Author: Wanggo Gallaga

‘Lightyear’ is a solid, fun adventure movie but falls short of Pixar’s standard of great filmmaking

‘Lightyear’ is an animated science fiction adventure film from Pixar, which expands the world of the ‘Toy Story’ franchise by being a sort of origin story for the character Buzz Lightyear. The fictional astronaut Buzz Lightyear, whose toy became a prominent character in the ‘Toy Story’ series of films was based on a movie, which was Andy’s favourite film. So ‘Lightyear’ is the movie, released in 1995, that the Buzz Lightyear toy was based on.

Director and co-writer Angus McLane wanted to use this film as a “tribute” to the science fiction films he grew up with like ‘Star Wars.’ There is a push-and-pull between early 90s sensibilities alongside contemporary values and mores. What is created is a rich world and enjoyable characters that would have been revolutionary and exciting if the film really was released in the 90s.

‘Lightyear’ portrays Buzz Lightyear as a fearless captain, highly competent, and very arrogant in a humoristic way. It helps that Chris Evans’ voice acting for Buzz is imbued with so much earnestness that it really helps cement the character down pat. We see a sort of a maverick figure, one who is unaccustomed to making mistakes, prefers to do things alone, but will always give respect to his commanding officer, Alisha Hawthorne (voiced by Uzo Aduba). The film begins with the ship of Space Rangers arriving at an uninhabited planet. On a quick reconnaissance mission, Buzz, Commander Hawthorne, and a rookie, whom Buzz does not want to tag along, discover the planet is a hostile one and end up marooned on the planet in the process.

The story manages to quickly establish Buzz’s guilt for his part in their being marooned on this planet, his friendship with Commander Hawthorne, and his obsessive drive to set things right. What unfolds is a rather complex story that involves time, Buzz’s need to open up and take the whole weight of the burden on himself, and the attack of the Zergs on the Space Rangers.

While ‘Lightyear’ has what we’ve come to expect from a Pixar animated film: great humor, thrilling setups, a tight and rather surprisingly complex story with a narrative flow that is quite unexpected, and some truly great humanistic moments that even got me teary-eyed at some point; there’s something in ‘Lightyear’ that feels missing.

All of Pixar’s filmography that I’ve seen has been absolutely terrific. From each film in the ‘Toy Story’ series to ‘Monsters Inc.’ to ‘The Incredibles,’ and even the more recent ones like ‘Turning Red’ or ‘Inside Out’ or ‘Soul,’ there’s just something so wonderfully endearing in each of these films that I would immediately consider them classics. And while Buzz Lightyear’s character growth and personal epiphanies are quite strong messages to impart to its audience – the value of camaraderie and the value in allowing our mistakes to help us grow – it doesn’t feel as universal a message as it should.

While genre films like science fiction or horror or fantasy are great narrative forms to take to form a metaphor to test the human condition, there seems to be a distance in ‘Lightyear’ and his learnings from our own, unlike, say, Woody and Buzz’s learnings in ‘Toy Story’ or that of Sully and Mike Wachowski in ‘Monsters Inc.’ There is an everyman quality to the characters of ‘Toy Story’ or ‘Inside Out’ or ‘Soul’ that we can easily relate to, while Buzz seems so extraordinary that it’s hard to take his growth as our own.

It’s all familiar and recognisable, but it’s just hard to ride on.

At the same time, there are flourishes in the story’s narrative that bring up images of colonization and imperialism that don’t sit well with me. Yes, the planet is uninhabited by intelligent lifeforms so the marooned Space Rangers set up a station and begin mining the planet’s resources. And while it all makes sense (especially for a film made in the 90s), it brings to light the human nature to take possession and use anything in the world for their own uses. While this is a science fiction film and maybe they are keeping the ecological and environmental stability of the world in check; in this day and age of global warming and dwindling resources, it just feels off to see it so blatantly in this film.

But it is still a fun movie. Sox, the robot cat that is given to Buzz, is just a wonderful character and is definitely going to be a fan favourite (and a treat for all cat lovers) and all the new characters are unique and recognizable that you are guaranteed to have a fun time.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Disney and Pixar’s Lightyear (@pixarslightyear)

And while ‘Lightyear’ is a good film, a solid one, it’s not a great film. And when Pixar has been churning out great films with each release, the film suffers only in comparison. And that’s not entirely fair.

My Rating:

––

‘Lightyear‘ opens in Phillippine cinemas on Wednesday, June 15. Buy your tickets here.

ALSO READ:
WATCH: ‘Lightyear’ Trailer Teases an Action-Packed ‘Toy Story’ Spinoff
WATCH: Disney & Pixar’s ‘Lightyear’ Unveils Out-of-this-World Trailer
Chris Evans Lends His Voice to Buzz Lightyear in Disney and Pixar’s ‘LIGHTYEAR’

June 14, 2022
With nothing really new to say, ‘Jurassic World Dominion’ just feels like a theme park ride

The first three installments of the ‘Jurassic Park’ franchise took to the heart of the Michael Crichton book it was adapted from and really focused on two things: the majesty and wonder of dinosaurs and the hubris of man in using science to play god (and all the destructive consequences that followed).

It wasn’t until I saw ‘Jurassic World Dominion’ that I finally understood what I didn’t like about the last three installments. It takes the central premise predicated by the first three and turns it around. The dinosaurs were no longer these mysterious and majestic creatures. They can be trained and their presence in the films was more like monsters in a creature feature than the products of man’s arrogance.

Steven Spielberg and Joe Johnston (who directed the first two films and the third film, respectively) treated the dinosaurs with child-like wonder when covering them. They took the time to really marvel at the imagery of a dinosaur walking side-by-side with human beings. And when the predatory dinosaurs attacked, it was frightening because they were like animals in the wild, who were just doing things in their nature. When the T-Rex was brought to America in ‘The Lost World: Jurassic Park,’ Spielberg made sure that he was highlighting the mistake of man playing god and the destruction this causes.

But when ‘Jurassic World’ came out, and its succeeding films afterward, the majesty and grandeur of the dinosaurs were taken away when Chris Pratts’ Owen Grady began training the velociraptors and even gave one a name. The dinosaurs were valued more for their potential for action sequences and horror sequences. I suppose this is an evolution (pun intended) of where the series would go, but something gets lost in the process: the magic of it all.

Director Colin Trevorrow, who directed ‘Jurassic World’ and ‘Jurassic World Dominion’ is more inclined to create spectacles than to imbue grand imagery with profound meaning. At least J.A. Bayona, who directed ‘Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’ just mined the premise for all its horror possibilities but even that script couldn’t bring back the magic.

Courtesy of Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment

The lesson was already learned in the first three. There’s nothing that feels new to the whole series to keep it exciting or relevant.

And all this culminates in ‘Jurassic World Dominion,’ which feels like an excuse to just bring back as many characters from the different installments as possible and mix the old and new in new sequences to show dinosaurs being frightening.

At first, the narrative is split into two – that of the old guard, Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), Alan Grant (Sam Neill), and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), and the new characters like Owen, Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard), and Maisie (Isabella Sermon) – and while that of the older characters feel more familiar in tone and feel, the one of Owen and Claire feels a little disconnected and personal.

The personal tone of Owen and Claire’s story feels off, as there’s this attempt at envisioning a world now where dinosaurs have now encroached into human life. Pteranodons are now nesting on the rooftops of buildings and giant long-necked apatosauruses are getting in the way of industry work. It’s these moments, few as they are, where the film holds some magic. But these moments don’t last.

Courtesy of Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment

Instead, we are once again brought into a story about an evil corporation run by Dr. Lewis Dodgson (played wonderfully by Campbell Scott), who is using the genetic material now available to wreak new havoc on the world, albeit accidentally. And to make things worse, Maisie is instrumental in all of these machinations and she’s abducted.

In the 146-minute running time, there’s less about the ramifications of all this (it’s said a lot but it is never really felt) and more about complex high-octane chase sequences with trained killer velociraptors in the streets of Malta, a battle of three different giant predators in a valley in Italy, and several more attacks from various dinosaurs in different situations.

Courtesy of Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment

‘Jurassic World Dominion’ barely stops to take a breath and keeps throwing us one action sequence after another (and often time, they aren’t covered properly: the scenes are too dark, editing is off that you don’t understand what’s going on) that it barely has time to breathe and when it does, it’s just so that the old and new characters can mix and trade platitudes and witty barbs.

I think I now know what Martin Scorsese meant when he called MCU films a “theme park ride.” At least Laura Dern was there. She’s great in everything.

My Rating:

––

Jurassic World Dominion is now showing in cinemas nationwide. Buy your tickets here.

ALSO READ:
Film Facts: 5 Things to Know About ‘Jurassic World Dominion’
See it in Cinemas: ‘Jurassic World Dominion’ to Take You Into a Pulse-Racing Adventure as Jurassic Era Ends
‘Jurassic World Dominion’ Mounts Life-Size Dinos on Display at SM North EDSA

June 8, 2022
Great in parts, ‘Stranger Things 4’ Volume 1 lacks the intimacy of past seasons as the world gets bigger

It has been a long while since season 3 of the Duffer Brothers’ hit series ‘Stranger Things’ premiered on Netflix. Three years have passed since the last season and so much has changed. The characters have all grown up now with the younger set moving on to high school, Joyce (Winona Ryder) takes her family – Jonathan (Charlie Heaton), Will (Noah Schnapp), and Eleven (Millie Bobby Brown) – to California to start anew, the rest of the group have stayed in Hawkings, Indiana, while (as the trailer suggested) Hopper (David Harbour) has found himself in Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQEondeGvKo

Volume One, the first seven episodes of season 4, is one gigantic set-up with the characters all spread out in different locations around America and the world. The first three seasons had everyone split up but just within the confines of Hawkings (except that one season when Eleven went to the city and met Eight) but the world of ‘Stranger Things’ has gotten bigger now. In Volume One alone, the story shifts between Hawkings, California, Russia, and later to the open road, Alaska, Nevada, and Utah. While the largeness in scope truly makes the world of ‘Stranger Things’ bigger and the world-building richer, what it does is take away from what made the first three seasons so enjoyable.

The hustle and bustle of previous installments meant that the split-up characters eventually bump into each other as they must face a terror from the Upside Down, the shadow world parallel to ours where monsters exist. With such distance between the characters, it’s hard to create that sense of narrative intimacy. There was always some level of joy when the younger set collided with the young adult set – Jonathan, Nancy (Natalia Dyer), Steve (Joe Keery), and later addition Robin (Maya Hawke) – and then later on with the older set of Joyce and Hopper and the parents.

Image courtesy of Netflix

But there’s not much of that here. That sort of narrative interweaving only really happens in Hawkings and it quickly happens because the characters know each other already and have been through this before. As the Upside Down throws another horrible monster into the fray, this time a powerful creature named Vecna, those in Hawkings quickly band together to solve the case.

That’s when the show really and truly feels like ‘Stranger Things.’ Cut up into four parts – Hawkins, California (split into Joyce and Murray, played by Brett Gelman, and the younger set) and Russia with Hopper – the show feels a little disjointed. It doesn’t help that they split them up into five stories by the halfway point. For the first time in three seasons, I wasn’t interested in all the stories. I actually wanted to skip parts and just focus on one part, which was Hawkins.

Image courtesy of Netflix

By the fourth season, you can tell that the Duffer Brothers and their creative team have run out of steam for some characters. For Joyce, Hopper, Jonathan, Will, and Mike, there doesn’t seem to be anything new to do with them (or even interesting). You can even see this as Jonathan, Will, and Mike start to have less and less scenes as the season progresses. Joyce and Hopper must deal with an external struggle, a tangible goal, and while it does not test Joyce’s character to a point of any real change, Hopper has just one and this is explored only by the last two or three episodes. Prior to that, it’s just trying to survive in Russia.

And while Eleven is poised to be the show’s central figure, her character must endure a necessary trial to get her abilities back but plays out a story we’ve all seen before in one shape or another. It feels more like Eleven’s storyline was meant more to introduce somebody new.

It’s in Hawkins where the show really feels like the show we’ve come to love and it’s there that I want to focus all my attention. It’s in Hawkins, with Nancy, Steve, Robin, Dustin (Gaten Materazzo), Lucas (Caleb McLaughlin), Max (Sadie Sink), Erica (Priah Ferguson), and new addition Eddie (Joseph Quinn), where the mystery of Vecna is truly explored, experienced, and felt.

Image courtesy of Netflix

It’s in Hawkins where the heavy themes are truly explored like radical conservatism and surviving trauma, which are handled in a way that shows their frightening aspects but also still done with a good mix of seriousness and humor. The monster is not that important, though the show manages to pivot that thought later in the season in an interesting way, but his presence is necessary because that’s the impetus for the fun stuff to happen – when the Hawkins group tries to solve the mystery, working together and using past experiences to rationalize their findings. It’s the stuff that pays tribute to old 80s and early 90s movies like ‘The Goonies’ and ‘E.T.; and ‘Nightmare on Elm Street’ and the like that gave the show its working DNA.

And on a personal note, I just love how pivotal a Kate Bush song becomes in two episodes of the season. Amazing use of music, as always.

Hopefully, when Volume Two arrives in July, episodes 8 and 9 will interweave the stories again to give us the show we’ve come to love and prepare us for the announced fifth and final season of the show.

And hopefully, they won’t make us wait another three years before we can properly say goodbye.

My Rating:

––

All episodes of ‘Stranger Things 4‘ Vol. 1 are now streaming on Netflix. Vol. 2 will premiere on July 1, 2022.

ALSO READ:
‘Stranger Things’ Season 4 Interviews: Darker Journeys, New Faces, and Vecna of The Upside Down
11 Scenes from ‘Stranger Things 2’ that Gave Us Chills
All Grown Up: A Review of ‘Stranger Things 3’
Close Encounters with Eleven: Q&A with Netflix ‘Stranger Things’ Star Millie Bobby Brown

May 30, 2022
‘Top Gun: Maverick’ is peak action filmmaking but its mission feels hollow

I’m naturally wary of reboots, remakes, and what is now called “legacy sequels,” a term coined by box office analysts Gower Street Analytics. The term refers to a “belated sequel” of a very popular film made several decades ago. All of this was discussed in a Guardian article by Andrew Pulver, saying that a very “risk-averse Hollywood” is pouring money into “legacy films” like ‘Top Gun,’ ‘Ghostbusters,’ ‘Jurassic Park,’ and the upcoming ‘Avatar’ sequel to varying results. I’m wary about this because this appeal for nostalgia and fan service truly treats films like products and not creative productions. There’s a checklist that you have ticked off before you can even start working on the film as a creative output.

So I had mixed feelings coming into ‘Top Gun: Maverick.’ I am not a legacy fan. I was seven years old when the first film came out and it wasn’t my cup of tea. But I’m a fan of Tom Cruise and one of the sequel’s screenwriters, Christopher McQuarrie (who writes alongside Ehren Kruger and Eric Warren Singer). Was this just going to be a cash grab? Or was Tom Cruise not going to disappoint me by working his magic and making sure this was going to be an experience?

In terms of it being a cinematic experience, ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ is bar none one of the most thrilling action films I’ve seen in a long while. It’s well-known how the film boasts of having no CGI whatsoever. All the aerial stunts and the acting of the crew in the cockpits of their fighter jets are all shot in real-world situations. The human eye can really spot the difference between what is real and what is CGI in a film and this perception of reality on screen adds to the excitement and energy that is happening on screen.

The film, running at 131 minutes, is full of high-octane aerial stunts and fight scenes. From the training sessions of the new pilots under the tutelage of Tom Cruise’s Maverick to the actual mission, even a person like myself who is indifferent to the appeal of fighter jets and instruments of war, I held my breath and was very much invested in the outcome of these aerial battles.

Director Joseph Kosinski managed to show us the stakes, impress upon us what it takes for our protagonists to succeed, and then give us a dazzling display of explosive, high-energy action scenes that really just gets under your skin. The sound design and mix really helped amplify the tension of these scenes.

For that alone, the film succeeds on such a high level.

^{Photo: Top Gun Movie on Facebook}

And then there’s the fan service that comes in, which doesn’t take away from the movie (fortunately) and adds a certain kind of old-school charm to the film. Val Kilmer returns from the first film for a short cameo that is packed with emotion and meaning. Even suffering from throat cancer, he manages an affecting scene with Cruise that helps reinforce an ongoing theme of the film, which is letting go.

And while the film introduces new characters – and includes Jennifer Connely, who is a character only mentioned but never seen in the original, and Miles Teller, who plays the older version of a character seen in the first film – this is really Maverick’s movie as he must come to terms with being a relic in a world that has moved on from the crazy bravado of the 80s.

^{Photo: Top Gun Movie on Facebook}

Interestingly though, the film manages to find a point of intersection between the past and the future. Maverick may be a relic but he has the skills and the experience that will allow them to succeed in an extremely challenging mission made complicated by technology. Somehow, the film manages to gently nudge the older guard to move on and let the younger set take over; but it still celebrates and values the skills and experience of the veterans and reconciles that they still have something to share and contribute.

My only gripe is that as thrilling and exciting as the film is, and how poignant the lessons it hopes to dramatize through Maverick’s interactions with Connelly’s Penny and Teller’s Rooster, the film gently skirts over the mission parameters and treats it as a generic quest. The mission involves destroying a plutonium cache in an unnamed mountainous country. The geopolitics of this film is completely swept under the rug. NATO approves this attack, they must do it to protect the world from an unnamed nuclear threat. Really, it is just an excuse for the planes to go on air and for some amazing aerial stunts but by doing so it detaches itself from reality.

^{Photo: Top Gun Movie on Facebook}

This film is really just a fantasy. It makes no justification for its act of war and plays neutral by creating an enemy that is neither recognizable nor familiar. And this would have been fine 15 years ago when there was relative peace in the world (or we were all unaware of how bad things were). But the world is torn apart by populist regimes and is still reeling from the war in Ukraine.

The lack of identifiable politics in the film detracts from the realism of the film as it ends up becoming nothing more than a legacy sequel out there to entertain. That doesn’t have to be a bad thing. It’s still so enjoyable, especially in IMAX where everything is just set to scale. But, ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ is also a war movie but with no clear enemy. So what does the movie end up standing up for if not just war for the sake of it?

My Rating:

––

‘Top Gun: Maverick’ opens in Phillippine cinemas on Wednesday, May 25. Buy your tickets here.

ALSO READ:
Tom Cruise Returns to the Skies in the Long-Awaited Sequel ‘Top Gun: Maverick’
First Reactions to ‘Top Gun: Maverick’ Describe it as the “Perfect Blockbuster”

May 24, 2022
The End of an Era: a Review of ‘Downton Abbey: A New Era’

I have been an avid fan of the series ‘Downton Abbey‘ since it first came out back in 2010. I have seen all six seasons (the series is available on Netflix) when they came out and even caught the movie that was released in 2019. So watching a new ‘Downton Abbey’ movie has the same feeling as that of coming home. I’ve lived (and loved) these characters for over 20 years now. It has been three years since the last film and I don’t remember much about it. But just after ten or fifteen minutes into the sequel, ‘Downton Abbey: A New Era,’ everything just came rushing back.

For those who have loved these characters, it’s really like having a family reunion.

While series creator Julianne Fellowes is still the scriptwriter and Gareth Neame and Liz Trubridge producing, Simon Curtis takes over the directing helm. Even with a new director, the movie still feels like the series. Curtis seems very much aware of the little details of each character and their dynamics with each other that he manages to capture it in such a seamless manner.

After all, even with its soap opera-ish narratives, the true joy of watching any ‘Downton Abbey’ content, whether it’s the series or the movies, is its dignity and elegance and the deep relationships of these characters. A lot of the stories in the show are familiar and universal. What makes these characters so endearing is their interactions with each other.

The whole cast has returned and they fit back into their roles effortlessly. The slight changes are evident – Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) has come to fully accept her role as the head of Downton Abbey despite the absence of her adventurous husband; Edith (Laura Carmichael) is happier and more confident; Tom Branson (Allen Leech) feels most at ease now with the family having found someone of his own through Lucy (Tuppence Middleton); Carson (Jim Carter) is struggling with retirement while Barrow (Robert James-Collier) has come into his own as Downton Abbey’s new butler, and the like – and we just pick up from where we left off in the last film.

^{Photo: Universal Pictures}

At a hundred and twenty-five minutes, ‘Downton Abbey: A New Era” begins like just any other episode of the series but as the story unfolds, it starts to become clear that there seems to be a finality to all of this. The story happens in two parts working simultaneously.

The first story is set in a villa in the south of France, which Lady Violet (Maggie Smith) inherited from an old suitor over 50 years ago who has just passed away. Lady Violet has given the villa to Sybil, Tom’s daughter. Invited by the suitor’s son and wife, the family must uncover the mystery of such an expensive inheritance from a suitor Lady Violet had only met for just a week.

The second story is set in Downton Abbey when a film production wants to use the manor as a set for a movie. While the idea is considered “crass” and too lowly for such a distinguished house, the payment for rent would greatly help to maintain the expensive manor and Lady Mary agrees. The arrival of film stars into the manor turns everything upside-down, including another potential suitor for Lady Mary, who is questioning whether her husband truly loves her or not.

^{Photo: Universal Pictures}

When Downton Abbey first came out in 2010, it was deemed as a study between class divisions – the lives and troubles of the people “upstairs” (the upper class) and those “downstairs” (the lower class) – it was a way to peer into, dissect, and criticize the complex class system of Britain.

As the seasons of the show progressed, it became clear that series creator Julian Fellowes was showing how unnecessary and even backward this idea of such a class system is. There is just as much goodness and nobility in the people downstairs and just as much prejudice and untoward behavior from the people upstairs. I have always felt that Fellowes has been criticizing this class system but he also treats it with such love and reverence.

In ‘Downton Abbey: A New Era,’ he once again brings in more elements that question this system. The “crass movie people” that have come into Downton Abbey juxtaposes the changes in the film industry from silent film to film with sound (the ‘talkies’) with that of the class system; it is a sign that the world is moving forward. On the other hand, the story in the South of France puts into light the question of dynasties when the secret behind the relationship of Lady Violet and her suitor puts Lord Grantham’s (Hugh Bonneville) whole life into question.

^{Photo: Universal Pictures}

While the film (and the whole series) can serve as a study and criticism of this British elitist class system, the way it treats its characters of high rank and status with so much care and love is now a little uncomfortable for me as I am now older and more aware of these systems of inequality. What saves ‘Downton Abbey: A New Era’ is how wonderfully familiar these characters have become and that at the very center of this movie – and the whole series, for that matter – is the warm and tender heart at its core. There is elegance, grace, dignity, and goodness in all the stories of ‘Downton Abbey.’

In this current world that seems so crazy and messy and chaotic, ‘Downton Abbey’ becomes a breath of fresh air. It is a pleasant watch that brings you back to the days when everything felt more civil, more polite. And for that, I will always treasure this show and its movies.

My Rating:

––

‘Downton Abbey: A New Era’ opens in Phillippine cinemas on Wednesday, May 18, released exclusively at selected Ayala Malls Cinemas. Buy your tickets here.

ALSO READ:
Film Facts: Five Things to Know About ‘Downton Abbey: A New Era’

May 17, 2022
Sam Raimi and the Endless Cinematic Possibilities: A review of ‘Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness’

After seeing ‘WandaVision,’ I was so very stoked to watch ‘Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.’ It’s no secret that Wanda Maximoff is my favorite character in the MCU and her appearance in the film made it a must-see movie for me. The MCU has been quite successful, in my opinion, in translating the joy of reading comics and graphic novels into the film medium. It satisfies my childhood need to see superheroes in action, facing insurmountable odds, and (more often than not) dealing with the gray areas of the good versus bad/right versus wrong dynamics in the world in a bombastic cinematic experience.

But the MCU has a particular type. There’s a certain look and feel to each MCU despite its variety of directors and scriptwriters. The only two films in the MCU that feel different and have the mark of its individual directors were Taika Waititi’s ‘Thor: Ragnarok’ and Chloe Zhao’s ‘Eternals.’

But now Sam Raimi’s ‘Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness’ joins the ranks.

As much as this is an MCU movie, ‘Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness’ is a Sam Raimi film. As much as Benedict Cumberbatch is the star as Doctor Strange, the spotlight of this film has to be Sam Raimi and his pitch perfect direction. He’s turned this story into a playground for his indelible style.

Under Sam Raimi’s exceptional and out-of-the-box vision, the movie is playful and unexpected. It has twists and turns – some you see coming, others surprise you along the way and keeps you on your toes – and it’s done with such stylistic flair that makes it feel so new and refreshing and, as a cinematic product, makes full use of the medium.

Raimi’s transitions between scenes are clever and visually arresting. He peppers the film with jump scares and hauntingly loud horror music by Danny Elfman. It has a lot of trademark Sam Raimi (who is famous for the first three ‘Spider-man’ films with Tobey Maguire, ‘Drag Me to Hell,’ and the cult series ‘The Evil Dead’ and ‘Army of Darkness’). There are surprising extreme close-ups, camera angles in the point-of-view of either the object or a hidden character, the aforementioned jump scares, and so on.

Photo: Marvel.com

The story of ‘Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness’ involves the titular character facing a powerful enemy to protect a young girl, America Chavez (played with great confidence by Xochitl Gomez), whose powers has made her a target for the said-powerful adversary. Her ability – to be able to traverse the different universes – would be too powerful and damaging in the wrong hands. In an effort to save her, he is thrown into various universes, alternate realities that are similar to the one we’ve been following in the MCU but with variations.

So Sam Raimi’s direction even gives the feeling that we are watching an alternate type of MCU movie. The effect is dazzling. What also makes it enjoyable is that scriptwriter Michael Waldron manages to forego traditional narrative forms to really put Dr. Strange, America Chavez, and Wanda as the leads without taking away from Doctor Strange that this is his movie. Each character has something to face within themselves but since we’ve really explored so much of Doctor Strange and Wanda in previous MCU installments whether on TV or film, he doesn’t bow down to too much character development.

Photo: Marvel.com

He doesn’t have to. Instead, the film really gives us endless possibilities by exploring the many different worlds and realities in the MCU. This gives the film a lot of chances to do fan service moments without major repercussions to the main reality while giving its main characters a big enough impetus to change.

I’m a little short on details because, in an effort to keep this review spoiler-free, I have to paint this critique in generalizations and broad strokes. This film is centered on the cinematic experience – any spoilers may ruin the audience’s involvement – but there’s also a lot happening that I am inclined to watch again; and in 3D, if possible, because the visuals are just amazing.

Benedict Cumberbatch and Elizabeth Olsen must have had an enjoyable time being able to play with these characters and their different iterations in the realities offered. As actors, this must have been fun for them and you can see it in their performances. Benedict Wong manages to keep Wong as a solid character that can ground Doctor Strange, and Rachel McAdams is not relegated as an accessory to the cast. There’s enough meat for her character to play within this film.

Photo: Marvel.com

This is a perfect MCU movie, up there with ‘Captain America: Civil War’ and ‘Avengers: End Game,’ wherein the film is aware of the audience’s expectations and plays with them in fun and surprising ways. And with the added touch of Sam Raimi’s direction, it is elevated into a wonderfully delightful experience that is surprising, refreshing, and makes you want more. While I was completely satisfied with the two hours and six-minute run time of the film, I wanted more of it.

So, I guess, I’ll just have to go to the cinema again to take it all in. But this time, I want to see it in 3D.

My Rating:

––

Doctor Strange in The Multiverse of Madness is now showing in Philippine cinemas. Buy your tickets here.

ALSO READ:
IN PHOTOS: Marvel Studios’ ‘Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness’ World Premiere
Film Facts: 5 Things to Know About ‘Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness’

May 5, 2022
The Good, The Bad, and the Enjoyable: a review of ‘The Bad Guys’

First off, I wasn’t impressed by the trailer of Dreamworks’ new animated full-length, ‘The Bad Guys.’ There was something so literal about it. A bunch of villains pretending to be good and, I’m guessing, they become good in the process. It came across as quite one-dimensional.

When I got to see the film, I was completely blown away. First off, the animation is splendid. It has the sheen and gloss of a painting that moves. The texture and colors of the images are quite beautiful to watch. But even if it is almost painting-like in its execution, it doesn’t stop director Pierre Perifel to do some really frenetic action that will be super enjoyable to both kids and adults alike.

What also drew me into the film is the intricate characterization of the cast. From the lead character, The Wolf, the charismatic leader of the criminal gang called The Bad Guys, to Mr. Snake, Webs, Shark, and Piranha. Each character is distinct, adorable, and unforgettable. It helps that the voice acting is really good. Sam Rockwell is slick and charming as The Wolf and Marc Maron plays off Rockwell extremely well as Mr. Snake. The cast also includes Awkwafina (Webs), Craig Robinson (Shark), Anthony Ramos (Piranha), Zazie Beets (as Governor Foxington), and Richard Ayoade (as the guinea pig narcissistic philanthropist Professor Marmalade).

It’s a straight-up caper film with hilarious gags that are funny and unexpected. Some of the gags include Mr. Shark being so excellent at disguise that it leads to hilarious effects, aside from the fact that he is visually a shark in a disguise. Piranha is a crazy, hot head, and he’s not the smartest fish in the sea. Adding to the hilarity of the film is the idea that some animals can talk and act like humans while some animals are merely animals. And they all live in a world primarily populated by humans. Even the governor is a literal fox!

The highly unrealistic world creates a space for some amazing visual setups for the rather complicated capers The Bad Guys pull, some energetic car chases, and some cool action sequences. This world is so left-of-center and out-of-the-box that it allows you to empathize with the lead characters despite them being criminals. But the movie is also nuanced enough to take note that The Wolf and Mr. Snake would pay their bill at a diner right before they rob a bank.

But further into the story, the movie pushes its nuances further and explores this idea about second chances and how dangerous stereotypes can be. It’s mentioned quite a few times in the film that you should never judge a book by its cover and the film manages to dramatize this wonderfully through its narrative and even choice of characters.

The Bad Guys – a wolf, a snake, a shark, a tarantula, and a piranha – all have bad reputations (as carnivores) but this is all a metaphor for something even bigger. The distorted reality of the setting allows for an interesting space to discuss the dangers of stereotyping and how we could easily force people into doing “bad things” just because that’s how the world perceives them.

What’s great about ‘The Bad Guys’ is that it manages to do this in a series of narrative twists and turns that keep you at your seat and manage to surprise you at every turn without sacrificing any of the enjoyment. It manages to stay fast-paced and funny while still going deep into society’s judgmental attitudes. The added bonus? It works well for both kids and adults alike.

Rumors have it that ‘The Bad Guys,’ based on the books of the same name by Aaron Blabey, will be a franchise IP. That means there will be more stories about these characters (even though the film ends with a clear resolution). I actually love the idea because I’d love to see these characters again and see what else is in store for these ‘bad guys.’

My Rating:

––

‘The Bad Guys‘ opens in Philippine cinemas on April 27, 2022. Buy your tickets here.

ALSO READ:
Dreamworks Animation’s ‘The Bad Guys’ Brings Best-Selling Children’s Book Series to Life
Awkwafina’s Voice Gives Life to Tech-Savvy Spidey in ‘The Bad Guys’

April 26, 2022
Revisiting a classic genre, ‘The Lost City’ is an enjoyable break from superhero movies in the cinema

Back in the 80s, the success of the 1984 film ‘Romancing the Stone’ with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, started a fun genre known as the adventure/romance genre. It was an enjoyable movie that had all the genre conventions of both kinds of movies and appealed to women. It had the thrills and spills of the action genre, a heavy dose of comedy, and a love story grounding the film at the center. That film is also about a romance novelist, who ends up on an adventure much like her own books, and meets a dashing smuggler, who helps her through her quest. I actually saw the movie and its sequel and it was a lot of fun.

‘The Lost City’ takes a generous amount of story elements from the 1984 film but ramps up the comedy for an enjoyable revisit to this classic genre that I didn’t realize was sorely missed. The film exchanges the original film’s dashing bird smuggler for the romance novelist’s cover model and hilarity ensues. While the premise of ‘Romancing the Stone’ is steeped in real danger and real issues (her sister is kidnapped, people are killed), ‘The Lost City’ leans on the hyper-real and is unafraid to be goofy and wacky.

The genre covers a lot of bases – romance, action, and comedy – which makes it perfect for a date or for watching movies with your close friends. It’s the kind of light, feel-good and enjoyable time in the theater that has been lacking in recent years with either films loaded with special effects or award-bait movies that can leave you in a spiral of heavy thoughts.

While the first five or eight minutes of ‘The Lost City’ have some tired and expected jokes – involving Channing Tatum’s cover model being not very bright and Sandra Bullock’s reclusive, grieving author being forced out of her comfort zones to promote her latest book – the film really starts to take flight when Bullock’s Loretta Sage is kidnapped by billionaire Abigail Fairfax (played by Daniel Radcliffe) as her background in archeology and ancient languages may help find the missing resting place of a priestess and her treasure. The same priestess who is written about in Loretta Sage’s books.

Witnessing the kidnapping, Alan, the cover model, insists on trying to save her because he wants her to see him as more than just a pretty face.

‘The Lost City’ is unafraid to be over the top and unrealistic. As seen in the trailer, Fairfax takes her on an airplane landing on the top floor of a building, a fantastic scene that feels a little too much so quickly. But this is the charm of the film. It doesn’t take itself so seriously so you can really just sit back and relax and just have fun with all the hilarious gags.

Because this is exactly in Bullock and Tatum’s wheelhouse. They get to do physical comedy (both have impeccable timing), Bullock gets to show off her wit and eloquence while Tatum gets to make fun of himself but still find the beating heart and warmth of his character that makes him so endearing. There’s also a healthy dose of Tatum showing off his amazing body so that’s always a plus.

Radcliffe is having a ball playing the billionaire with manners who gets more and more unhinged as the film unfolds. It’s the steady build up from elegant and posh to diabolically evil. It’s just so much fun. And the Brad Pitt cameo is as funny in the movie as it is in the trailer.

In a cinematic landscape that is heavily populated by big event movies, comic book fare, or serious, heavy dramas that are gunning for awards, it’s so refreshing to have a film that is just all about having a good time. It hints at some criticism against corporate takeovers of smaller countries – Abigail Fairfax buys half an island in search of the actual lost city of D – and the sort of destruction they do to the natural surroundings but it never hits too hard or makes any real statement against it.

It’s not that kind of film. And after the 112-minute running time of the film, I realized that that was okay too. ‘The Lost City’ is not going to change my life or the way I see the world but for almost two hours, I got lost in the laughs and the fun chemistry between Bullock and Tatum. I forgot that movies can be like this in the cinema too. It’s not just for streaming and I’m glad that it’s doing well at the box office. It’s nice to just have fun again in the theater.

My Rating:

ALSO READ:
Film Facts: 5 Things to Know About ‘The Lost City’
LOOTBOX: Click here for your chance to win limited edition goodies from The Lost City!

––

‘The Lost City‘ is now in cinemas nationwide. Find a cinema near you and book your tickets here.

April 25, 2022
Heavily plot-driven, ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore’ is an exclusive cinematic experience made just for fans

As I sat in my seat in the special screening of ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore’, while surrounded by excited fans in their house robes and carrying wands, I came to the realisation that, while it had only been four years since the release of the previous film ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald,’ I didn’t have any recollection about the earlier film at all.

Of course, I remember that Eddie Redmayne played Newt Scamander and that it was a period film in the Harry Potter universe. But none of the plotlines of the previous film had stuck with me except those of Queenie (played by Alison Sudol). Queenie was the only character that had left an imprint on me in the whole series.

I couldn’t remember what the crimes of Grindelwald were and what all of this had to do with the fantastic beasts. I had hoped that the opening of the film would help me catch up to the events of the last film but instead, it opens in medias res with Albus Dumbledore (played by Jude Law) having tea with Grindelwald (played by Mads Mikkelsen) talking about things I wasn’t sure of and a revelation that we were all aware of (though the audience around me still reacted as if it was new information).

And then it goes to the opening credits and a rather dark scene (was the scene just unbelievably dark or does the SM Aura Premiere theater need to clean its lens?) of Newt observing another one of the fantastic beasts.

A lot of plot happens before we shift to Jacob (played by Dan Fogler) and his life without Queenie. We are introduced to a new character, Lally (played by Jessica Hicks), and then we are thrust into the main plot of the film.

The movie plays out like this throughout its 142-minute runtime. Reintroduces us to old characters (Ezra Miller as Credence, Callum Turner as Theseus) while opening a new plotline involving Grindelwald as some rising name in the wizarding world for his populist views of eradicating the non-magical humans (called muggles) as they pose a threat to the wizarding world.

There’s an election that’s happening and in the middle of it, Dumbledore sends Newt and his friends to a quest to stop Grindelwald from swaying the public to take his war seriously.

‘Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore’ is a movie that is all plot. Our heroes are sent on a quest and it’s one challenge after the other while Grindelwald gathers his forces and Dumbledore has his own little side adventures to follow. The movie jumps from Newt and Theseus to Jacob, then Grindelwald, and then to Credence, and then to Queenie in such a flurry of story that it doesn’t quite feel cohesive or whole.

There are lots of magical moments in the film that make you wonder why exactly is Grindelwald so afraid of the muggles? When wizards can do such amazing things with a wave of their wand, what chance do ordinary beings have against them? Never does the film ever take the time to impress upon us the danger of Grindelwald’s philosophy. The stakes are made to feel big – Dumbledore and other characters say it all the time – but never does the film ever show us what exactly those stakes are.

And this is my biggest issue with this film. While the fans around me were ooh-ing and ahh-ing at the mention of a character’s name or a mystical effect a character does or an antic made by one of the cute fantastic beasts of Newt, the film never feels grounded in anything tangible or concrete. There’s imagery used to compare Grindelwald to any bigoted populist president in contemporary society – a fantastical Hitler, so to speak – but there’s no danger present in the scenes other than the dangerous rhetoric.

Albus is merely good because he is against Grindelwald, but there’s no real scene that ever shows us his goodness. Newt’s moral center has been established in the earlier films but he undergoes no internal struggle that allows me to invest in his character.

The only real character whose internal struggle feels developed and whole in the movie is of Queenie but she has to share her screen time with all the other characters and the busyness of the plot.

From the way the audience was reacting, ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore’ comes off to me as an exclusive cinematic event that caters only to fans and those invested in the lore. As someone with no real attachments to the franchise, it was incredibly difficult to feel included in this journey. While it had a lot to say about populist statements that lead to bigotry and war, it never makes any of it feel palpable or real. Instead, it is more dead set on highlighting how magical the wizarding world is.

But they’ve already done that in the Harry Potter series. What else do they have to offer?

My Rating:

––

‘Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore’ is now in cinemas nationwide. Find a cinema near you and book your tickets here.

April 19, 2022
Beneath the Horrors: A Review of PETA’s ‘A Game of Trolls’

To celebrate PETA’s 55th year anniversary, the theater company is streaming a recording of its 2017 musical ‘A Game of Trolls.’ It’s a production that was necessitated by events back in 2017, the continued return to prominence of the late dictator’s family, and the proliferation of fake news and misinformation about the Martial Law era. Five years later, the show’s message still rings loud and clear, the impetus to screen this show is as timely as ever, with the upcoming elections and all.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by PETA THEATER (@petatheater)

Written by Liza Magtoto, directed by Maribel Legarda, and with songs composed by Vincent De Jesus, ‘A Game of Trolls’ takes on a more in-your-face approach to narrative, using the play as a platform to give voice to the people who have suffered under the horrors of the Martial Law era. It’s the story of Hector, an operator on a troll farm, who must come to terms with his mother, who was absent for most of his life due to her activist endeavors. The catalyst for this confrontation comes in a supernatural form, as he uploads photos of Martial Law victims into his computer’s cloud and they come to visit to recount their stories of suffering, loss, and pain.

In a way, it takes a similar narrative frame as Charles Dickens’ ‘A Christmas Carol,’ where voices of the dead come to tell their stories to change the present and, hopefully, to steer the future into something better.

Using this narrative framework allows the play to take a didactic approach to storytelling. Hector must fend off the ghost and their stories as he defends his work as a troll and justifies his estranged relations with his mother.

At the front and center of this play are the real-life stories that are interwoven into this narrative and while this gives the show its weight, it comes at the price of the story of Hector, his mother, and his friends. While the recounting of the atrocities during the dictatorship is important, it overshadows and sublimates the plotline and undercuts the learning of the main characters.

Hector has to change because of the sheer force of the hauntings of the past rather than an action he takes on his own. Later on, he suffers a backlash for the work he does as a troll but this feels like a subplot. Again, the stories of the horrors of Martial Law completely overshadow the narrative. The aspect of Hector being a troll isn’t fully explored and the resolution that unfolds between his strained relationship with his mother comes too easy.

It doesn’t help that this is not Vincent de Jesus’ most affecting work. Unlike his work in ‘Himala: the musical’ or ‘Changing Partners,’ there are only two songs that have really captivating melodies.

The recording is also not the best in terms of coverage of this production. There are only two angles and the sound blows up on my speakers. Hopefully, subtitles will be added to future releases. Because of the limited coverage, it’s hard to see the full stagecraft at work. This is a very busy play, with lots of stage movement as the cast manipulates the blocks after each scene to create a new formation to mark the change in location. There is a video wall that is constantly screening old footage of the Philippines in the 70s and 80s, newspaper headlines, and graphics that align with what’s happening on stage.

I feel that this show would have such a powerful effect when seen live. Myke Solomon is always captivating on stage and Gold Villar Lim seems to hit every beat in her portrayal of Cons, Hector’s socially aware roommate, and his adversary online as a troll. But the distance of the coverage doesn’t always pick up what is probably amazing in a live performance.

It’s when the play actually gets down to the humanity of Hector – like his everyday interactions with Cons – that the show’s potential rises. The person behind the troll, outside of all this discussion about the history and the past, is what can ground the play into something palpable. Because the large motherhood statements about freedom and democracy and the complexities of the relationship of a child who feels abandoned by his activist mother can only be felt and understood through the person underneath. I was hoping for more of that. It gets swallowed by the play’s thrust to ensure that the stories are not forgotten.

But I’m not the audience of this play. This production seems hell-bent on ensuring that misinformation and fake news doesn’t erase the voices of the victims. It takes a clear and defiant stand on what must be remembered and what we must resist. This play is for all the youth who may be victims of propaganda and revisionism. It’s for people who need ammunition when engaging with people who spread lies.

For that, I can see its importance. For that, I completely understand PETA’s release of this play on streaming just months before the elections and on its 55th anniversary. Theater has always addressed the needs of its community, and ‘A Game of Trolls’ answers that call.

My Rating:

––

A Game of Trolls is streaming via ktx.ph for P150 (Video On Demand with 24-hour access) on April 8, 22, and 23, 2022.

April 8, 2022