REVIEW: Of All The Things

Title: Of All The Things

Director: Joyce Bernal

Producer: GMA Films and Viva Films

Distribution: Viva Films

Date of premiere: September 26, 2012

Sorry that this review is late; I have been really busy this week to write this, even though I have viewed the movie on Wednesday. [I also wrote a review for one website but it has not yet been posted.]

Nevertheless, this has to be said: Joyce Bernal's Of All The Things is exceptional.

It needs to be praised for its storytelling.

It's unhurried. The story focuses on the characters than on a forced love story. In fact, the romantic sub-plot does not appear until after half of the film is over.

This lets the romance grow naturally. This movie has no irrational romantic scenes that do not happen in real life--there's no chaotic first meetings, pathetic twists that lead to break-ups, and synthetic love triangles. (Seriously, why do all romantic movies today have to have triangles?)

What happens instead is a gradual showcase of a good relationship between Umboy (Aga Muhlach), a failed-law-student-turned-notary-public, and Berns (Regine Velasquez), a professional fixer.

It's fun to see the two try working together. Umboy is too indebted to laws that it was hard for him to adjust to Berns's many illegal rackets. This contrast helps the plot chug along.

It also helps that both Aga Muhlach and Regine Velasquez turn in great performances. Whatever chemistry they had making their first successful films remain up to this movie.

The supporting cast also does well, particularly Gina Pareno, Eric Santos and John Lapus.

I loved the moments when these actors deliver funny lines in a deadpan manner. The best one that I can remember is when Aga Muhlach quips: "Ang kuya kong masuwerete."

I really liked this film and I think you should see it. Still, I deduct a point off for the varying physical looks of the lead actors in between scenes. The film was shot in a span of three years, and Aga and Regine's yoyoing weights are obvious in the film.

RATING: 4 stars out of 5

SUMMARY: This movie tries hard not to be a generic romantic film, and it succeeds.

REVIEW: Biktima

Title: Biktima

Director: RD Alba

Producer: Alba Productions

Distribution: Star Cinema

Date of premiere: September 19, 2012

RD Alba's Biktima is so absurd, so bad, so good, so-so, and so funny. I couldn't contain my laughter while watching this in an almost empty SM theater.

There's really no way to describe the plot easily. Safe to say that it is an overdrawn Maalaala Mo Kaya plot, but with less vision. At least every episode of MMK has a goal, in that it either wants to showcase the acting talent of its featured star or it wants to push a broad advocacy.

Biktima has none of that. 

You could even say that nothing really happens in its one-and-a-half-hour plot. Granted, there's a long-winded story about a  TV reporter named Alice (Angel Aquino) who goes on an assignment to a rebel-infested area, and gets kidnapped for six months. In that time, her family thinks she has died, and so husband Mark (Cesar Montano) pursues a relationship with Sandra (Mercedes Cabral). Sandra also volunteers to look after Mark and Alice's young son, making their romance all the more convenient.

But Alice returns, and Mark welcomes her back. Soon, she learns about Mark and Sandra. She goes ballistic, accusing Sandra of sneaking behind her back, never minding that she has been dead for a fairly long time.

And have I mentioned that she's insane? Apparently, she has had mental issues in the past, and the trauma she incurred from the kidnapping incident supplemented that illness. In the end, she murders her mother-in-law, threatens Sandra with a knife, and manages to put a bullet in Mark's back.

Great dramatic plot, right? 

Wrong. The movie ends with the sweetest possible ending: Alice spends a year in the mental hospital, and gets discharged and reunited with Mark and their young son.

The happy ending makes you wonder why they even bothered. Nothing really changed, and they are back to where their characters are when the film started. Maybe they just need an excuse to kill the mother-in-law.

It's not entirely bad, however. You can say that the plot's ludicrous and senseless, but that's what it makes it so fun.

See, the film is made of plotholes. Plothole after plothole constitutes the movie, that after a while, you refuse to care about its narrative value. 

Just accept that Biktima exists in a universe where kidnappers will abduct a TV journalist without asking for ransom, where a TV journalist previously thought dead gets saved from rebels but does not get plastered all over the news, and where hostages are kept in a cage made of flimsy wood that they don't try to escape out of.

It's a world where more than 20 rebels are needed to gun down one defenseless and obese journalist, where a young kid is allowed to ride in the back of an accelerating open 4wd vehicle, and then asked to use both of her hands not to grasp for her life but to try out a pretty watch.

In sum: don't be so serious when watching Biktima. Have fun. This way, you won't feel like a bad film's victim.

RATING: 2 stars out of 5

SUMMARY: So bad it's good. Plothole driven. Senseless and ludicrous.

REVIEW: Pridyider

Title: Pridyider

Director: Rico Maria Ilarde

Producer: Regal Films

Distribution: Regal Films

Date of premiere: September 19, 2012

I find Pridyider strangely appealing despite its inconsistencies. It's a horror film that's largely inconsistent in its story, but when it wants to scare, it does so with a punch.

Pridyider tells the story of Tina (Andi Eigenmann), a balikbayan from the US who comes home to an empty house left to her by her parents who abandoned her as a kid. In the house is a haunted refrigerator lusting for human flesh and blood.

This movie is the re-imagining of one of the segments in the first Shake, Rattle & Roll in 1984. But that short film has a completely different story, so a direct comparison with it seems unnecessary.

The first Pridyider is on YouTube, so you may see it if you want to. Video of the whole film is below.

Only two things are carried over from the first Pridyider: the evil appliance, and Janice de Belen. There are obvious differences.

The first refrigerator is in it for the lust. It is diabolically attracted to a young girl named Virgie, played by Janice herself. The bulky cool box likes Virgie so much that it makes moaning sounds when the girl is near. He nearly eats her towards the end.

The second refrigerator is possessed by an evil spirit; it just wants to eat.

In the first film, Janice is the good girl. In the new movie, she is the murderous house wife who contacts the devil so she can keep her philandering husband.

Janice is one of the highlights of the film. She's so good, even an old photo of her will give you chills.

Andi Eigenmann also does greatly. Her characterization is strong as a young woman who is brave enough to face the spooks, so you root for her. It is also fun to see her wielding a knife as a weapon whenever she can. She's really her mother's daughter.

JM de Guzman as James brings the eye-candy to the horror picture, but you'll wish he does more than to stand around and wait to save the girl in trouble.

Other characters hit-and-miss. Ronnie Lazaro does okay, but Venus Raj and Bekimon are unwelcome. The two act goofy throughout the movie, and they distract from the dark tone.

A few inconsistencies mar the picture from narrative greatness. The story started strongly, however, particularly due to the choice to reveal the refrigerator's secret so early into the movie. This made the next events unexpected.

One inconsistency is how Venus Raj and Bekimon stick around the area even after they witness the refrigerator's evil firsthand. Another is how when a nearly-crazy woman knocks on the car window, James rolls the window down, without thinking that the woman may attack Tina.

Also, if your newly-bought refrigerator breaks, would you just junk it easily, without calling for warranty service? And did anyone else think to unplug the evil refrigerator to rob it of electricity?

All these inconsistencies distract from a fairly-polished horror movie.

Still, if you want to be scared, Pridyider is your movie. There are a lot of great scares in there that you may want to experience.

RATING: 3 stars out of 5

SUMMARY: Still scary despite the inconsistencies and plotholes.

Added just now: Am I the only person who recognized the cab driver as the same one in The Animals? I thought Andi Eigenmann's character will get raped...

Movie weekend: Captain America and The Avengers

Captain America: The First Avenger (Joe Johnston) was predictable to me. Granted that I only saw it last Sunday, but this means it became stale after The Avengers movie. (2/5)


















---

Tightly-plotted and action-heavy, with occasional quips of wit, The Avengers (Joss Whedon, 2012) revives the fun superhero movie format that had been nearly obliterated by The Dark Knight's darker style. (5/5)

---

Movie weekend is about the movies I saw last weekend.

REVIEW: The Mistress

Title: The Mistress

Director: Olivia Lamasan

Producer: Star Cinema

Distribution: Star Cinema

Date of premiere: September 12, 2012

There is no excuse for a highly-anticipated big-budgeted mainstream production from top-tier studio Star Cinema to have a lot of glitches. But maybe, the film's post-prod had just been rushed and did not care for quality control. The film is more than two hours long, after all.

The Mistress tells the story of Sari (Bea Alonzo), an aspiring  and  dressmaker who works hard to support her large family. On the side, she augments her income by being the mistress of a rich businessman twice her age. But it's not her choice, she says, because she's just highly-appreciative of the help Rico-the-businessman (Ronaldo Valdez) has given her in the past. She's a good girl, she says.

One day, she meets JD (John Lloyd Cruz), a hotshot playboy drop-dead-gorgeous architect. JD tries all the ways to let her fall into his arms, chanting repeatedly: makukuha rin kita (I will get you). But Sari is not free, so JD must be content in pestering her.

That is until JD learns that Sari is the mistress of Rico, the father he knows and despises. JD tries to be angry at Sari, but her good-girl ways acquit her in JD's heart. JD continues to try courting her, if only to save her from that dad whom he deeply hates.

This amazing setpiece should be homerun for director Olivia Lamasan. There could be fun campy confrontation scenes a-la blockbuster hit No Other Woman. There could be lines that people utter as they go out of the cinema. 

Sadly, Lamasan failed to capitalize on this. While the absence of the campy confrontation scenes can be forgiven, given that the low-key dramatic approach works better since it makes the scenes simmer, the lack of crisp memorable lines is unforgivable. The lines are corny and sometimes cringe-inducing, as attested to the main line uttered again and again. Hearing "Hindi lahat ng gusto mo, makukuha mo (You cannot get everything that you want)" again and again is taxing to the ears. We get it. Please stop.

The other aspects of production are also not that high. The scoring is as tacky and as loud as elevator music, and the soundtrack chosen is a tough gamble. Watching the main characters make love to Snow Patrol's Chasing Cars is funny it had me giggling.

It needs a softer song, with less bass. Would it hurt to compose one just for the film?

Cinematography is also as weak. Some shots are underlit, while some shots are too bright. In one scene where Hilda Koronel was supposed to be drunk, the lighting had her skin look too pale, like she's sick. Intoxicated people should be flushed red.

And, as previously stated, post production is shoddy and seems rushed. The version I saw in Shangri-La Plaza Mall had three (or more) editing gaffes, where a snapshot of a scene sneaks in inside another scene for a micro-second. There are also continuity goofs--the most memorable is one where Bea Alonzo is washing the windows, and the bubbles magically disappear. In another, Hilda Koronel was fidgeting with her purse laid on a table. The purse disappears when she stands up to go somewhere.

But The Mistress is not an overall failure. The performance of the cast more than saves the movie.

They're good, except maybe the kid. Anita Linda is
not in this photo, but she's a great diversion.

In this movie, John Lloyd Cruz was cast against type. He's not anymore the Mr. Nice Guy. He's now an asshole who will do anything to get any woman. And although the characterization disappears halfway to the film, it's still fun to see JLC navigate the character.

Bea Alonzo, on the other hand, plays the long-suffering kind woman she usually plays, so it's not surprising that she nails it. 

Scenes with Bea and John Lloyd in them are so affecting that it compels you to stay in your seat for two hours to see how their characters' stories end. You might even shed a tear or two.

Exiting the theater, I heard a woman behind me say: "Ang dami kong iyak dito (I cried a lot in this movie)." If you'd like to get lost in a movie for two hours to cry your eyes out, then this movie is for you. But if you're thinking you'd want to see it because it may be as good or better than the perfect perfect perfect One More Chance, then you'll have to think twice.

The Mistress is not stellar, but darami ang iyak mo rito.

RATING: 2.5 stars out of 5

SUMMARY: Shoddy production values keep The Mistress from being perfect. See it for the actors.

ADDITIONAL: Want to read a deeper analysis of this film? Go here. It's right-on, although it's a (non)review.

REVIEW: Captive

Title: Captive

Director: Brillante Mendoza

Producer: B.A. Produktion, Studio Eight Productions, Arte France, Centerstage Productions, Swift Productions

Distribution: Star Cinema

Date of premiere: September 5, 2012

While Captive may be the most accessible film Brillante Mendoza has made, it is also the hardest to watch. 

Let me explain.

Unlike Mendoza's previous movies that tend to be gritty and experimental, Captive's subject matter is too familiar. The storytelling is linear, and any Pinoy old enough to know about the Abu Sayyaf should know how the film ends. This makes Captive quite accessible.

Mendoza, however, chose to shoot Captive in a matter-of-fact tone. There is almost no time spent in sentiments. Little is known about the character's back stories, and several stereotypes are used to introduce them. This leads to Captive feeling more like a documentary than a fictional movie. 

This leads to a deeper issue: since the characters are stereotypes, it is hard to see the actors transform into the roles. And since the actors used are A-listers in both indie and mainstream, it is harder to suspend disbelief.

For instance, I had a hard time believing that Raymond Bagatsing, Sid Lucero, and Ronnie Lazaro are terrorists. These actors do not disappear into their roles because there is not much characterization for them to hold on to.

In fact, I found that the best scenes came from the unknown actors, particularly the Americans who played a copy of the Burnhams.

Should Mendoza have used lesser known actors? I believe so. But perhaps, it is only I that has this issue. I have after all met these actors in real life.

But then I have also met most of the actors in the mainstream movies I have seen, and I don't have this specific issue.

I guess the better question is, did I like the film? Half-and-half. I can't say I like it, and I can't say I hate it. It's hard to describe.

RATING: 3.5 stars out of 5

SUMMARY: Captive is that movie that has equal bad sides and good sides. It's hard to say if it's good or not.