who was forced by Jap soldiers into sex work. The Gil Portes film featured fully fleshed out characters and great performances by Dolphy and sons. And yes, for some weird reason, my mom took me to watch this film with her, of all her sons. 2010's RPG: Metanoia was a breath of fresh and was, fortunately, not just a Star Cinema Cash Cow, it was a charming, heart-warming affair and a step forward in Filipino 3D animation. And lastly, Tanging Yaman, for the reasons I've stated in the previous number.

Sadly, as the sappy or poorly produced films keep raking in, we would be out of rare gems year in and year out and suffer the same sort of tosh the film fest delivers. But here's to hoping.

In Review: Django Unchained

Directed By: Quentin Tarantino

Stars: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson, Kerry Washington

What I Liked

Tarantino's signature all over it: gleeful violence, bold storytelling, commitment to a tasteful exploitation movie style. Waltz, Jackson, and Dicaprio were spectacular in their roles, with Foxx trailing not far behind

What I Disliked

The switch to linear narrative focused the character development on Django and Schultz, while leaving the other interesting characters under-exposed.

Gist

Gleeful in its violence and frenetic in its execution, Django Unchained is another artful showcase of bloody (dis)taste and B-movie spirit from Tarantino and his great cast.

Django (Foxx) and his wife, Broomhilda (Washington) were once working together in a cotton plantation but has since been sold separately after being severely whipped when they attempted to run free from their owners. Django, now owned by the Speck Brothers, is rescued by Doctor King Schultz (Waltz), who identifies himself as a dentist, and a bounty hunter with a distaste for slavery. In need of Django's assistance in identifying the Brittle Brothers, Schultz freed Django and makes him a partner in his bounty trips. Django proves to be a natural and valuable partner, aiding him in finishing the Brittles and Smitty Bacall. After a couple of bounties, Schultz and Django decides to rescue Broomhilda who is purchased by the menacing Calvin Candie (DiCaprio), an entrepreneur with a sophisticated taste for violence.

Django Unchained's directorial style is another step in the exploitation film directorial route that Tarantino built his career upon. This time, he chooses to do a Spaghetti Western, and sadly, he abandons his non-linear narrative where individual characters are given a task of developing the plot. One thing to note is that for this film, a linear narrative would work better, it is about Django after all and not about the Candie Land slaves or outlaws.  While I would have appreciated a better look into the life of Calvin Candie, he is after all, a really interesting character or that of Doctor Schultz, the movie chooses to focus on Django who could've easily been outshone by his supporting cast. Though I do miss the wit of a non-linear narrative that Tarantino often pulls. That is to say that the narrative is the least interesting in Django, even if it's not even bad to merit a reprimand.

Going back to Candie, kudos to DiCaprio. His is another Oscar nod in-the-waiting. His Candie is powered by a frenetic anger that calms down with a maniacal smile that only Leo could manage. He is charming and scary at the same time, and that maniacal lust for bloodshed demonstrated in the Mandingo sequence paints the sort of psychotic he is.

Waltz's Dr. Schultz is another interesting German he has played in a Tarantino film. His previous German role is in 2009's Inglourious Basterds' primary antagonist, Col. Hans The Jew Hunter. Schultz is an exact contrast to Hans, where Hans is a relaxed psychotic who choked Diane Kruger to death, Schultz is a charming dentist who's seemingly harmless until he shoots you in the head. Thing with Schultz is that he discriminates who he kills. He is a vigilante with a penchant for disposing of people not in line with his moral compass. Unlike Hans who punishes the innocent Jews, Schultz is a nourisher of the innocent. And Waltz's capacity to perform a detestable Nazi who you'd want scalped to a mild-mannered traveling European who you'd root for is a testament of Waltz's traction as an actor.

Another performance worth seeing, and fury-inducing at that, is Samuel L. Jackson's jealous 70-years-a-slave Stephen. His look of suspicion and envy is spot-on.

Foxx's Django is a typical tough guy, quick on the draw and high on dark humor. But as to how he transform to a merciless gunslinger from a slave who knew nothing but begging for mercy over a change of seasons and several bounties was explained as simply as that he was a natural at it--cementing the premise that Django is a bad boy (aka the 1 niggah in 10000). Assuming that's true, how he managed to speak good English (as with the other slaves)  and even read   was quite puzzling. Plus he knew how to ride a horse--and even without reins and a saddle! (Was he a stable boy in his previous owner, did I miss that explanation?) But then again, why do I bother for historical accuracy, which is not in the movie's agenda anyway. The movie moved quite slow though for me to wonder about those things.

Tarantino shot Django beautifully even if you can find fault on the exaggerated blood splatter--which Tarantino can't do without. Django... has an unflinching resolve to elevate B-moviemaking--using a soundtrack that belonged to that era of B-movie explosion, to the opening credits' use of 70s graphics. Traditionally, B-movie or not, Tarantino's violence is more of the gleeful peppered with dark humor rather than that of a straight out crime noir (as in, say Refn's Drive or Kim Ki-duk's Pieta). The violence is not as brutal as it is fake and often ridiculous, more ridiculous than in Basterds.

Tarantino's B-movie-styled films are exploitations of the exploitation genre--a zooming in on the exaggerations that propel the genre. If you inspect Django... close enough, you'd think it's a curious parody with a very dark tone rather than a homage to the era. Django Unchained's choice of aesthetics and the powerful performances from it's brilliant cast however makes us question our standards and ask why we box the genre and file it as subpar--assigning the letter B to denote its inferiority--if the genre can be made as gleeful and engaging as Django.

Judgment: This film won't be hitting Philippine cinemas this January, and might only get here when it's on DVD and Netflix--which blows. Then again, you have a choice of HD Home Theatre for 15 to 20 USD or a 250PHP/head affair. Chances are, you'd choose to get the screener online, but we'd suggest against it as a movie like Django Unchained is worth paying for at full price. 4.1 out of 5 stars.

For this movie, I'm willing to pay: 250 to 300 PHP.