Thirst Reviews

CAYO:

''Like a leper rotting in flesh let all avoid me. Like a cripple without limbs let me not move freely. Remove my cheeks, that tears may not move down them. Crush my lips and tongue, that I may not sin with them. Pull out my nails, that I may grasp at nothing. Let my shoulders and back be bent, that I may carry nothing. Like a man with a tumour in the head, let me lack judgment. Ravage my body sworn to chastity, leave me with no pride, and have me live in shame. Let no one pray for me, but only the grace of the Lord have mercy on me.''

Of all the lines in the movie, it was this recurring prayer that reeled me in. I think that the agony, irony, and sense of humanity and religion in this prayer speaks of the bigger picture found in the movie.

The movie plays with the irony between religion and its opposite (to sin). A priest gets infected with a vampires’ blood, making it an “instinct” for him to commit things he sees as sins: to kill, to drink blood, to fight for survival, and to always give-in to lust. The battle between morality and natural (or should I say animal) instinct gives the underlying tone for the film. The movie also showcases the difference in how a man and woman handles the same situation, that of being a vampire.

The movie goes beyond typical vampire flicks and presents a refreshing yet troubling take on this genre. It incorporates a lot of taboos and clichés, and cancels out certain beliefs and norms in society. The movie is filled with symbolisms that would make even the critical thinker think more, and leave people at awe.

Simple in execution but big in effect, the movie is a recommended break from the dying approach to typical vampire stories.

- - - - - - - 

KEI:  A friend advised me to prepare myself before I watch Park Chan-wook’s vampire film. I imagined the film being overly gory—which it is not—that I would spend most of my time watching it with covered eyes.
 

More than a reimagining of what a vampire film could be—given the Twilight series that polluted this subgenre—Thirst achieved something that is almost unnoticeable because of Park’s cinematic artistry and graphic depiction of bloodsucking and killing. One is the ingenuity of diverting the audience’s attention from profane details by directing its attention to the powerful visuals and painful love story of the two. Profanity is definitely there but it is as if it is not there. The other one is its representation of the Filipina that is refreshingly different from that in foreign films.
 

At the onset, the audience knows that the priest character, Sang-hyeon (Kang-ho Song) will be the vampire in the story, yet it is an acceptable premise. Is there a film where a monk or a pastor is depicted as a bloodsucking creature? Still a priest but has become a vampire, Sang-hyeon made love with Tae-ju, his childhood friend’s wife. Then he left priesthood for Tae-ju, conspired with her to kill her husband so she can finally escape him, and killed his mentor. He was redeemed at the end of the film, however, when he let his victim live.
 

Although he left priesthood, he lived with his moral values intact; he followed certain rules in getting his daily dose of blood from other people. But when he made Tae-ju a vampire, the one big mistake he did, she went to a killing spree. This shook him, and he decided to end their lives together in that memorable ending scene (though the CGI somehow destroyed the mood).
 

In a 2005 survey compiled by the South Korea government, almost half of its population expressed no religious preference. Buddhism is the dominant religion, but the number of those converting to Roman Catholicism is growing. Could it be that Park is criticizing this relatively new religion in their country?
 

The other point is the representation of a Filipina in a foreign film. Often, Filipinas are represented as either a domestic helper or a sex worker, at times an illegal migrant. But in this film, Evelyn (Mercedes Cabral) was a wife to a Korean (a mail-order bride?), a timid and conservative one. She was always wearing a flowery long dress that covers all of her body. This representation reminds me of the ‘Maria Clara’ image of the Filipina. It was a refreshing sight, though the representation may be backward. However, the Filipina character in the film survives the onslaught of bloodlust of the two vampires, perhaps because she is an outsider.
 

Like Park’s previous films that I watched namely, Old Boy and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, Thirst satisfies the audience’s craving for a revival of a well-made vampire film. The visuals are shocking, the violence is arresting, the sex is, well, profane. It targets our basic cinematic needs: sight and physical and emotional attachment—and throws in a little something for us to think about.

Thor Reviews

Cayo: Thor is a movie of uneven proportions. Like what I keep telling my friends after seeing the film, the cast was superb! Hands down. I never could have picked a better cast to do the film. But on the other hand the movie itself lacked the “kick” that you’d come to expect from the God of Thunder. “Kulang sa action, kulang sa madyik madyik, kulang sa dating.”

In any case, I still enjoyed the movie. It was, what I would call, a teaser for the upcoming AVENGERS. The movie could understandably get poor ratings, but it did hype up the expectations for The Avengers (let’s just hope it lives up to all the expectations). Thor was more like a 60-minute trailer for The Avengers, an introduction of the God of thunder; and that’s it. No more.

So, should you watch the movie? Yes, because it still is entertaining, and for those who aren’t familiar with Thor, the movie gives a good enough backgrounder on our superhero. But DON’T watch it in 3D, its not going to be worth it.
And oh, one last thing, wait for the after credits. :D
“That’s very interesting…”

PS
Natalie Portman and Jamie Alexander are also enough of a reason to see the film :p

- - - - - - -

PAM: This is an anticipated movie because it introduces one of the key characters in the much-awaited The Avengers.

As this is a popular comic book story made into a TV cartoon, and now a movie, most are familiar with the plot. What we wanted to see was how it was translated into a full feature film and how the director and actors breathed life into the characters.

Cayo posted on his Facebook page (http://on.fb.me/jv4YQn) that the casting was good because the physical attributes of the actors chosen for each character – from Odin (Anthony Hopkins), Frigga (Rene Russo), Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), Sif (Jaimie Alexander), Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) to Thor himself (Chris Hemsworth) – closely resembled those in the Marvel comic illustrations. I agree, especially with the casting of Hemsworth as Thor: buff body, the right amount of blond-blue eyes-beard combo, and the voice!

However, the high production values were not able to compensate for the lack of oomph in the telling of the story.  There were a lot of themes to go around with: good vs evil (of course), power and greed, revenge, war and peace (how to keep peace given that two races will never really be friends), identity, legends, myths and science (or magic as science we do not yet understand, and science as magic we use to subdue others); but all of these were not explored with much complexity. Hiddleston’s portrayal of Loki had more depth than Hemsworth’s  Thor.

It’s ok for an introductory movie, I guess that’s what Thor was for, to introduce The Avengers.

Don’t watch in 3D, it’s not worth it… oh and don’t leave yet when the credits start to roll.

- - - - - - -

KEI: One of my guilty pleasures--to waste a good sum of money in this Hollywood flick to see Chris Hemsworth's abs. Such a pleasure indeed. Other than that, the film is nothing but a short episode in the long wait for 'The Avengers'. A lot of big names in the film, big stars parading for a short screen time: Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Stellan Skarsgard. With little screen time not fit for their big names. So-so performances, save for Sir Anthony Hopkins, who managed to be stellar in that fatherly role even if his character died in the middle of the film. He was the only saving grace of this big-budget Hollywood film. And Thor's abs.

Blindness Reviews

KEI: Adapted from Nobel laureate Jose Saramago’s novel of the same title, the director, Fernando Meirelles (City of God, The Constant Gardener), remained loyal to the original, but transposed the story into a contemporary setting, presenting a dystopia that is the postmodern world (and/or vice-versa).

The film starts with the sudden blindness of a Japanese man in an intersection and ends when he suddenly regained his sight. In between, many people got his ‘blindness virus’--the doctor, his Japanese wife, the whore, the bartender, etc.--until such time that isolating the afflicted in a prison-like compound did not make sense anymore. Everybody was blind except for the doctor’s wife (Julianne Moore), who for unknown reasons has immunity to blindness. She pretended to be blind though so she can take care of her husband (Mark Ruffalo) while in the quarantine compound.

Blindness turns dark and violent towards the middle, when the self-proclaimed King of Ward 3 (Gael Garcia Bernal) decided to take all the food ration from the government and distribute it--a representation of a tyrannical form of government. At first, he demanded jewelry in exchange of food. When the inmates had no more jewelry to give, he demanded women in exchange for food. Then the movie turned darker and more violent when the killings started.

But the film did not end there. It would take 30 minutes or so before it ends, and I wonder, how will this film end? I thought it would end when it rained, and all the blind people went outside to taste and feel the raindrops in their skin. That was how I would like it to end.

A lot of films have already presented versions of our future world, and Blindness presented a scary--because everything is uncertain--dark world, where the evil inside all of us rules because of the need to survive. Like a beast, an animal in the wild. Like what happened in Lord of the Flies when the children got stranded in an island and were left on their own.

It goes to show that we are more inclined to do evil things to each other than good ones. Even the doctor’s wife, who was democratic at first, turned violent and let go of her moral beliefs just to survive. So that even when she did not get the virus, she also turned blind.

- - - - - - -

JICKER: I am a biologist. Exposed in a world where elucidation, cause/effect, reasoning and absolute truth (in my perspective) are the foundations. With these in mind, I was more of a nagger and a non-abiding-suspension-of-disbelief audience while the film was running (or partly pausing). Why? Thoughts, theories and cascades of chemical events regarding human system were outpouring. Queries were popping. What if you are the only key the world has? What if the answer to a global dilemma is running in your system? You are the sole source of relief. You opted to stay, acted to be just like one of them so you can literally look after the one you love instead of being the savior of human race. For me that was apathetic and medically irresponsible. 

However, these were not the focus of the film. It was not science per se. It was far more than any immunological defense mechanisms we humans have. It was not about the tangible human being but the sense obliterated in Blindness – Eyesight. It showcased how humans will act when E (for eyesight) was eliminated; human as less humanE.

It did not have any fancy effects or renowned setting but every plot was convincing enough to hook you and close my blabber-scientific mouth. Acting wise, actors were good (Yes, good is vague, I know) and apologies because I am not really into American stars especially when it comes to remembering their names.

Nevertheless, it was full of realizations on how animalistic we humans can be when faced in a notorious environment and survivability. It was a matter of life and death in a literally dark ecosystem. Morality was ousted and selfish acts ruled over. It was not about the “hardcore” sciences; it centered and exacerbated social sciences (political, psychological, etc.) which in my belief are far more complex.

I want you to be bemused as well so watch it. Literally see Blindness yourself!

Yes. I am a biologist. I am human and as reminded by the film, more importantly humane.
- - - - - - -

PAM: Jicker, welcome! Jicker, the biologist, was having a case of "Clyde Syndrome" while watching the movie, but I'm glad that he eventually got the point that there are plausible stories even without the scientific explanation of the causes of events. And this, dear readers (if you do exist) is part of the fun of watching movies.

("Clyde Syndrome" is named after our good friend Clyde, an agricultural engineer by profession (number 5 in the board exams!) and a movie buff as well. The syndrome is prevalent in individuals (i'm not saying all, and not in all cases of movie-watching episodes) in natural science disciplines because they are grounded in material scientific evidence-based logic system. Though he had the habit of finding scientific bases for cause-effect sequences in movies, I guess he is learning the process of suspended disbelief.)

I skip the plot summary of the film as Kei has already done a good job of providing it. Jicker's take on the film is about being humanE, Kei's about uncertainty, mine's about order and control.
  
So everyone loses eyesight, except for the doctor's wife. It would be interesting to note that at the beginning of the film, she seemed to be some secondary character playing the supportive wife of a successful ophthalmologist who may have the knowledge and skill to at least solve the riddle of blindness that has stricken the population. As the film progresses, she comes to the foreground establishing herself as the film's heroine, savior of the blind.

As blindness afflicted everyone, except the doctor's wife, the notion of control and order became hinged on fear and violence. 

I have a different take on doctor's wife's immunity to blindness : she became an all seeing eye, she did not turn blind, she acted based on the prevailing "justice system" of the wards, because what used to be the justice system was the one that turned blind. She was the light into this very dark film about humanity losing a sense, and the sense of order.

The film also showed that despite chaos, people would always find a way to put things back into order, however different that new order from the way it was. And disorder does not merely change people's positions in the societal hierarchy, it can also change their inner character - the bad can overshadow the good, the good may overcome the bad.

The end of the story was too easy. It would have been interesting, though, to have an ending different from how the director/writer chose to end the film. What if people did not get back their eyesight? What kind of order could have evolved?

Review of Insiang Saing

KEI: A product of UPLB pelikuLAB's short film competition in Aug. 2010, Insiang Saing  is one of the first films made by students of AB Communication Arts program, the only arts-related course in a science-oriented  University. The program has no film courses; despite this, students now find interest in filmmaking and in mounting activities related to it.

Running for only ten minutes or so, the film's narrative is solid. It can be attributed perhaps to Oscar's training in creative writing under the Comarts program. Although he is more inclined to theater, he showed that film is not a difficult medium to work on. His direction is demonstrated best with the brilliant portrayal of his main actress, Ynik Ante, who won Best Actress for pelikuLAB's short film competition and the recently-concluded Pelikultura: The Calabarzon Film Festival held at UPLB. She plays the role of Insiang, an emotionally-disturbed mother to a female teenager and a wife to a philandering husband.

Ynik's intense acting was also memorable for the audience at Cinemarehiyon 3 last Feb.9 in Davao City. The film was selected to represent the Calabarzon region. Some even remarked a semblance to Nora Aunor's kind of acting.

The film has only been screened thrice as of this writing, but it already garnered distinct recognitions. The film also won Best Editing in Pelikultura--thanks to its editor, TJ Monserrat, an Instructor at the Institute of Computer Science, UPLB, who is himself a filmmaker as well. These recognitions prove that Oscar's freshman film is a gem.
- - - - - - -


CAYO: A short film framing the troubled life of a struggling mother.

Insiang is mother juggling different problems in her life. There’s the problem of money needed for the education of her daughter, the problem with her disloyal husband, and having to feeding him and his mistress, among other things.

Juggling all these things can bring people to their tipping point, and when Insiang finds out that her only daughter, her only hope for a better life, gets pregnant, she reaches the point of no return –insanity. She kills her daughter, and her mind tries to cope with everything by bringing her back to her normal routine, making herself believe that her daughter is just sleeping.

Gripping, simple, effective. Kudos to the makers of the film! Tatak UPLB yan!
- - - - - - - 

PAM: A woman's descent into madness, in ten minutes. Insiang Saing is a short film that solidly portrays how compounded, negative circumstances can jar sanity and reality into madness. The wholeness of the story made me feel that this short film is a full length movie. Made in Elbi. Kudos!

Bloggers' Hiatus

Dear Readers (if you do exist),

Please excuse our being absent for a while now. It's just that March and April are the busiest months in an academic bums' life. In the two months that we were not watching and writing about films,

• Kei finally got her MA degree.
• Pam finally finished checking mountains of papers.
• Cayo finally, well, i don't know what he did. But he kept on bugging us to write the reviews.

So now that the academic stuff is out of the way, we'll be resuming our daily break very, very soon. 

Sincerely,

Rat, Monkey, and Dragon

Love and Other Drugs Reviews*

PAM: Love and other drugs.. how will I remember it? Ah yeah, that movie with lots of boob/butt exposure and sex and pharmaceutical sales agents and products like Zoloft and Viagra.

Uhh, that's all I remember.. was I drugged?

- - - - - - -

KEI: Love and Other Drugs disappointed me. Let me count the ways.

First, I thought it would be really good film to watch given the calibre of its cast namely, Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal, who co-starred before in Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain. Before this film, Anne made Rachel Getting Married, an independent film that showcased her acting skills. Jake, on the other hand, broke ground in his performance as Heath Ledger's gay lover in Brokeback. In this romance comedy (bold) film, the two let their hair down a bit given the lightness of their roles. Jake transformed into an easy-go-lucky guy from his previous roles in drama films; Anne returned to her role in Princess Diaries as somebody who is carefree (well, at least at the beginning of that film before she was forced to act like a princess) and does what she wants. 

I was probably just not expecting that these two actors who were recognized by their peers and critics for their talent would want to make a film where they show too much flesh for nothing. Perhaps, it's the Hollywood money, no? Though the film may dabble in health care issues, Anne's boob exposures and Jake's nakedness in the film mask the filmmaker's attempt to a discourse on it. Anne's character has a Parkinson's disease, though this has not been so relevant a detail except for an excuse for Anne and Jake to meet in her doctor's clinic. Jake's character is a pharmaceutical sales agent selling Valium's competitor, and later on the blue pill--Viagra--which put him on top of his company, Pfizer (please don't get me started on the so-called stealth advertising in this film!).   

Second, Anne's character started strong--free-spirited, independent, cool--but there were scenes where her self-pity took over her. She tends to get overly emotional, and this still plays on stereotypes of women. On the other hand, Jake was characterized to have changed from bad boy (he likes to sleep with women) to good boy (he fell in love with Anne's character and tried to be faithful to her), adding charm to his attractive sexy body. What can I say--after all, it's a chick flick where the chick is dehado. And the audience take pleasure on that.      

Lastly, there were just some disturbing scenes in the film, like when Jake's brother was masturbating while watching Jake and Anne's sex video. That was just sick, man! Jake's brother in the film was plainly, stupidly sick! There were times when it's entertaining to watch stupid sick guys, but this one just did not work out for me. 

- - - - - - - 

CAYO: “Love is a sales talk, and your aim is to close a deal. But before that plunge into the business of relationships, you need to get your act together, keep tricks up your sleeves, and keep your emotions guarded at all times. It always starts with sex, and like a drug, it consumes you. And then, you become dependent, and your only escape is to fall in love.” – a quote I tried to compose after the movie, just to make it seem smart.

Underwhelming.

Boob-flashes and medical jargons aside, I expected Love and Other Drugs to be a fun to watch film. I expected wrong.

I didn’t get the cohesiveness of the entire storyline.  Charming man and witty woman mixed with issued of drugs, Parkinson’s, Viagra, etc. etc. etc. The story was all over the place, and Anne Hathaway was all over Jake Gyllenhaal.

It was while watching this movie that I came to think that I would never really understand certain western ways. It’s just weird (for me). Blatantly, the movie felt empty. Intriguing, but empty.

If you were to ask me what I felt after watching, I would say that after seeing lots and lots of sex (and boob-flashes) I just felt the need to get laid myself (blue pill aside). I also felt the urge to go get some weed just to make me laugh, coz really the movie was “blah!” So yeah, I didn’t get the movie’s substance if ever it did have one.

 - - -

As a consolation, we did end up with this tag line: 

SEX is the ultimate drug, but LOVE is the only cure.

 

John Q. Reviews*

For this entry, we have invited a special guest reviewer. Kei is currently on birthday leave, so a frequent movie watching buddy came to fill-in for her in reviewing this week's movie. So coffee-drinkers-cum-movie-watchers, lets give it up for CLYDE! 

CLYDE: Denzel Washington did an excellent job of playing the role of a compassionate father who desperately fought for the life of his son. To be honest, I never fancied him to lead in a drama role and I laughed when I saw him crying on screen. And as expected from Denzel, he never fails to portray a ‘macho’ character.

The pIot is as straightforward as it is. Though the movie may fall into heavy drama, the dialogue and scenes were not that colorful and dramatic. The first reason is the lack of background music and catchy lines. As far as I know, most drama movies capitalize on background settings, if not on a good script and heavy acting. The second reason is that the plot and script is very much human and quite realistic. The scenario is that: if you give a passionate man no choice, then he results to violence. Well for me, as a person who grew up in a community where family matters, John Q’s story is not really new. Many poor families throughout the country, in some point in their lives, experienced sickness of a loved one that usually results to hopelessness, desperation, and oftentimes can either lead to committing crimes or incurring a lifetime debt.

On the surface, you can say that the movie is quite dumb since it lacks certain elements that you look for in a star-studded movie. If you think about it, John Q is an underrated movie that depicts the harsh realities of poor families not only in America but also here in our country. I believe that the main objective of the film is not to purely entertain, but to inform and make the viewers realize the forgotten and taken for granted aspects of our society. And for that, I give the movie a high score of 4/5.

P.S. I want to say THANKS to Cayo and Pam for inviting me to write as a substitute for Kei who is currently celebrating her birthday somewhere away from the public. LOL. Happy birthday Kei! Pasalubong! :D

- - - - - - -
 CAYO: The first 5 minutes of the film was a catcher, but it was also a little stupid because the “Beautiful Woman“ (as the credits described her) seemed to have had a death wish right there and then. From my seat I said “T*NGA” as she got hit by the large truck. Intriguing, yes, but as you continue on with the film you start to wonder if it was the right scene to start with. I understand the attempt of tying things together towards the end of the movie, but execution didn’t seem so effective.

Actually, there’s a lot about the film that could have been done better. I mean, it's a freakishly star studded cast yet the level of acting didn’t seem to deliver. Was it the script? The direction? I’m not sure. I was just expecting more from each of Hollywood’s best I guess. Not to mention the ER scenes where like circus acts filled with different stereotypes that provided awkward comic reliefs to the seemingly serious film.

On a side note, Washington did a SUPERB job at acting. He seemed to be the only redeeming factor in the film. He and his son (Daniel E. Smith) to be exact. It was only in the scenes of the Archibald family where the film seemed to have substance.

But all in all, the film did an effective job in putting the issue on medical insurance out there. It left my friends and I in discussion about insurance issues, medical expenses, and what not. Again, all the elements were there: An idea…  A great cast… everything except a properly executed film.

- - - - - - -
PAM: First, let me welcome our guest reviewer, Clydie with the squirrel zodiac! On a serious note, thanks Clyde for writing a review. Clyde's a tiger, we'll get along.

I have seen John Q several times on cable TV. I'd always catch the middle but never really made it to the end even with its powerhouse cast including Robert Duvall, Ray Liotta, James Woods, Anne Heche and Denzel Washington, dashing and sexy as ever.

There are movies that, even when I never saw the beginning, I'd get hooked and watch it until "The End" or "Fin" or until the credits roll. After viewing John Q from the very start right to the very end, I understood why I got bored without seeing the beginning of the movie. The plot, though predictable could have used some great script writing for it to work - desperate father using desperate-almost-criminal measures to get attention and service deserved by his very ill son, politics hindering appropriate negotiation measures, trigger-happy police, wise old man (hostage negotiator) versus action-hungry younger man (police chief), greedy insurance companies, scheming media people to get scoop, pay first before cure. Hero wins, with some repercussions. No surprises there.

I agree with the boys, the writing was faulty.

Nevertheless, it was still able to send out a strong message about healthcare, the importance of media and the tendency of institutions that are supposed to provide healthcare to prioritize profit over saving human lives.

*viewed on Feb. 2, 2011

The Human Centipede Reviews*

KEI: Shoot me for gathering up the gang to waste an hour or so watching this obscene, non-sense film. 

So where do I start enumerating instances of idiocy in this film? Is it the stupidity of the two American road-trippers when they had a flat tire in a forest on their way to a party in Germany? Their dialogue that sounds like it came from a radio drama? Or the uselessness of the hotel room scene at the beginning of the film? Or perhaps the belated escape of Jenny in her hospital bed while the villain is beside her injecting her friend with anesthesia? Oh, no. It is the pointlessness of the whole film.

Coming from a developing (Third world) country, I wonder why the producers of this film will waste even a cent to make it, or why the director (perhaps because he is related to the producer) and other cast spent time and talent on this one. Granted that its concept is something that was not seen in film before, but there is a reason why that is so. And now this. 

What's the point of showing that three people can be stitched up in the mouth and anus like a Siamese triplet? Will it change the world? Will it feed the hungry? I don't know, men, but the world has gone insane.

The only thing I find acceptable in this film is the acting of the demented German doctor, and the harakiri scene of the Japanese man. The rest is a waste of time.

- - - - - - -

PAM: It's a sick sick sick Six movie. No coffee bean rating because we never even had coffee!

A very small, teeny-weeny redeeming (if its redeeming at all) factor: the Japanese character, the only one who showed that he is a human being capable of logic; and the actor who played the demented surgeon for consistency. All other characters are really dumb asses! They deserved their fate.

- - - - - - -  

CAYO: It’s sick. It’s exhausting. Its what I call cinema suicide.

For the sake of argument, I think the idea of the film was ‘interesting’, I mean, it was able to create enough hype prior its release. And who wouldn’t wonder what on earth a “human centipede” is?

But for me, that ‘interesting idea’ died in the actual film. However scientifically sound the human-centipede-surgery was, I found that basic human logic was absent (or late) in the film. To put it bluntly, it was stupid – the New Yorkers, especially.

Still, I’d still like to think that there’s a bigger subtext behind the film (maybe, just maybe), and it was just my disinterest and discontent that makes me react as such. It’s just not everyone’s cup of tea (or coffee for that matter).

*viewed on Jan.  25, 2011

Tangled Reviews*

CAYO: Tangled is a different take on the famous Brothers Grimm fairy tale Rapunzel. In this comedy-musical retelling of the story, Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) was a baby whose hair was blessed with the magic of the Golden Flower - the power to heal and reverse aging. Because of this, she was kidnapped by Mother Gothel aka evil witch (Donna Murphy) and kept her inside a tower,  isolating her from the world.

Rapunzel grew to be a fine curious young lady seeking new adventures and sporting 70 feet of golden-magical-hair. Then one day, Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi), a charming and cunning Bandit, accidentally stumbles upon her tower prison.  Their meeting sets them both to the best adventure of their lives; an adventure of self-discovery, new found dreams, rekindled families, and love that will last a lifetime. 

Walt disney animation turns the fairy tale into a wonderfully crafted animation filled with images, music, and life! With original songs composed by Alan Menken (of little mermaid and Aladdin), familiar disney artistry and humor, and a story-line that appeals to the imaginative minds of children, the movie would surely bring back memories of early Disney classics. 

But don't get me wrong, the film is entertaining for children and adults alike.  There's wit in every dialogue and every character's role is played very well, especially by Rapunzel's chameleon pet Pascal and dogged palace horse Maximus who steals the scene whenever they can. (I love 'em both).

All in all, a feel good movie to spend with friends and family. 

- - - - - - -

PAM:Tangled is a tangling of the texts of Rapunzel and Robin Hood. Typical Disney animated film yet with rich subtexts of the current predilection for eternal youth, women power (heroine vs witch, and unusual proposition at the end) and the nature of heroes and villains.

The main characters are interesting because it challenges our stereotypes of heroes and heroines, villains and witches. Is Mother Gothel really evil through and through torturing a helpless Rapunzel? Who really made it possible to have that happily-ever-after ending, the real hero? Flynn/Eugene or Maximus?

We may oftentimes, as adults, dismiss Disney animated films as typical feel good kids' movies, but this one made me mull over how we re-tell our favorite fairy tails.

3.5 coffee beans ;-)

- - - - - - -

KEI: I was not fond of fairy tales when I was a kid. What I was fond of was to play piggy-down-1-2-3 with my cousins and neighbors, running around the basketball and tennis court until our young skin is toasted from too much exposure to the mid-day sun. So I was not really that excited to watch Tangled, though I was the one who bought the DVD. When I watched it, I remembered the film Brothers Grimm (2005) instead, where there was a scene when the brothers Grimm went to the tower of the old witch (played by Monica Belucci),  Mother Gothel in Tangled. In the 2005 film, the sources of the two brothers' fairy tales are presented; the witch is part of a certain German town's folk lore. But Rapunzel was not in that film.

So, like a child unfamiliar with these western narratives of happy endings, I asked Cayo and Pam about the fairy tale of Rapunzel since Tangled is already an intertext of her and Robin Hood's stories. Perhaps that is one innovation in that film--combining two (western) fairy tales in one--or maybe not. We saw it already in the Shrek series. The songs sound the same as the previous compositions of Menken. The animation, though more distinct and sharp, still has the Disney mark. 

This is probably because Disney still wants to capture the young audience. Unlike Pixar, Disney's wholly-owned subsidiary, that produces animated films for both the young and old (and this is why their films are well-loved and commercially successful), old-timer Disney likes to keep the tradition.     

So perhaps it is my age that made me stick to facebook-ing than sitting down to watch the full film.  

*viewed on Jan. 24, 2011