Tarzan, Ghostbusters receive revitalizing shots

The Legend Of Tarzan

Having read the original origin story of the Edgar Rice Burroughs classic, I initially thought the movie was a direct adaptation of that material. Good thing it wasn't. The Legend Of Tarzan is set years after the main character already embraced his nobleman heritage as Lord Greystoke and living quietly with his wife Jane (Porter) in their London estate.

This time, the former Lord Of The Jungle goes back to Africa that is under the threat of slavery under the Belgian empire. But behind the sinister takeover is a deal with the fabled Leopard Men's leader to have Tarzan delivered over to him in exchange for the diamonds of Opar that the Belgians want. 

When I saw the trailer I thought Christoph Waltz played D'Arnot, the French military official who was one of the jungle lord's true friends in the series. It turned out he played the film's main antagonist. With his trademark deadpan delivery and quiet menace that became a trademark; that also made perfectly cast as Blofeld in the recent Bond film. His Leon Rom is the perfect counterpoint for Alexander Skarsgard's Tarzan. While the villain is a frail, small man who relied on his wits and cunning, the protagonist is a force of nature who utilized his physical conditioning and instinct to get things done. Solid cast all around. Samuel L. Jackson, as always, is a scene-stealer. 

The original screenplay independent to Burroughs' established series is an admirable take on the legendary character. For that alone, the movie is a must-see.

Ghostbusters

Melissa McCarthy was the main reason I dropped all apprehension about the movie. Spy turned me into a fanboy while Kristen Wiig's involvement in films I liked of late like The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty and The Martian also helped in upping the optimism despite a sizable chunk of the original series' fans crying blasphemy about a remake (Strike 1) that replaced the original cast with an all-female group (Strike 2). Whatever.

No less than the original cast members, with the exception of the recently departed Harold Ramis and Rick Moranis (who refused to participate), showed their support by doing cameos in some key scenes in the story. 

Greatly entertaining and buoyed by a talented cast with impeccable comedic timing. Perhaps the most surprising revelation is Chris Hemsworth's self-deprecating humor that made him likable in ways his portrayal of Thor cannot. That, and the creepiest dweeb of a villain portrayed by Neil Casey make the film a laugh riot and one of the best comedy movies of the year.

The Conjuring 2

The thing about watching a lot of horror films, you tend to develop a kind of fright threshold not unlike some pharmacological concoctions a person uses to gradually increase the dosage of the drug to get the desired effects. The normal dose just wouldn't cut it anymore. 

Same with horror movies. You get introduced to some novel way of getting spooked, the next time it happens, it almost becomes an afterthought. Maybe that's why the first installments are the most memorable in an established series. There were a couple of these fright-fests I watched at a young age that made it almost impossible for me to take a piss in the middle of the night for fear of what ungodly abomination would grab my ankles from under the bed, or meet face to face in the darkened hallway on the way to the bathroom. Notable among these were The Exorcist, The first installment of Peque Gallaga's Shake Rattle and Roll series, and The Shining. There were others like George Romero's Night Of The Living Dead or John Carpenter's The Thing, but the antagonists on those were physical beings that cannot teleport to a place you consider to be a safe haven. There's just something about a good ghost story that inspires the inner masochist in people via scaring themselves to death. Even the popular Japanese ghosts from The Ring and The Grudge are set for a grand smackdown this month.

And ghosts and a good ghost story is one of director James Wan's many core competencies (The other is fast cars and death defying stunts that will put Looney Tunes characters to shame.).

The first Insidious movie was, and will always be the testament to Wan's exceptional talent in crafting spooky atmospheres, well-placed jolts that follow a cleverly-placed misdirection, and good storytelling. The offshoot film that followed the series, The Conjuring and its sequel, continues in the same vein, this time focusing on the real-life exploits of paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. In The Conjuring 2, the couple assists a family in the receiving end of a deadly poltergeist activity in London, 1977.

As before, the beauty of Wan and his writers' execution of the story is not on what is presented onscreen but on the mystery behind what these ghost activities are trying to communicate. My only complaint about it, being a longtime viewer of films of this type, is that there are no more genuine fright that stays with you long after you have left the theater. Maybe its the sleek Hollywood production feel to it or that the main characters are played by well-known actors that makes it feel all the more like any other summer blockbuster you see in your mall cinemas. And I can't help but notice the same actor playing all the main boogeymen in all of Wan's movies. From the Darth Maul-like demon in Insidious to the hanged witch in The Conjuring. This time around the guy is playing a demon garbed in a nun's frock. That took another part out of the fright aspect. At least for me.

Time to go scouting again for obscure titles with no-name actors headlining them. Might be a gamble on potential turkeys (most of the time they really are turkeys) but when you hit paydirt with a good one, you can pat yourself on the back for another sleepless night and the inability to take a piss at the unholy hours just before dawn.

X-Men: Apocalypse

All things considered I think the new X-Men movie was decent enough. I certainly had fun watching it. Having read all those early reviews about how horrendous it was , especially one article I read that actually said it was slightly better than Batman V Superman---a movie I really loathed--- got me to think twice about seeing it in the cinema. There are movies that are meant to be watched in the cinema and some questionable ones that are better suited to see at home via cheap pirated copies of DVDs or free downloads. Good thing I decided to watch it on the big screen. Sometimes those reviews have a way of taking the fun out of potential roller coaster rides simply because you decided to see things the way the author insisted you to see it.

The movie takes place in the 80s this time around. First Class was the 60s, Days Of Future Past was the 70s and I'm guessing the fourth one will be in the 90s. Expect some Nirvana and loads of flannel on that one. 

They certainly had enough pop culture references during that decade: Return Of The Jedi, Nightcrawler's 'Thriller' jacket, and another one of those tongue in cheek soundtracks that  accompany Quicksilver's activities. This time around it's The Eurythmics' Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of These) instead of Jim Croce's Time In A Bottle. Fun, but the novelty of that sequence worked a lot better the first time. 

Instead of indestructible robots we have a thousands of years old mutant as the major villain, plus four cohorts standing for the four horsemen and a much younger version of the original X-Men cast. And this  cramped party, I believe, is where the critics balked. There were just too much new faces and characters that a movie with a limited running time can accommodate. Even Magneto's motivation to do what he did in this movie seemed rushed and oddly detached compared to his quiet intensity and one-track mind in the previous two films. 

Oscar Isaac's Apocalypse is a good villain. A megalomaniac with delusions of being a god always looks great when he realizes he finally met his match. And we finally get to see how Prof. X gets his bald pate. Would have been more fun if the reason wasn't as serious as what the movie has shown. Like maybe simply shaving his head because of some counterculture fascination but that's just me.

Hang on tight for the fourth one set in the alternative 90s.

Captain America: Civil War

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD

Having recently watched the movie and expecting it to be spectacularly good based on the Facebook posts of contacts who have already seen it ahead of me, I expected a bit of jaw-dropping experience from the entire proceedings. While it obviously ticked off the necessary features in the checklist found in every Marvel blockbuster movie especially The Avengers series, there's something about the entire movie I can't quite pinpoint as I left the cinema that I felt was somewhat lacking. 

The movie was not horrible. Far from it. It was brilliant in the way that it made the audience think about opposing ideas that have equal gravitas and well-taught out arguments. There's no easy way to choose a side considering the very ideas both are espousing are simply two separate parts of a perfect set-up. Tony Stark (Iron Man) argues about the need for some PR gloss by playing along with the UN for a much-needed security initiative to check the movements of a super-powered but dangerous team, and Steve Rogers (Captain America) counters with the notion that having a panel or an agency dictate when they need to move can be disastrous considering the institution they might answer for might be compromised anytime by both deadly threats or simple politics. One goal, different methods. This is the fundamental conflict that drives the entire movie forward. The main villain itself is simply reduced as a catalyst for the final showdown between the two heroes on opposite sides of the argument.

I guess my main objection about it is that I can't help that the movie ended in a cliffhanger that was not the least bit satisfying. I've had my fair share of 'bitin' endings in the past---especially on most European movies---that didn't have me scratching my head out of frustration. Even the thought of a sure installment in the Avengers franchise where you know for sure that the team is gonna be okay anyway, changed the fact that there was something off about the picture. 

I'm just nitpicking on trivialities here but I felt the movie should have been an Iron Man movie instead of Captain America. Near the end of the movie, Stark receives a letter from Rogers about why he did what he did, and all the other lofty ideals Captain America is known to spew out. But the overwhelming sentiment I had about it was that some sort of injustice was done to Stark considering he saw his parents murdered for the first time. Like the idea of them dying from an accident wasn't traumatic enough, his own friend took the side of his parents' murderer, justified or not. And all he got in the end was a letter of apology. That left a stale taste in the mouth. 

Having said all that, it made a good introduction for Tom Holland's Spider-Man and Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther. 

Still, Team Tony rules.

Midnight Special

I'm sure it will end in a cliffhanger that does not explain anything about some curiosities audience members will definitely ask about, like the supernatural circumstances surrounding the main character and who he really is. In short, it will be an ending that me and a movie-fanatic uncle jokingly refer to as A European Ending. The type where everything ends abruptly without further exposition of things and ditching that spoon-fed scenario where that ever-annoying "What happened in the end" query from less-engaged audience members always ask. Which is totally fine by me. Because judging from the brilliant second trailer I watched repeatedly ever since, those concerns are, to be blunt, trivial and unimportant. At least in the overall scheme of things, or in the context of the whole movie.  While those factors are interesting tools to give spice and propel a good story, they are simply incidental and mere tools that highlight the core of a seemingly sci-fi adventure fare: A family drama. 

Take away the supernatural powers, government conspiracies, and religious cults and it comes down to a simple, but engaging story about a small family's struggle to protect their only child at all costs. And the inevitability of letting go of our loved ones. And it's not like Jeff Nichols broke any new ground in terms of making this type of movie. The director said he made an homage to the kinds of movies he saw growing up in the 80s. Similar themes had already been explored by the likes of ET, Starman, and J.J. Abram's own homage to the genre: Super 8. All had elements of fantasy and sci-fi wizardy and share of its "freaks" who reinforces the bonds of the humans they interact with in one way or another. Midnight Special certainly belongs to this pantheon. Where a young boy with mysterious powers attracts the attention of everyone.

You see a divorced father with his son in tow, escaping from both the government (who think his son is a weapon) and a religious cult (who thinks his son is the messiah) across the US with some hair-raising cat and mouse chase that put everyone's life at risk, with a few glimpses of the boy's power every now and then. As played by Michael Shannon, the father takes a desperate race against odds that are increasingly going against him to take his gifted/cursed son to a predetermined site chosen by the boy. Will it save him? Kill him? All of the above? Those questions are---while significant---hardly important.
 
What we have instead is a gripping synopsis on the type of futile struggle every parent must do to shelter their children from whatever impossible threat that comes along. Be it the external forces like the ones given in the film or the very nature of the child himself that hinges on self-destruction any given second. It's all these and more until the end where the only question that matters is the one only a parent will ask.

Back to basics

Of all the music albums I own, I always come back to the likes of Nevermind, Siamese Dream, The Downward Spiral, Superunknown, and the rest of the early 90s alterna-groups that were ushered into the era by the massive commercial success of Nirvana's second album. Suddenly music that was supposed to be an alternative to the pop music that dominated the airwaves hijacked MTV and got 24/7 attention and substantial following from youth across the world; and that, ironically, 'alternative music' became the new pop.

Not since the Beatles had bands enjoyed mass popularity and support. It was not uncommon during the early 90s to tune in to MTV and see videos of guitar-based groups populating different programs of the iconic media giant. For every one featured pop artist like Seal, Mariah Carey, or Toni Braxton, ten bands were next. From the testosterone-heavy (Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots) to riot grrls (Hole, Babes In Toyland, L7) to college favorites (R.E.M, Pavement, 10,000 Maniacs) to buzz bands (Live, Dig, Cracker, Collective Soul), it was, for an impressionable little boy like me on the onset of puberty, perfect.

Perfect timing in a sense that rock music got into high gear when I was in that impressionable age. With the perpetual scowl of the 'go away leave me alone' phase of adolescence. The introspective lyrics and critical self-examination of the musicians that dominated that era profoundly affected a lot of my generation's outlook well beyond the school years. It was pop music that aimed to commune and communicate to its audience telling everyone they know how they feel despite the gloom-laden messages, instead of the prancing and preening about of pop musicians these days telling everyone how rich, how great and how deserving they are of people's undivided attention.

It was an era when concert-going was like a religious experience. Where people came not to be seen, but to feel and commune with like-minded misfits who exorcised their frustrations, alienation, and anger through the band who also felt, identified, and even looked like the audience. It's gone now. And in its place are pale, superficial imitations bludgeoned even deeper to obscurity by big-named "artists" who have very little in common with the people who idolize them.

But that's the thing about recordings. You can play them again over and over and relive what it was like to be in a certain era you were proud of. And maybe, if you're lucky, take new audience members for the ride and let them in that past-but-hardly-forgotten era when listening to music was exhilarating and gave the listener a sense of belonging.

105.9 Retro FM

Listening to FM radio has been one of the many constant pleasures that has not been totally eradicated by advancements in technology and availability of free data at the click of a button. Especially in a place where digital information is not readily accessible to the majority of the population. In that regard, free TV and radio are still the main form of entertainment and news-gathering sources for most Filipinos. 

 Growing up in a province from the mid-80s to the late 90s, free TV and radio were the only electronic means I could link up to the rest of the world. Cable TV was not even available to our place by the boondocks and the net was a decade away from being a household commodity. All the information about pop culture and the trends in music (that I was starting to really get into) were supplemented by back issues of magazines, paperbacks, and comic books from second-hand bookstores, rentals, and local flea market sales.

All this time the radio in the room was on, constantly tuned in to the local rock station churning out the latest 'alternative' single after the next. And going to classes in the city meant commuting and being subjected to the more traditional programming of other stations the drivers favored. One of the noticeable things about that experience is that while I was totally indifferent to what I was subjected to on a daily basis, I have observed that most of the songs these various mainstream stations aired during the late afternoon and early evenings when I was on the way home from school, were singles I heard as a toddler and still continue to hear at the same span of time even today.

The usual songs you'd hear from these stations' programming at dusk were what I jokingly called 'jeepney hits'. Usually tracks from the early 70s to mid-80s slow rock, disco, folk music, new wave, synth-pop, Italo, and Pinoy novelty songs  dominated the air during early evenings. So it's not uncommon to hear Air Supply, Queen, Starship, Boston, Yes, Duran Duran, America, Toto, and the rest at this time.

I ignored it back then, too caught up in being a music snob to appreciate them. It's only after a few years, and being away from the place that I grew up for so long made me appreciate them when I heard the very same type of programming in a different place. Thing about music is that it brings you back to specific events when you hear a familiar tune. I even wrote about it a few years ago.

The good thing about having a station like 105.9 Retro is that it provides listeners an option to be in that zone anytime they want to without interruption. For a few minutes or even hours in a day, the familiar tunes you heard during happier times in a place you called home brings you back like a welcome time traveling vessel.

Whiplash

For all the critical acclaim it got, Whiplash (2015) is not without its share of detractors. Most of of whom are jazz musicians and music writers who described the brutal strategies of the music instructor played by J.K. Simmons as unrealistic.

In a Huffingon Post article written by Brian Ross he stated:

"The suspense of disbelief is mission-critical in the movie biz. If you're doing Fast and Furious 93, you have a lot of latitude in what you can do because it's all largely fantasy. In career-oriented dramas, though, whether it's about fireman, doctors, lawyers, poets, scientists or social evangelists, the buck stops at the writer and director's door to ground the story well enough. To a point at least where people who do that job for a living would find some "reasonable" level of authenticity."

I do share the sentiment about certain types of movies being grounded on a sense of realism despite the obvious reason that they're works of fiction. There are certain genres that can get away with outlandish premises and situations like the Fast And The Furious series, or maybe Pirates Of The Carribean, or Star Wars. To go out and watch movies like these expecting "realistic" situations other than just simply sitting back and enjoying a bit of pure escapist fare is a bit like watching a porno flick and complaining about the gratuitous and graphic sex in it.

Films like this, on the other hand, really can't rely on the "but it's just a movie" riposte .

But that's as far as I agree when it comes to the objections toward the film.

Of course mentors like that are highly improbable in schools in more developed countries. But I don't think it's impossible. Especially in the Philippines. I heard my grandfather in my mother's side of the family suffered a similar traumatic experience in the hands of his own father---a big band leader/conductor himself. Though not exactly leading a jazz ensemble (more like a band for hire for specific social events) or looking out for the next "Bird", his spartan approach to teaching and maintaining the quality of the band was legendary.

I do admit the bleeding hands were a bit of a stretch but the movie succeeded in communicating its main purpose in making the audience ponder on whether Machiavellian approaches are effective in achieving excellence or not.

It's not exactly a feel-good movie despite the somewhat optimistic ending. Unlike movies of this sort that touches on the triumph of the human spirit over adverse conditions (i.e. Rocky, August Rush).

But the drum solos. That alone was a blast.

Robocop 2014

At first  I thought MGM decided to mock their famous Lion with a bizarre soundclip that replaced the trademark growl.

Turned out it was Samuel Jackson's Pat Novak. The guys's pre-broadcast mouth calisthenics that produced all that sound. It's there where I concluded Jose Padilha's remake of the 1987 Paul Verhoeven classic was a different entity altogether. 

Like the 1987 incarnation, the upgraded version never fails to underscore media's role into molding the public to puppets dancing to the tune of the most powerful corporations. That of course, and the neverending romantic theme of every successful fairy tale about the ages-old question of what makes us all human. 

The over the top R-18 violence that made the 1987 version so compelling was toned down for a more PG-friendly version this time. OCP is still the evil corporatation, and in place of the 'Old Man' we have a Steve Jobs-like CEO named Raymond Sellars. I never really liked Michael Keaton before The Other Guys but his performance in RoboCop made me a fan. The guy managed to make the character a very likable villain. Along with Jackie Earle Haley's mercenary and company military tactician and Jay Baruchel's goofy marketing executive, the film had all the makings of a very compelling movie by virtue of its villains (no Clarence/Jones but equally good) but somewhere in the middle the entire thing goes...level.

It's not that the movie was bad. In fact it's good---if it didn't have the specter of the original hanging around the back of your head to compare it with. The story and the overall direction of the new one is totally different in tone and even in story than its predecessor. That alone is reason enough why the movie is an excellent stand-alone entity on its own. I guess my major gripe about it is that the main character somehow lacks the charisma and bad-assness you'd expect from it. Granted that it's somehow a major improvement over the original considering it can move faster and has a whole lot more sophisticated access to technology and weaponry. I can't blame the actor (Joel Kinnaman) if that was how the character was written. You just can't empathize with it enough. Desensitized? Probably.

Had it not been for Gary Oldman's character, the film would have been a total waste.  Dr. Norton is the moral and humanist center of the story. They detached it, because RoboCop seems to be more like a machine in this version despite his human memories being intact.

There are a lot of allusions to the original other than the shared similarity of the characters' names. In place of the notorious 'Directive 4' we have the red band. Still a powerful tool to remind our hero that he's still just a product and still in the mercy of the company that made him. Good action/drama film overall. If only you haven't seen the original to compare it to. You just can't avoid it.

Men of steel and titans of metal

Been a while since I posted anything here so might as well talk about the two movies I really loved so far this year.

MAN OF STEEL

More of a reaction to the negative feedback of most viewers/critics whose rallying cry was that the thing was "too dark" and---my favorite--- that "Superman doesn't kill". Wonder if those same people had the same sentiment about issue #75 of the comics where the Man Of Steel met his "demise" in the hands of Doomsday. I'm sure that titanic face-off between the two ridiculously superpowered beings didn't produce any casualty at all. Just buildings and other inanimate objects because it would have been too dark a tone for the Norman Rockwell-esque world the blue boy scout lives in. Or that Superman has no intention of killing someone whose threat level is insane because, well, he doesn't kill. I'm sure that final blow he gave to that character was meant to only "stun" him.

I don't know. Maybe these chronic complainers have a better solution to that Zod-Superman smackdown that does not involve desperate, last minute solutions like snapping your opponent's neck to prevent him from killing some more. And that the character who did the killing was a first-timer at this kind of business. 

As for the "critical" mass who apparently found the violence and "lack of humor"  so off-putting, well tough luck gentlemen, sometimes genre entries like this revolve more around actual action than subtle artistic metaphors on life and deep meditations on existence. Snyder's unfairly lumped into the Michael Bay category of all flash and mindless mayhem devoid of good stories that may in fact be grounded on something---except that David Goyer and the Nolans are behind the writing that any more comparison with the former is far-fetched. This film was simply a reaction to the Singer-directed Superman Returns that managed to stoke the critics but left a stale taste on the mouth of most its target audience, including myself.

Donner's version is fine, but it's time for another take on things.


PACIFIC RIM

Best movie of the year. If only for the sheer ambition of making a big-screen tribute to those 
Japanese mecha/kaiju anime and manga that gained popularity during the 70s and 80s. I was a huge fan of Voltron, Daimos and Voltes V when these shows aired on free TV. And watching Guillermo Del Toro's fanboy output of giant robots bludgeoning giant monsters with makeshift weapons like a massive ship, that elation you had as a kid jumping out the sofa mimicking those cartoon robots as they administer their brand of justice to those giant invading monsters with extreme prejudice---comes back. Del Toro obviously made something he wanted to see as a fan, and that translated very well on the big screen. 

This obviously won't be winning any awards for best picture but this is clearly the best picture of the year. You advertise robots beating monsters to a pulp and live up to it. 

In this aspect Pacific Rim lives up to its promise.

The Amazing Spider-Man

There were the doubts about how someone known primarily for 500 Days Of Summer could possibly pull off a seemingly ambitious superhero blockbuster flick like The Amazing Spider-Man.


I had the same doubts at first but were quickly dispelled by those small promotional clips taken from the movie they released gradually up until the opening date. Most notable of them was the clip  where Spider-Man was trolling a carjacker. So far so good. At least they got the trash-talker aspect and sense of humor of the character right. Whenever Tobey Maguire tried those one-liners off the Sam Raimi version, it came off being delivered by a nerd trying so hard to be cool. Granted that Peter Parker was a real nerd, he was one without any of those cliched social handicaps filmmakers try so hard to hammer down the heads of the audiences to the point of actually preaching how great it is to be one. He's a nerd, but not of the Big Bang Theory-variety. With over a truckload of re-invention and reboots ranging from comic books, TV shows, the occasional direct to video B-movie treatments to Sam Raimi's version, the last thing the world needs is another 'reboot' of an established franchise.

But the movie is everything the first three were not: It's better.


Rabid comic-book purists will no doubt complain again about the entire re-invention of the Peter Parker backstory and how un-Norman Rockwell-esque the treatment of the hero's relationship was to his aunt and uncle up to the inclusion of a conspiracy theory regarding his parents' disappearance, but it's all irrelevant yapping at this point. 

Webb and his pool of writers created a fresh and grittier take on the evolution of the iconic web-slinger. There's a certain realistic feel to it that's apparent and devoid of any excessive melodrama or long speeches on nobility. And Parker naturally gets back at the bullies who made his life miserable and exacts a level of enjoyment for his small revenge; as any normal person who suddenly discovered the power to fight back, would do. 


But the two lead actors [Andrew Garfield/Emma Stone] were perfect for the parts they played. Specially Stone, who did not come off as the token hysterical neurotic female lead with a sense of entitlement despite knowing her partner's nocturnal activities and responsibilities.


The fight sequences with the Lizard, which most people actually go for in movies like this were excellent. And the Spider-Man contortions made famous in the comics when he was web-slinging was given due recognition specially in the ending. It also showcased Peter Parker's scientific wizardy and his creation of the web-shooters. Without a doubt this Spider-Man is better compared to the one-dimensional version Raimi introduced. Webb and the others hit all the right note with this first installment, and a possible inclusion to The Avengers.


And basing from the extra footage at the end credits [as with all Marvel movies], looks like The Green Goblin is up next. I hope they still get Willem Dafoe for it. 


Minus that horrendous helmet, this time.

Face-offs: 1

There are a lot of movies that featured memorable fight/action sequences. These are the ones that came to mind on such short notice. I'm sure I missed out on a few excellent ones but we can always create a new list. Preferably on the next five of the list's continuation.

Gun-Kata duel, Equilibrium

Of course Gun-Kata is a load of BS director Kurt Wimmer invented to make the action scenes in his Dystopian film more flashy and palatable to the movie-going public. Lucky for him lead actor Christian Bale was involved or else the film would be a total disaster. It's an ambitious film, and entertaining mostly because of the unique blend of weird samurai style melee fighting and calculus shooting.This is also the film that convinced me Bale could pull off a decent Batman. His cleric (killer mode) is a lot more Batman than Batman, actually.

Train, From Russia With Love

The titanic faceoff between two elite killers in the 2nd film installment of Ian Fleming's quintissential spy is, up to now, voted as one of the most intense and realistic celluloid fights of all time. Robert Shaw's SPECTRE assassin Red Grant, had been pursuing Sean Connery's 007 in the course of the movie to terminate him. In the train, disguised as the M16 agent he killed, engaged Bond in a hand to hand combat to the death. Grant with his trademark garrote/wristwatch and Bond with his knife/gas/briefcase. No quarter, winner take all.

Mall skirmish, Terminator 2: Judgment Day

This is one of the breathtaking sequences in James Cameron's sequel to his killer cyborg movie in 1984. Up until then we didn’'t know squat about the new villains' abilities. Until his T-800 nemesis (Schwarzenegger) cratered him full of shotgun blasts. What follows is the two terminators’ introduction to each other’s capabilites and limitations by throwing each other around, while retaining a sense of stylish aesthetic that still looks cool more than 20 years after its release.

See http://youtu.be/VDVVAuz1v7U for the first encounter between the two cyborgs

Coliseum, Return Of The Dragon

Bruce Lee's best film, in my opinion is this. Not onlybecause he beat he crap out of everyone’s totem of machismo Chuck Norris, but broke the man’s spirit first. One of the best choreographed and realistic hand to hand movie fights that not only gave a sense of satisfaction by seeing the arrogant bad guy beaten, making you feel a bit scared for the protagonist because of his own formidable skills.

Intro, Blade 2

Wesley Snipes’ underrated Marvel half vampire hero is all swagger and precision. He knows how to make the character more intimidating than the monsters he kills on a regular basis. The first sequences of him storming a vampire mafia stronghold is gleefully brutal. Nothing like seeing monsters pissing their pants because of a hero a lot worse than they are. Snipes’ own martial arts flare of punishing the villains with extreme prejudice is an added bonus.

Theed Duel, The Phantom Menace

While the entire movie leaves a lot to be desired, the deadly dance between Jedi and Sith was best exemplified by the energetic and ballet-like lightsaber fight against a deadly Sith warrior played to feral perfection by Ray Park. Despite it being choreographed to appeal more to style than actual reality [you can practically see the actors aiming their strikes at their opponent’s blade rather than their opponent], it’s still an arresting sight, specially if you were weaned to the first trilogy’s brand of conservative lightblade duels.

Battle Of Pelennor Fields/The Rohirrim, The Return Of The King

Nothing can match the epic grandeur of the arrival of Theoden’s forces just as Gondor is about to fall. And the battle the followed shorty thereafter. And the Nazgul is always a sight to behold.

Phantasm

‘Let me liberate you from this flesh construct that binds you to time and space. All that is unknown will be known to you once more…’ – THE TALL MAN

Phantasm was a 1979 film from a relative unknown named Don Coscarelli. It is one of the most unique, strange, and bewildering contribution in the world of popular film boogeymen populated by the likes of A Nightmare On Elm St., Friday The 13th, Haloween, and Hellraiser.

Chief of it is the film's antagonist. A tall, lanky geriatric mortician sporting a Prince Valiant haircut simply called The Tall Man. Wearing black suits a size too small and with the habit of pillaging graveyards and turning corpses into pint sized-zombies, and using their brains to power his floating metallic orbs. A graphic scene involving these deadly spheres drilling into the head of a victim and sucking out the blood from them is a gory, but amusing bit of cinematic creativity. You'd feel the tongue in cheek humor like the creators were having a joke while conceptualizing it.

Angus Scrimm as the nefarious Tall Man

It's the same tone that separated the film among the pack. It knew about the seeming absurdity of the premise and decided to inject a few self-deprecating humor while it had fun scaring audiences out of their wits.

Thanks in no small part to Angus Scrimm's portrayal of the villain. The Tall Man is unnerving, weird---in a funny way---while at the same time able to conjure just enough fright, especially when he's in pursuit. Always in that wide, steady and purposeful stride with the echoing TOK-TOK-TOK of his heavy- cleated boots. Never ran. Not that he needed to, in the first place.

As with all other monsters in the genre, the guy seemed to magically teleport into that place where you thought you were the safest.

Unlike the motormouthed Freddy Krueger, or the one-track mind of Jason Voorhees, The Tall Man’s motivations are slightly a bit more complex than just thoughtless mayhem. You never quite know what the guy is up to; even when you know mankind’s best interest is the farthest thing in his head. He goes from town to town, harvesting graves and leaving a wasteland that almost wipes out a town’s population and leaving not more than a few ‘lurkers’[undead rejects] in them as well.

But what really set the movie apart was that the series [all four of them] had a comic book approach to it that references the classic hero vs arch –enemy routine that promises a perpetual conflict between the opposing sides. The film’s protagonist trio – A young boy, his elder brother and their ice cream vendor bestfriend have been steady characters in all the series. Whereas in other fims in the genre, the average shelf-life of the main characters were two movies at most. The actors even aged in it. By the time the fourth installment came [1998], Scrimm’s appearance was in stark contrast to his 1979 incarnation.

The series has a dreamy, and predominantly melancholic tone to it more than outright terror. Don Coscarelli is fond of long, drawling footages of bleak landscapes and isolation mostly focused on A. Michael Baldwin’s character Mike, who had been the target of the Tall Man’s pursuit since the first film. There are times when the movie even feels like a Joy Division or The Cure video, with all the footages of landscapes devoid of human habitation and complete solitude. It’s closer to David Lynch than Clive Barker or Wes Craven.

Even the origin of the villain or his relation to one of the characters has no visible explanation.Whether the guy is an alien, demon or death himself. The only clue is that there is vital information for whatever plans he has on Mike’s [Baldwin] head. That Mike might even be of the same origin as the Tall Man remains vague, despite the latter extracting one of the killer spheres in his head by the end of the fourth film.

In a lot of ways it’s one of the best films to have come out of the last 30 years. Just on the out of world premise to it that is as confounding as anything Terry Gilliam did and just as funny in some parts as Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead. It’s one of the better big ‘indie’ films ever made. I doubt if the premise was pitched in today’s gore and sensory overload-addicted climate, it would get any kind of approval then go straight to the can in favor of celluloid cruds big on explosions, more explosions and sub-par storyline.

It’s not without its flaws, and there are surely enough of them to go around in the series, but as with any other films boxed in the same genre, the demographics for this kind of movies aren’t exactly moustache-twirling cineastes. To go watch it and expect any profound statements on the human condition other than watching it for thrills would be an exercise in stupidity. In fact going out to watch any films with that kind of mindset is ridiculous.

Unless you’re paid to be like that.

Dark passengers

The original premise of George Romero's least-popular installment to his zombie trilogy called Day Of The Dead, was that underground settlements of scientists and soldiers have finally figured out how to combat the ongoing zombie plague: fighting fire with fire.


It's practically humans rounding up zombies and training them to take out their own kind. One early concept design of it had zombies wearing GI gear and carrying rifles and assorted weapons to kill their 'untrained' ghoulish ilk.


A promising premise and I'm sure would have been great fun to watch, but the machinations of capitalism and studio meddling proved to be a more horrifying and debilitating factor for the kind of grand production Romero had in his head ("Ben Hur with zombies", according to top FX master Tom Savini). 


The result: a weak installment that paled to its predecessors. Zombie vs zombie out, another installment in the study of human fragility: in. The only residue left from the original treatment was Bub, the domesticated zombie pet of the demented scientist played by Richard Liberty.


Face-offs between monsters have always held a high place among fanboys. Since the 40s, where Universal monsters were made to square-off (Frankenstein Meets The Wolfman) to an East vs West battle between Godzilla and King Kong to Freddy vs Jason and Aliens vs Predator. There's always the nagging question of how one monster would fare against another.


Because let's face it: we're in awe of the villain more than the hero.


That's why it's good that there's a TV show that features a serial killer whose victims are the same kind of sick monster that he is.


Dexter (Showtime) features and provides a deeper treatment of serial killers than most films on the subject, notably its protagonist Dexter Morgan. A forensics blood-spatter specialist for the Miami Police who happens to have a very interesting hobby when he's not out working.

The show's format is seen through Dexter's eyes most of the time, interspersed with some of his voice-overs reminding us how completely detached he is from the rest of humanity. That everything he shows people is an act and a camouflage to hide his real identity. Even sex, as the first two seasons have shown, holds little interest for him than that of killing someone in his "kill room". By all accounts his behavior fits the profile of a real sociopath serial killer to a tee, with only a slight difference. While the likes of Hannibal Lecter picks on just about anyone who offends him, Dexter follows a peculiar code instilled by his adoptive father to only kill those who also kill without remorse. Apparently most people who fit the code's limitations are serial killers as well. And what better way to find his victims than looking through the files and utilizing the investigating facilities of a police station.


Michael C. Hall's portrayal of the character is an excellent guide on how not to underestimate the most boring and normal looking guy in the crowd. You'd be amazed at how the character actually go to such great pains in putting out an effort to look and act like the most mundane and uninteresting person in an environment where everyone wants to be noticed. But that's the real thing about these kind of people isn't it? Whenever one of them gets caught the usual reaction from those who think know them best is always a resounding "He looked so normal".


Every season pits the guy against an assortment of killers with different methods of satisfying their urges, but by far the best (in my opinion) was Season 4; where he butts heads with John Lithgow's 'The Trinity Killer'. Lithgow, a brilliant actor who can play gentle, almost pathetic characters to funny clueless guys like 3rd Rock From The Sun's Dick Solomon is stone cold disturbing as  Arthur Mitchell, a seemingly affable family man who in truth is a vicious and calculating monster. Even his villainous roles where he played mentally unstable characters like that in Raising Caine aren't as compelling. And the banter between the two serial killers at the end is priceless.


Having just concluded a terrific run for Season 6 where he fought off two religious doomsday zealots---Edward James Olmos & Colin Hanks---the cliffhanger of an ending looks for a very promising Season 7. 


And if all the shows you ever watch are anything except this, I'd like to leave a quote from  TMZ's Harvey Levin: "You watch lame shows."

Re-Animator: Why more films like this should be made

It's a bit embarrassing to admit that I just saw Re-Animator (1985) for the first time last Saturday. 


One of the most popular and must-see cult classics of all time. It's up there with The Evil Dead, The Return Of The Living Dead, and Braindead (Dead Alive) in the honors section of this type of genre. That small group of films that exploit all fear of cadavers and turning that fear and trepidation into a potent mixture of schlock, gore, and black humor not commonly seen in more mainstream Hollywood drivel these days.

Prior to seeing it I have already seen and are familiar with most of director Stuart Gordon's movies. Mostly adaptations of HP Lovecraft's shorts, that were given unique film treatments. Gordon has a knack for transforming Lovecraft's stories---difficult reads I must admit; given to long, drawling narratives that rely all-too heavily on the reader's own imagination---into compelling films that have so much visual impact that it lingers with you even after a while when you first watched it. 


The first film I saw was his 1987 adaptation of From Beyond, Lovecraft's take on stimulating the pineal gland via a machine called a resonator, which enables people to see otherworldy creatures existing in another plane of existence or dimension not readily visible to man's average senses. That was also the first film I saw frequent Gordon collaborator Jeffrey Combs, who played the tragic protagonist Dr. Crawford Tillinghast who eventually had his pineal gland pop out of his head like a gross, bloody insect antennae with a mind of its own due to the constant stimulation and exposure to the machine.


For an 80s horror film, it stood out from the rest that jumped in on the whole slasher craze that swept the horror genre. It's Lovecraft, for one. The late author's fascination with interdimensional existence, beings, as well as the Elder Gods and the notorious Old Ones gave rise to the Chtlulhu Mythos that no more than a few members of the society actually believe to be true. Add in Gordon's natural talent in conjuring celluloid shock material that include morbid sexual fetishes, gore, and humorous/shocking ways of watching people get killed. That was put into good use again with the lesser-known but equally disturbing Dagon (2001), this one an adaptation of the author's Shadow Over Innsmouth---about a race of hybrid human/aquatic creatures that worship one of the notorious deities allied with Chtlulhu that resides in the black abyss of the sea.


But among all of Gordon's outputs, Re-Animator has got to be the most widely known and, to some of the squeamish members of the society, reviled. It's the kind of R-18 film where even adults are driven to nail-biting discomfort, specially when that famous cadaver with the severed head decided to molest a woman in some of the sickest ways a celluloid zombie could ever think of.


It starts off with the introduction of Herbert West (Combs), a medical student kicked out of a European school for his radical theories on brain death and re-animating dead tissue via his special re-agent formula he discovered with a deceased mentor. he transfers to the fictional Miskatonic University Medical School where he met and befriended the other half of the film's two protagonists, student Dan Cain (Dark Justice's Bruce Abbot).

Jeffrey Combs as the notorious Herbert West, re-animator

What follows is the standard partnership between the brilliant, but weird partner and the other grounded, mediocre, and more socially popular one. It was only a matter of time when both people's experiments on re-animating cadavers goes out of hand (like what happens to all horror movies that involve 'experiments') and the fun really goes into overdrive. 


For one thing this is not the typical zombies the George Romero school of zombie-making has taught us. And that's how I view and expect to see how reanimated corpses would behave. Gordon's corpses are different in a way that they are also deadly homicidal monsters but not with the same motivations as standard zombies (sorry, living dead) usually do. The Walking Dead, this isn't.


But for all its gore and ample shocking footage of violence, the most surprising aspect of the film is its ability to make you laugh and cringe at the same time. Mostly in the space of one frame. One second a character does something totally hilarious like bumping over things while holding his own severed head, and the next moment become an evil diabolical mastermind that rivals all other film villains in existence. Not to mention adding a lecherous side to the heavily-cliched portrayals of the living dead.


It's over the top entertainment, for sure. But it won't reach cult status if it wasn't any good.

TAG: Advocacy for theater actors' welfare

Photo courtesy of TAG

Like any occupation, acting---or in this case theater acting---is actually as real and as taxing, and as exhausting as, for example, being an air traffic controller or a stockbroker. I can already hear the different sides fuming about the audacity to compare their respective professions to the other. Relax, nothing's being compared here. And nothing's better than the other. Just illustrating a point about the realities of an occupation common people like me always associate with the glitz and glamour, but are thoroughly unfamiliar with, especially when it comes to the real problems and challenges that happens behind the curtains when the audience is not present.


It's always a point of personal amusement as to how ordinary people could possibly aspire to have a life in the limelight or in front of the stage or camera. To only see the glamour side of it and not the real work---not to mention the intense rivalries, back stabbings, rejections and the humiliating kick-in-the-crotch kind of criticisms hurled towards you by overzealous directors and/or co-workers you share more than half of your waking time with on a regular basis.And to actually believe that the ease with which these professionals make their chosen craft appear so effortless that the average person thinks he can actually do it.


Just reading articles on the lives of performers should be enough to at least give you an informed insight on the profession you are aspiring to have, if that actually does not deter you in the first place. Like any endeavor that requires the participation of a professional, acting is real work. "Backbreaking", as some wrestlers would say, though their brand of theatrics borders on a much more brutal and literal backbreaking aspect of 'acting'. Just for that alone, our actors deserve unwavering respect.


Last October 10, a large gathering of theater actors and freelancers as well as representatives of other branches of the media converged at the PETA Theater Center for the First General Assembly of the Philippine Theater Actors Guild (TAG). This is a notable event simply because this is the first time a formal gathering about actors' welfare when it comes to working conditions and compensation has been formally discussed and launched.


Its inception was hardly the type of serendipitous circumstance that spawns good things out of  personal tragedies. But a dangerous incident of sleeping on the wheel while driving that involved TAG founder and guild president Kalila Aguilos proved to be the right catalyst to spur long-dormant sentiments into motion. 


In her Facebook status update following the incident, Aguilos stated: Does someone have to die before a law curtailing shooting / taping hours is passed? 


The long discussion that followed because of that declaration led to an agreement on the urgent need for at least a union to oversee the welfare of the actors and other concerns related to theater work. 


Shortly after that, Elmar Beltran of the Commission For Culture Of The Arts or NCCA invited her for a dialogue that was also attended by groups like Philstage, The OPM, AMP, AWF and KAPPT. That was where Aguilos realized there was no group that represented theater actors in the Philippines as a whole. Her further discussions with members of the theater community ultimately lead to the formation of TAG---whose main directive is to be a platform for the actors' development through additional education, training, welfare, and assistance in more practical aspects of the profession like health care, security, and taxes.


The October 10 event was well-attended by various representatives of diverse media backgrounds like music, the performing arts, film and journalism. Award-winning director Jose Javier Reyes delivered the key note speech, stating, in one of the most poignant parts of his talk: "This gathering is important. It is not only an expression of camaraderie, a renewal of friendship or a sharing of common interests. Tonight is a vital first step. This gathering is a statement. We want change".


If that declaration is not an indication of the the kind of working conditions our actors have to endure up until then, then I don't know what is. As I understand it, theater is high in prestige but not exactly something that commands an intimidating paycheck as far as chosen professions go. Not that money is the prime motivation of people getting into this life is the only reason why they do what they do. But as with other art forms, it can only thrive when adequate financial support and security to the ones making it are provided.


TAG's board of trustees are composed of volunteers from various sectors offering free advise or any other forms of ready assistance to actors. Board member Cesar Apolinario, GMA 7 mediaman and award-winning filmmaker said, " I know this is a long journey but I'm giving it a shot. This is pro-bono. It's the only prestige I guess and the fact that I will be able to help our actors." Other members include: Celeste Legaspi, Jett Pangan (The Dawn), Tony Moncupa, Mayor Guia Gomez, Ronald Pineda of Folded and Hung and Repertory Philippines' Menchu Lauchengco. The October 10 general assembly confirmed each trustees' position. Lea Salonga and PLDT's Butch Jimenez are currently being considered for their respective expertise.


But an organization can only do so much. Especially a civic-oriented, non-profit one like TAG. What it can do, aside from assisting the people it aims to assist, is also spearhead awareness toward the general public on the realities and current state of Philippine theater. Unless some serious noise or any form of public sentiment reaches the correct legislative body into doing concrete laws on theater people's welfare, it would be a constant struggle with no discernible outcome. 'Sometimes up, sometimes down' as that animated Disney Robin Hood song goes. 


As with all challenges and undertakings, the first step is the most important. And with that first meeting, became the compass that set the travelers on the right course.

R.E.M.: 1980-2011

I considered calling this post It's the end of REM as we know it. An obvious tongue-in-cheek reference to the recent retirement of the band, and their 1987 single off their album Document. But that has an unpleasant ring of permanence to it as if the members died or actually wouldn't do any other productive things thereafter. And the fact that a million others titled their article like that.


All bands eventually succumb to this; it's just a matter of time. It's actually surprising the band held out for as long as 31 years.


I never considered myself a big fan of the group. But I do have three albums I enjoy spinning every now and then, mostly the later works they did for Warner Music after they departed from IRS Records.


"Losing My Religion" was the single that sparked my interest for the band, and I even had the mistaken notion that it was a debut single coming from a new act that obviously benefited from what Nirvana did in ushering the alternative era and making college music cool enough to merit endless airings in MTV and mainstream radio. It had a jangly, catchy pop hook to it that was missing in most of the hard rock crunch of the distortion-heavy groups I listened to in heavy rotation that time. The lead singer, a good friend would later comment, even looked like a geek and slightly gay version of 90210's Luke Perry.


R.E.M was my introduction to 'rock' music minus the cock-rock and macho BS-posturing and moping evident in some of the buzz bands that took up most of my collection. While the band may take it negatively being referred to as rock musicians, or being purveyors of music anywhere remotely near the term rock, is beside the point. I always believed 'rock' meant not doing the same asinine disposable top 40 single with the shelf life of two days. 

R.E.M., Murmur era, 1983

Out Of Time (1991) was the first album I had of the band, mainly because of "Losing My Religion" and my budding interest to a local newspaper (Teddy Locsin's TODAY) column by someone named Jessica Zafra. She practically worshiped them, not unlike a religious zealot---most especially lead singer Michael Stipe---that I had to find out for myself that the group was more than just the single I came to know them for. 


I did not like the album that much. It was good, but not great. At least in my opinion that time.


It was too adult contemporary rock for me, being only 14 and still maintaining my stand that Megadeth is the best band of the last 1000 years. It was hardly the kind of band who channeled the angst, confusion and rebellious sentiments of the turmoils of adolescence unlike Green Day or Pearl Jam. 


 I walked out of it more than a little disappointed and thinking only "Losing My Religion" and "Near Wild Heaven" were the only great tracks on it. It was relegated to the last section of the drawer where I kept most of my cassettes (CD cost too much back then, even more so now) to be played now and then when I have had too much of the ear-splitting approach of their much louder Seattle counterparts or the token thrash metal records I had in abundance. In other words, it served as an intermission record for the next how many years I had left in high school, and had to get another copy of it when I entered college due to an unfamiliar deck's messing up the cassette ribbon into a tangled mass of trash.


By this time, and probably because of the hormones starting to stabilize coupled with reading some of the major music publications as well as an unconscious need for variety in listening materials, I gave the album (the new copy) another spin and found myself warming up to it a lot more than the first time I listened. I found myself sitting through the entire tape, with a few rewinds to the track "Belong"---wondering how the hell I missed such a good song and skipping it all these years. 

Automatic For The People (1992) is the best R.E.M album according to most publications and even Peter Buck (guitars) himself, but the one I wore out due to repeated playing was the little known New Adventures In Hi-Fi (1996). Out of the three albums I had, the latter was probably the one that had the most resonance to me. I don't know, maybe the fact that most of the songs were recorded live in various locations, sound checks and dressing rooms while on the Monster tour and still sounded a lot better than other overproduced garbage of that time was the reason. And that the songs had a floaty, introspective feel to them not even readily apparent in all other earlier songs I heard from them. If I were a superstitious man I'd  attribute the overwhelming sense of melancholia that pervades the entire record as an omen for drummer Bill Berry's departure a year later.


Hardcore fans thought the abrupt departure of the drummer would deal a blow so big the band would quit shortly after that. They didn't. Even made at least five other albums, with the latest released just last March of this year. What makes REM unique is that unlike some of their peers who achieved legendary cult statuses due to stopping at the peak of their artistic apex, they decided to milk the possibilities dry. 


Bands like Nirvana, Pavement, Radiohead, and Live all proclaim reverence to the group. And rightly so, because while Michael Stipe and Co may sound weird and so out of touch to today's contemporary music scene, their brand of DIY cool set the template for all other bands to follow. What I liked most about the band was that they were never saddled with the hubris that came with the 'indie' or college music tag. They helped define the indie genre that produced them, and at the same time maintained a comfortable distance from it that you rarely hear snotty indie aficionados name drop them in discussions. An indication that they never allowed to let themselves get pegged on a certain spot. And even when the later albums and songs were not as sharp or as potent as the singles that defined them, you'd have to give them credit for not copping out on it all too quickly.


And that, as they say, is that.