The Jungle Book (2016)

That gigantic primate---I think it was called a 'gigantopithecus'---played by Christopher Walken has got to be my favorite chracter in the latest film adaptation of the Rudyard Kipling classic The Jungle Book. Having seen the original oddball Disney animated movie, it was still laced with the same likable craziness of the then-orangutan incarnation of the same King Louie. This time, it's a giant ape short of King Kong and Mighty Joe Young bestowed with the deadpan and quirky characterization and singing only the likes of Christopher Walken can pull off. 

The whole movie is buoyed by a hugely-talented cast with the likes of Idris Elba (Shere Khan), Ben Kingsley (Bagheera), and Bill Murray (Baloo). Especially Murray, who seemed to relish going back to the carefree roles that made the likes of Peter Venkman (Ghostbusters) tick. His deadpan humor and irreverent streak alive once more after taking on more serious and introverted roles in recent years (Lost In Translation, Broken Flowers). Elba's masterful characterization of the notorious tiger made for a very effective and memorable villain who is a charming and calculating monster. Adept at making intimidating speeches and making short work of his victims, and making his desire to kill the man-cub adopted by the wolf-pack known to all. Ben Kingsley's Bagheera is the stern and protective guardian of Mowgli (Neel Sethi), always a cool and detached voice of reason in an otherwise chaotic environment.

It was a pleasant and surprisingly engaging movie considering most people have already seen the tale's incarnation in countless forms since it was published. The treatment of the production team made it a riveting adventure yarn updgraded to today's sensibilities. When you hear the bear do a one liner kiss-off ('Kid, that's not a song. That's propaganda.")  everyone in the audience gets it. Despite the liberties in taking on a more contemporary approach to a classic story, its essence was undiluted. And that's what makes a lot of movies great.

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.

Batman V Superman

I normally shy away from doing a movie review because I'm not a critic. But there are just some things out there that I feel strongly about and just have to get out of my system. Just an audience member who paid for something that I hope could entertain me for a short period and maybe provide a bit of escapist route from the mundane routine of the real world. 

And what better form of escapism than watching a superhero movie. I liked Man Of Steel despite the negative feedback it had from fans and critics alike, and I was willing to give the sequel a shot depite my reservations about Ben Affleck's casting in the Batman role. Nothing against Affleck (I'm a big fan of Argo) but something about him seems off when cast in things like comic book/sci-fi/fantasy genres. His appeal seem to work best in fiction still grounded in reality; where suspension of disbelief is at a minimum.

I saw the film and left the theater with my ears ringing but with no definable reaction to it. I commented on the trailer in Youtube a few months ago that despite my doubts about it, I'd still see it. It's not fair to judge a movie because of its trailer. Sometimes I hate that my instinct was spot on.

To blame it solely on the miscasting and somewhat off-putting characterizations of the main characters --- Affleck's Dark Knight and Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor (Totally off-tangent characterization and casting. You'd think Eisenberg wandered into a Joel Schumacher superhero set.) --- would be short-sighted. The blame goes to director Zack Znyder and his writers. I liked David S. Goyer's works (Nolan's Batman Trilogy/Blade) but this time I'd have to concede with what most critics have been whining about: It simply sucked. You'd think that after the existential angst of Man Of Steel, Superman would at least have grown a bit of sense of humor and wit about his outsider status. But instead we're subjected to the same scowl and dilemma that's already bordering towards the superhero brand of self-pity.

If there's a single word to describe the whole mess, it would be sloppy. I was astounded by how detached and indifferent I was to what the characters were going through the entire time I was sitting there. And I do not take that lightly. I was misty-eyed watching the second trailer of the upcoming Jeff Nichols feature Midnight Special. That was a two-minute sampler that  managed to evoke more emotions in me than the entire two hours I sat through Znyder's balls to the wall royal rumble that  is starting to look like something that Michael Bay would do.

The entire movie gave off that vibe that execs at Warner Bros were pressuring the production team to cram everything in one movie to get their Justice League franchise up and running. It was a case of too much, too fast. And in order to do that, sacrifices in story-lines and character development had to be dropped. All three protagonists (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman) could have died and I---and I believe some people---could not have cared less. It was that bad.

Drop the brooding Christopher Nolan treatment. It worked in Batman precisely because that's how Batman is. To use that very same formula on other characters will be a sure-fire way to churning out a real turkey.

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.