A Young Film Critic

If fate has taken everything away from you, what will you do? This question is answered in Zack Snyders’ 2011 film Sucker Punch with “imagination.” For it is with imagination that the protagonist, Baby Doll (Emily Browning) survives her sad fate. The film stars Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, Jamie Chung, Carla Gugino, Oscar Isaac, John Hamm and Scott Glenn. The movie, with screenplay by Snyders and Steve Shibuya, revolves around a young woman named, Baby Doll, who, after a devastating event with her stepfather, is brought to a mental institution in order for the latter to get her inheritance. He then pays one of the orderlies, Blue (Isaac), to forge Dr. Gorski’s (Gugino) signature so that Baby Doll will be lobotomized immediately. Prior to her lobotomy, Baby Doll retreats from reality and succumbs to her imagination, thinking that she is a newly acquired dancer in a club. She meets the other dancers, who are, in reality, patients just like her. They devise a plan to escape, and as they try to collect materials for escaping, Baby Doll retreats, once again, to another layer of imagination, now as a soldier.

First of all, the story is actually promising. It is promising because its structure—a three-layered story: reality, and two imaginations—reminds me of the dream layers in Christopher Nolan’s Inception. However, the story is almost poorly handled as the film focuses more on the special effects rather than on the plot itself. It makes itself dragging but at the same time, the audience is hooked by the story. It is dragging because of the slow pace the film is taking but the audience might not be able to stop watching because they want to see how it ends.

For me, this film should have been a yet another big break for Zack Snyder. However, special effects have gotten into his way, focusing on it, and losing his grasp to the development of the characters, especially with Baby Doll. It leaves you to question whether who the dancers really are in the layer of reality; we only see them in the mind of Baby Doll. You may also ask why Sweet Pea? The only thing I can see worth for her survival is that she must fulfill her promise to her sister, Rocket, but we cannot see her worth as a character. She is a soulless character with a busty body. Also, how come Blondie is the only one who gets emotionally scared? Why is she weak? I cannot see that in the film, I just see a woman, who suddenly cries when she is threatened. I understand that some people cry when they are threatened specially with death, but it must have some roots. I guess the characters may have improved if we have seen their lives in the reality layer of the film, maybe by giving us why they are in the mental hospital in the first place. The writer of the film may play with the idea that their mental sickness, or any other problem why they are in the mental institution, can contribute to Baby Doll’s imaginations. Yes, you may tell me that they’re Baby Doll’s imaginations so maybe she might not have known her fellow patients’ mental problems, but remember there’s a twist in the end; the point of view is not entirely hers.

And oh, I like how Oscar Isaac plays his character. We really see his different faces for each layer: as an orderly, and as a club owner.

Still, I like this film as a whole. It is promising, but it leaves you some blank spaces, some questions. It is like it is internalizing its title: it shows you promises, but in the end, you are punched with questions in mind in the end.

This is still unedited, so forgive the grammatical errors if there is one.

Brian De Palma’s Carrie (1976) is one of the two of my most favorite Stephen King adaptations, along with Misery. This film is near perfect because of the fact that you can feel pity on Carrie because she is an outcast and in the end, is humiliated. She is supposed to be happy in the end, but because people are ruthless, they took away her happiness immediately, leading to a very dreadful event. This film is a must-see and I love Sissy Spacek’s performance here as Carrie, along with Piper Laurie as her religion-crazed mother.

Rak Haeng Sayam (2007)or Love of Siam, in English, is a Thai romantic-drama film, starring Witwisit Hiranyawongkul, Mario Maurer, Chermarn Boonyasak, Sinjai Plengpanich, and Songsit Rungnopakunsri, written and directed by Chookiat Sakveerakul. It is film with different subplots, running for almost three-hours, with the main plot focusing on the relationship between two teenage boys named Mew and Tong. Along with their love storyline, Tong’s family is experiencing a downfall after his sister, Tang, got lost in the forest during a trip. From then on, the mother, Sunee, bears the burden on her shoulders as her husband, Korn, becomes a drunkard because he thinks it is his fault why her daughter is now gone.

Like what I have mentioned, the film runs for almost three-hours. However, the film is well-made that you will not even notice it. It is not your normal teenage love story wherein boy meets girl, boy and girl falls in love, boy and girl experience downfall, and then they go up the ladder again. It’s not normal because it is between two boys. Although some may say that it is cliché-ish, for me, it is handled very well that the film seems fresh.

It portrays love in different angles and situation: relationship and pressure between two boys in a society wherein such relationships are deemed almost sacrilegious, relationships in a family wherein a devastating event led them into a downfall, relationships between friends as they cope with the changes one of them is experiencing. I really do not know what to say about this film, I just like it in a way that it says so many things about love that one is led to become speechless after watching it. Speechless, meaning, it leaves you to just smile, to give you that light feeling inside as if the film lifts you up and feel good about yourself.

One thing I have noticed in the film is that they do not really tend to focus on the ‘gay’ label. What I mean is that although it shows two boys having a relationship in a strict society, the film handles the situation not like the other gay-oriented films wherein the characters tend to fight off the discrimination. Love of Siam is more realistic in a sense that the characters just go with flow in a sense that they know they cannot fight back something bigger than they are. Also, you may notice that no one did ask the boys if they are gay. Mew just knows that he is but he does not say that he is. I wonder if this is some kind of a commentary wherein the ‘gay’ label is something that is bad. I am not saying that Mew does not accept who he is but maybe, in that film, a label is still something bad, something derogatory, thus, this leaves him to say he is gay by not saying he is.

All in all, this film is well-handled. I prefer this film than Mario Maurer’s First Love because this one tackles something very deep, something profound. And may I say that this may have been Maurer’s biggest break yet.

This review is still unedited so pardon the grammar and some weird commentaries on the film if there are any. I’m a little bit tired today so… yeah. I’m going to change or add some of my comments, sometime. :)

I’m so sorry for those who are waiting (if there is any) for my reviews. I’m quite busy now since I’m already a graduating student, I need to do my thesis. So, yeah, I cannot watch movies or if I can, I cannot write film reviews due to time restrictions. Sorry. :P

Puttipong Pormsaka Na-Sakonnakorn’s First Love (A Crazy Little Thing Called Love) (2010)

Though I would love to write a film review on this film, I have no time. I love this film. It’s a cute film. Although it is full of cliches, still, it is a good film.

In this cruel world, we always think that we are alone—by ourselves, without anyone to depend on. I remember the saying, “Kasalanan ng mga magulang mo kung ipinanganak kang mahirap, ngunit kasalanan mo kung mamamatay kang mahirap”—It is your parents fault that you are born poor, but it is your fault if you die poor. We make our lives, we choose our own paths. It is in our choices that we make our destiny. However, there are times that when we find ourselves in a path that we had not chosen but thrown into, we tend to think that other people do not care about you. But, what we don’t know is that there is someone out there who is destined to help us out. This is what The Blind Side shows.

The Blind Side is directed by John Lee Hancock and was available in the cinemas in 2009. It stars Sandra Bullock, Quinton Aaron, Tim McGraw and Kathy Bates. It is a semi-biographical film about a black teenager, an orphan named Michael Oher, who had lived a violent life, living in a harsh community. However, he seems to have not acquired any violent characteristics unlike the other boys in his community. He got in a Christian school with the help of a black man and the school coach. Along the way he meets Leigh Anne Tuohy, a strong-minded woman who eventually after helping him, decides to become a legal guardian to Oher. The story continues on Oher’s success in football.

This is going to be a short film review.

The story is very inspiring and can open up some sleeping minds of people who stay blind on the poverty that surrounds them as they live in comfort. Sandra Bullock’s character is very strong, yet still believable. She is strong because, unlike her elite female friends, she has this belief that everyone has a chance for a better life, they just need help. Although many believe that the elite do not really care about the poor, we still see Bullock’s character as someone real—without the knowledge that the film is a true story.

What I like about the film is that, even though it is with a strong voice on the difference between the white and the colored, or the rich and the poor, or even the educated and the uneducated, it is still a charming film. It is adorable, not in a cute way, but in a way that it gives you smiles in some parts. It is so charming that I still feel good as I write this film review.

It is seen that a psychological thriller is successful when it uses the environment as a prime cause of the demise of its protagonist. For psychological thriller films, the play in the audiences’ mind, along with the path undertaken by the main character, is the main reason of its success. Darren Aronofsky’s 2010 film, Black Swan, starring Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel and Mila Kunis, is a psychological thriller about a young woman’s demise as she tries to pursue a successful career. As a former star of the show was cast away, she replaces her as the new Swan Queen, but as she takes on the path, she begins to see strange things—events as if she herself lives in the world of the White/Black Swan.

So what is to love in this film? You see, the main reason that this film is not dragging is that it takes its audience to experience what Portman’s character is experiencing since the start of the show. The film starts with her having a dream, a dream of becoming the star of Tchaikovsky’s ballet Swan Lake. In that dream, we see her dancing the part wherein she is turned by the antagonist into a swan. This mirrors her life. We are being introduced to what is going to happen to Nina throughout the show. As she is picked to become the star of the show, replacing Winona Ryder, she undergoes certain transformation. Her struggle towards fame parallels to the story of the White Swan, which, as what happened to Nina in the end, leads to her demise.

The good thing about this film is the good use of the protagonist’s environment as the primary cause of her struggle. We see her mother, Erica, a failed ballet dancer, pushing her daughter to the limits which in the end, when she suddenly realizes that there is something wrong, she tries to stop her. We see ordinary things symbolize Nina’s life. In the first part of the film, we see her mother turning the toy ballerina on. This symbolizes her control over Nina. Nina follows her the way the toy is played only when Erica turns it on. However, we see near the end that Nina turns it on by herself, symbolizing her independence, her own choice of pursuing her career. Unfortunately, as every thing turns bad, she destroys the toy, much like she has unknowingly destroyed her humanity. Also, the things Nina stole from Beth symbolize her having stolen Beth’s spotlight. She even says that she just wants to be perfect just like Beth.

The scene where Thomas Leroy first kissed Nina alludes to the Swan Lake scene where the protagonist is turned into a swan by Rothbart, the evil sorcerer. Leroy pressures Nina saying that she is perfect to be the White Swan—gentle, virginal, fearful—but it also seems that she cannot really play the Black Swan part, which is harsh, lustful and fearless. Her aspirations to faithfully play the Black Swan echo her struggle to become a successful ballet dancer. The great thing about Aronofsky’s film is that it is also a commentary on people chasing fame. Just like Nina, those who seek fame change their selves either into something good or bad as long as they can achieve it. However, as we see Nina physically (in her mind, actually) changes into a swan, deforming her legs, growing feathers, these fame-seekers are actually deforming themselves into something monstrous. Sadly, as we see in the character played by Ryder, fame does not last. This led to her downfall. Thus, that’s what happened to Nina in the end.

This film garners five stars from me as it really deserves them from any other film critic. Natalie Portman is great at playing her part, and so are the other cast members. What I like about this film is that it tries to manipulate the minds of the audience, as Nina’s humanity is manipulated in the film. Actually, this film seems to echo what most celebrities nowadays are experiencing. We see young people shine on their own—becoming White Swans—such as Lindsay Lohan, who are, in turn, transformed into Black Swans—becoming addicts, partygoers and the likes, leading to the demise of the career that they had struggled to build.

Although in the last Academy Awards, it was the film The King’s Speech that garnered almost all major awards. However, for me, this movie is more lasting, and will be remembered as the former film will be engulfed in the mist of the forgotten.

Zack Snyder’s Watchmen (2009)

I’m still thinking if I should write a film review on this one. I am just speechless. However, I think I should explain why not full-five star. It’s just because the film’s too long. Though, the film, as a whole, is perfect.

Ever since its first appearance in 2005, the animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender, also known as, The Legend of Aang, I had have become its avid fan. Honestly, I almost cried when the last episode was shown in 2008. The two-hour last episode was one of the best episodes ever created for an animated series. It is not only for kids, but also for adults. Critics loved the show and, at least in my knowledge, there is no episode that garnered a negative review. This series is an epic—a classic. If you watch the series, it has an aura of an animé. However, it is not considered as one since such is created only in Japan.

It is not surprising that Hollywood would create a film adaptation of such award-winning series. However, like some Hollywood adaptations, doing so was a mistake.

M. Night Shyamalan, director of the critically-acclaimed film Sixth Sense, directed, produced and wrote the The Last Airbender in 2010. Like in the animated series, it is about a twelve-year-old boy named Aang who is destined to bring balance in the world where there are people that can control the four elements. However, the people are divided by the elements: the Fire Nation, the Water Tribe, the Air Nomads, and the Earth Kingdom. For each bender, s/he can control only one element. However, the Avatar can control all four, with an additional ability to connect with the Spirit World. Sadly, the Fire Nation has begun a war. Thus, it is up to Aang to bring peace and harmony once again.

Sad to say, Aang, with this kind of Shyamalan film, brought war to Avatar fans instead of peace and harmony.

It is not surprising that Shyamalan has destroyed the reputation built by the original series. Although the film starts with a “Book One: Water,” hinting that there will be Books Two and Three like in the animated series, I figure there will be no longer The Last Airbender franchise. And who’s to blame? It’s Shyamalan’s fault. Like I said, it is not surprising Shyamalan has destroyed the film. His fame is based on his film The Sixth Sense. However, for each film he creates, the quality decreases. As an avid fan of the series, I would like to say, “Who the heck hired Shyamalan to do the film when it is obvious that he had failed in almost all the films he directed?” I don’t care if his daughters are avid fans like me. I guess they hated their father for ruining the film for them.

Shyamalan abused the use of special effects in the film. He focused on that, forgetting all other elements that can create a successful film. The effects are awesome, the film as a whole is boring.

Also, the film has not inherited some qualities found in the series. The film lost the funny moments between Momo and Appa, Aang’s two loyal pets, and even the slapsticks courtesy of Sokka. Aang himself was turned into an emo-like kid instead of the happy-go-lucky kid found in the series.

One of the reasons why the series was successful, for me, is that it brings the exotic cultures of Asia. We can see in the Water Tribe that they look like Filipinos, Thais and other brown-skinned Southeast Asians. For the Earth Kingdom, we can see the Korean culture while the Fire Nation, the Chinese and Japanese. Also, we can see the Buddhist culture in the presence of the Air Nomads. But no, Shyamalan disregarded all of those cultures. There had been a protest from the fans when they learned that the cast were all Caucasians. Shyamalan, to appease the fans, hired Dev Patel and other Middle-East actors. And that’s where his other mistake can be found. Why the heck are the Fire Nation people, who look like Indians and the like, wearing Chinese clothing? I don’t have anything against Mid-east people, it just that it does not fit. They also live in Chinese-inspired temples with some Dragons in the design.

The film as a whole is dragging. And the supposed funny moments are not funny at all. And some serious moments are, in turn, the funny ones. One particular scene is the rebellion of the Earth Kingdom people. I was like, “hello! Earth is all around you. Can’t you easily defeat the only handful of Fire Nation guards?” It was stupid. Also, I find this scene funny:

Look at these guys go. The rock must have been heavy.

At first I thought that the floating small block of stone is done by those hard-pounding men. There’s another scene that is worth to laugh at. In the sacred place in the Northern Water Tribe, there is a part when the soldiers got scared because Iroh (pronounced in the film as “i-ro” instead of the “ay-roh” like in the series) creates fire out of nothing. They scampered like rats.

There’s another mistake I have noticed. In the series, we can see that the elements themselves are extensions of the body of the benders. One move of an arm can lead to a devastating attack. However, in the film, you need to complete a series of dance moves just to make water float. Also, the Firebenders cannot create fire in the film, unless of course if you are like Iroh who is a great Firebender. I guess that is a stupid change done by Shyamalan. Why? Because with that, Firebenders can be defeated easily just by extinguishing all fire sources.

Also, why the heck is twelve-year-old Aang worried about not having his family? Is he already thinking about having sex in that age? In the series, Aang ran away because he could not take the burden of being the Avatar. He was cast away by his friends in their games because they thought being an Avatar is like cheating, being best in everything. Thus, he ran away, not because he was told he will never have his own family. The Avatar reincarnation before him had a wife in the series. Why does Shyamalan have to change things?

Oh. By the way, that howling sound done by Master Pakku is not cool. It is actually funny.

Honestly, I feel bad comparing the film to the series because I believe that a film should stand alone. But in this case, I cannot separate their connection because of the mistakes Shyamalan had done.

I deeply apologize if I repeatedly say that this or that is stupid—but they are actually stupid. This film is a catastrophic disaster (yeah, that bad). This film should have been an exotic adventure, but it turns out that the only exotic here is the name “Shyamalan.”

I never like criticizing other people’s work. As an aspiring poet and fictionist, I never want to criticize a peer’s work because it is inevitable that s/he would criticize mine the way I criticized his/her work, thus, making the critique bias-based. That’s why it is okay for me to criticize a film. I know that I would never ever create or be part of a film, except maybe if it is school-related. Also, it is more common that there are still flaws in a finished film rather than a literary work. Why? Because, as a rule for publishers, they must conduct editing or proofreading before publishing a piece of work. Commercial success, sometimes, does not count. In films, if it is a potential moneymaker, producers will usually show it to the public, regardless of how mindless the film is.

I have had promised myself that if ever I will criticize a film, I will do it kindly, especially if it had been many years since its premier. I would do so again, like in the George Lucas’ Star Wars franchise, in the Wachowski Brothers’ The Matrix Trilogy.

The first film of the Trilogy was first shown in 1999. It is a science fiction with philosophical concepts such as Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” and Rene Descartes’ “evil demon”. It is action-packed that will allure the men, and it stars the all-too-perfect actor, Keanu Reeves, who will allure the women, and of course, some “men.” The Trilogy ended on 2003 with the release of The Matrix Revolutions.

Because of the Lucas’ Star Wars Trilogy, I have had grown a certain favoritism on sci-fi films that contain philosophical ideas, or at least, are critical on some sort. Why? It’s because you know that the producers, writers, and the directors created such sci-fi film with a lot of hard work and intellect, rather than creating one just for hard action and special effects. Also, I find the Wachowskis’ Trilogy more philosophical than Lucas’.

Among the three films, the first one, The Matrix, is more philosophical because of the fact that it builds the foundation for the next two films. I beg to disagree with some film critics who said that the last two are not that philosophical. I beg to differ because, I think the reason the sequels seemed less philosophical is because of the fact that the first film focused on the different “layers” of the real and reality. Since it has stated the film’s ground on that concept, I think that the film’s creators do not need to repeat and remind the audience on the concept.

However, it does not mean that there are no new philosophical ideas. There’s this “the Architect” who had created the first Matrix. Also, there are the “Keymaker” and the “Trainman” who themselves stand as gods lower than that of the Architect.

Like almost all sci-fi films, we can see the archetypal fight, not only between the good and the evil, but also, man and the machine. As usual, man must win the fight.

I also like the way they had created the concept of the “Oracle” and the “Architect” as the good and the evil, respectively. I love their contrast: the Oracle as an old black woman, and the Architect as an old white man. It is a faint echo on the black and the feminine oppression. It is written in history that in America, particularly the U.S., black people are oppressed. Also, women are deemed inferior to men. What more if you are black and a woman?

All in all, the Trilogy is a successful one for Larry and Andy Wachowski. It is mindboggling, not only because of the special effects and the fist fights courtesy of Keanu Reeves, Hugo Weaving, Laurence Fishburne and Carrie-Ann Moss, but also because of the philosophies that stand as foundations for all three films. For me, at least, this trilogy of the Wachowski Brothers is better than that of Lucas.