DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004)

DAWN OF THE DEAD: ULTRA-LOVELY
Oftentimes Disturbing
by Reymundo Salao
The Guardian, June 26-27. 2004

When there’s no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth. That’s a really cool sounding tagline, especially if you have a creepy deep baritone voice to say it with. This is the tagline for the movie “DAWN OF THE DEAD” which is now (FINALLY!) showing in our local cinemas. This movie is actually a remake of the 1978 movie “Dawn of the Dead” which is actually part 2 of George Romero’s “Dead Trilogy” with “Night of the Living Dead” as its part 1 (1968), and “Day of the Dead” as part 3 (1985). In 1990, Tom Savini directed a very impressive remake of “Night of the Living Dead”. This is the version which has lately been shown over the cable TV movie channels. To the new eager fans of the Dead Saga, this film can be a good prologue to watching “Dawn…”

Rewinding back to 1995 when I first played The Resident Evil playstation game, my love for the zombie genre was reawakened, and ever since then, I have been looking for a copy of the 1978 movie “Dawn of the Dead,” that classic zombie film that I saw when I was still in my elementary years, which at the time, is THE best zombie movie made. The world of zombies is a perverse morbid wonderland, a world laid to waste by lumbering flesh-hungry walking corpses. I searched high and low, from all the old video shops that have survived the Betamax era, up to the new video shops and video stores, hoping I could find a re-release of it on VCD or DVD format. So far, DVD copies of it are sold in the US. I’ve also been scouring the Pirated DVD stalls where it is more reliable source, when looking for classics. Finally, when rumors came out that a “Dawn…” remake was going to be released, I went nuts! I was like bereserking out in excitement, but I was also afraid that the remake would only tarnish the reputation of the original. Just like that “Planet of the Apes” movie which COMPLETELY ruined the rep of the original. The original was superb, the remake was mosquito-manure.

What terrified me more was finding out that this “Dawn of the Dead” remake was made without the personal approval of George Romero, and that the scriptwriter was the same scriptwriter for the “Scooby Doo” movie. I was like WADAPAK?! The director was a nobody too, I mean, who’s ever heard of Zack Snyder?

But my paranoia was laid to rest when I saw the movie. IT WAS MARVELOUS. Well, not in a “blue-sky, butterflies in your stomach-kind-of-marvelous”… but more like chaotic-creepy-apocalyptic, bloody-gorey-morbid (something munching in your stomach), suspense-action-scare-feasting, panic-mayhem non-stop thrill-ride horror-drama! In a nutshell: a sh!tload of horror.

Getting right down to the details, this zombie movie goes directly into the mayhem without having a rather preachy prologue. In order to add to the sense of enigma, it is part of the Dead Trilogy not to give an exact explanation of how and why there are the zombies, except that of the closest logical explanation that it is some form of infection that is easily spread throughout the victims. In this remake, the zombies are a bit more hyperactive than the lumbering ones in the original. This makes sense because it would be more realistic for hyperactive zombies to decimate the Earth, than it is for the slow ones of the old movies. In our day and age, the military already have the science to quarantine such infections. In this movie, they can’t, because the zombies are fast and rabid, and have easily managed to turn cites into hell.

The storyline of this remake is indeed different from the original. But the idea of fortifying inside a mall for survival, remains. The film is so fast-paced that there is but little dull moments. And when the action and thrill slows down, it is replaced by interesting dialogues, attention-grabbing scenes, and a storyline that balances the eye-candy with a rich plotline of survival, human nature, and the drama of choosing the greater good in a time of chaos. “You can discover more about a man in an hour of plague, than in a year of conversation.” This is an old Greek proverb (duhh… was it Plato? Socrates?) that can be applied in this movie, Because we cannot deny that calamities may bring out either the best in us or the worst in us, reflected by the variation of well-developed characters. And to think that in a fast-paced movie, these characters were developed merely by their admirable acting.

Horror or non-horror fans will surely get a munch of good meat (get it?) out of “Dawn of the Dead.” You do not want to miss this apocalyptic zombie-fest. Right now, I am hoping that they will remake “Day of the Dead” as well. And I still am searching for a copy of the original 1978 version of “Dawn…” Got a copy? Pahulama ta bi!

TROY

TOURING TROY
By Reymundo Salao
The Guardian, May 22, 2004

The first time I heard the buzz that there was going to be a film version of Homer's "Iliad" with the obvious title "Troy", I immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was another movie cashing in on ancient and/or mythological war sagas to add to the list of sure-winners like Gladiator, Lord of the Rings, and the Last Samurai. I could imagine some producer trying to jump into his library of Cliff-Notes trying to look for some classic piece of literature that has a great deal of action and war in it.

I might have guessed that it would be quite astounding to see the Iliad on film, especially with how cinema special effects nowadays have become quite flawless. I was a bit excited to see the Trojan war, and both the Greek and Trojan gods clash, on film. But there wasn't going to be any of the gods, goddesses, and freaky heroes to behold. I thought they wanted people to flock to this film with the promise of a breathtaking war scene with gods and titans throwing thunderbolts and balls of flame at each other. Instead of a CGI extravaganza to be the film's ad campaign, it resorted to an old tactic: cram as much beautiful actors and actresses into a film with a setting that involves a lot of skin exposure. Hey, it's the time of the ancient Greeks; everybody's entitled to look so vain, like they were meticulously tanned and endlessly covered with the best body lotions, not to mention, the shampoos that made each character look like a commercial model for beauty salons. With actors and actresses like Orlando "not another archer" Bloom, Diane "where have I seen this girl?" Krueger, Eric "still kinda angry" Bana, Brad "wearing a skirt" Pitt, and Rose "beat-up cute" Byrne, this film is like a fashion magazine, only with swords and gore. Even the menacing Tyler Mane, as Ajax, looks pretty. If you're a warrior, you still had to look like a member of a boyband. On the other hand, there was the rockin' Trojan official Glaucus played by James Cosmo (remember him also playing another heroic senior citizen war leader role in Braveheart and Gladiator?), the always convincingly tyrannical Brian Cox who played King Agamemnon, and the revered Peter O'Toole as King Priam of Troy which delivered a fine performance that brought this film the much needed serious critical boost. This only goes to show that you had to be over fifty or overweight to look seriously cool in this film.

Sean "Boromir" Bean was also in this film, in case you failed to see his name (in small caps) in the poster credits. As far as I can recall, this is the only film I saw where his role doesn't have a jerk factor (look him up on "Goldeneye" and "Ronin"). He plays the Greek hero, Odysseus, who devised the use of the Trojan Horse, and also one of the wiser generals of the Greeks during this war. It was an odd surprise to see him become the film's epilogue narrator all of a sudden, when his character was quite overshadowed throughout the film. The director, Wolfgang Petersen ("Das Boot" 1981, "The Perfect Storm" 2000, and "Air Force One" 1997), could have at least set him up to narrate at the beginning to make sense why he's narrating the end. And no, I don't think it's enough that just because he's Achilles' trusted friend. Even the last line made my head itch "I lived in the time of Achilles" …So what? That didn't actually make sense, did it? For a Greek Tragedy that line sounded like it was meant for either a David Lynch film or a Tom Green film. With Odysseus being played by a prominent actor, will there be a film adaptation of "Odyssey" as well?

Some may not like the film for it excludes the role of the gods and goddesses. In one way of seeing it, including the mythological aspects of the story may lessen the dramatic impact of the story; the romance of Paris and Helen, and the "War is bad" aspect of the storyline. The producers may have opted a less fantasy-driven ancient war movie that would have more of a historical feel, just like "Gladiator" and "The Last Samurai".

But then again, here we see another Hollywood habit of adulterating the classics to their own (commercially-driven) will. Little do they know that many teachers still hope to use these films to reinforce their manner of educating their students with ancient literature. Instead, children will learn to succumb to the Hollywood versions and disregard what the pioneers have originally done.

But in the long run, "Troy" is still very worth watching. It may have some little flaws that we may love to mock, but you wouldn't want to miss seeing it. You don't want to miss this summer's most action-packed war scenes, especially the exhilarating sword-fights, and the highly anticipated duel between Hector and Achilles. The ladies wouldn't want to miss Brad Pitt in a skirt, while the guys wouldn't want to miss the tease-naked scenes of Rose Byrne and Diane Kruger.

The Passion of the Christ (article)

ANTICIPATING THE PASSION

Everybody's talking about THE PASSION CHRIST. I'm also one of the many who is extremely anxious to see this film, directed by Mel Gibson, about the last moments of Jesus Christ's life, and the torment he went through before he was crucified. According to previews, this film is extremely violent. Understandably, when he was captured, Christ was indeed beaten up, lashed, spit at, mocked, tortured, and had been crowned with thorns that had further bloodied him up. This much is true. One can't just mellow down the violence factor of Christ's torment and claim to portray a realistic interpretation of his last hours alive. I mean this was in ancient times, you can imagine how animalistic violence can get during those days. In the US, the film was given a "Restricted" rating due to its violence. But here in the Philipppines, it was given only a "Parental Guidance" rating (Hardcore ta ya, Bord!). I think this may bedue to the fact that though this film may exhibit violence in extreme proportions, as long as it is within the reasonable context of Christ's history, it would still be educational, not only historically, but most of all, spiritually as well. Besides, we Filipinos are quite familiar with the degree of pain Jesus got during his capture. We never held back our children from learning the hard truth that Jesus has gone through the brutality of torture, for our salvation. This is exhibited through storybooks, statues, paintings, and murals. Ever since our elementary days, we already know of the "pasyon" and "penitensya", that old traditional religious practice, which is the lashing of oneself, inflicting pain upon oneself, even having oneself actually crucified in the cross, trying to "share" Christ's pain, all as forms of repentance. Actually I kind of miss seeing people actually practicing "self-lashing penitensya". Perhaps it is because it is now considered to be obscure that nobody takes time to practice it anymore.

Americans are very keen on guarding the violence in television and cinema that it sometimes borders to a kind of corny uneven censorship reminiscent of Morato's MTRCB days. That is why critics from the US regard the movie to be "gory and extremely violent" What do they expect? A Walt-Disney-type movie? Then there's the big anti-Semitic issue, wherein many Jews raised a fiery issue that the film is Anti-Jew. Well, isn't it already written in history? The writers and the director didn't change the "villains" of the film; previews indicate that this film was even done in the purest of adaptations and biographies ever. It was very much a "by-the-book" kind of movie. What would've these critics wanted? That Christ's story would be rewritten, so as to make it Jew-friendly? Perhaps they wanted the "villains" to be, say, The Yakuza or The Mafia? Okay, maybe Mel Gibson should get Joe Pesci and Ken Watanabe as the bosses who ordered Jesus' arrest. Would the critics be satisfied if that were to happen? Maybe they would want Judas to be portrayed as an ex-spetsnaz commando played by Dolph Lundgren. Would that be not anti-Semitic anymore? At least, here in the Philippines, this film would generally be appreciated without much of an issue.

x-x-x

It's nice because THE PASSION OF CHRIST would probably increase the interest of the movie-going public upon their spirituality. There was a time, around the years when TEN COMMANDMENTS was made, that a plethora of religious and specifically Christian movies came out. There was THE ROBE, KING OF KINGS, and some movie about ST. PETER (Although I find it disturbingly strange how Greek Mythology movies like VULCAN and CLASH OF THE TITANS similarly came out later on. Daw ka tayug lang gid ya, bord!).

Movies are usually the medium from which people that are lazy enough to pick up books, get their info from. And with such efficient medium, stories of Saints, martyrs, and religious figures can easily be shown to one and all.

I find it a bit funny though. Because I saw this satire (a highly recommended movie), entitled "DOGMA", which has some great deal of theology and a great deal of humor in it where, in one scene, an angel (portrayed by Diehard villain Alan Rickman) says in sarcasm "quote something out of a Charlton Heston movie, and all of a sudden, everybody's a theologian" Some kid might someday claim that he learned about Jesus Christ, not from paying attention to his Christian Religion lesson, but from a Mel Gibson movie. See you at the theaters when it is finally shown!

24 (the TV series saga)

24
by Reymundo Salao
Oftentimes Disturbing

My mother falls asleep every time we watch an action movie. No matter how magnificent an explosive action sequence goes, no matter how spectacular the visual effects, not even some of the most-attention grabbing dramatic performances of actors and actresses can get her to have that longevity of attention throughout the entire duration of the movie/storyline. The rarity of movies/TV shows that can get her interested is close to none. That changed when she saw “24”.

When I first read about 24 in an article in a foreign magazine, I was intrigued by its unique approach of storytelling. This is a TV series which happens in real-time, which means that all the events in the storyline happens within 24 hours, divided into 24 episodes, an hour-long each. There is no shifting from one timeline jumping to another, If the setting of the story is set beginning from 12 midnight, the first episode ends at 1 am. There is no flashback, neither does it have shortcuts of time. (It kind of reminds me of Tom Clancy’s OP-CENTER pocketbook series where the duration of the storyline occurs and wraps up within 24 hours) If you watch all the episodes of 24 in its entirety, it would virtually take you the whole day to finish it. All 24 hours of it.

24 is an action-espionage drama about Jack Bauer, an agent of America's CTU/Counter Terrorist Unit, which is an intelligence agency that deals with Counter-terrorism that has gathered information that there is an assassination attempt on an African American Presidential candidate, Sen. David Palmer. The intensity of the story rises as Jack realizes that his daughter Kimberly is kidnapped, and that some agents of CTU had been killed as there is evidence that there is a mole (insider) in the CTU working against them. On the other hand, David Palmer finds out that a reporter is about to come out with an expose that his son is involved in a murder incident that has been covered up. As the clock ticks each and every complication, suspicion, betrayal, danger, and death strikes our characters.

When it first aired on the AXN channel, I immediately stuck myself following the series. But eventually, one could inevitably miss some episodes once in a while, no matter how good a TV series is, you cannot easily get the schedule of your TV shows in sync with your personal time. It was only a matter of short time when my close buddy Eugene discovered that there already was a 24 Season 1 (all the 24 episodes of the entire season, on six discs) DVD available (in Arlegui, Metro Manila. On the places Bong Revilla wants to close down). When he was done with it, I immediately borrowed his 24 collection, since it was the perfect time for me to be broke and to just stay home with my coffee, my 2 peso mamons, and my DVD player.

The saga of 24 can grab the attention of anybody. It has an immense degree of suspense that transmits the fears and the desperation of characters unto those who watches it. You cringe as characters are killed, you scream off your seat as some characters suddenly become traitors, or as the problems heighten. There is also the “who-done-it” atmosphere which makes you doubt most of the characters. There are characters that turn out to be villains, there are also characters which you trust and sympathize, but you are swept off with the twist of events that make them villains. There is also the interesting duality of issue that is divided between Jack’s running after the bad guys while trying to look for his family’s captors, and there is David Palmer’s problem as to trying to choose between saving his son, or saving his votes, and there is the problem of trust that poses as a breather-drama from the action and suspense brought about by Jack’s other half of the storyline. There is a great balance between action, suspense, and drama. And it is undeniable that there is no dull moment in 24. each and every tick of the clock is worth watching.

It may sound freaky to watch all the episodes in a straight span of 24 hours. For our part, we began to watch the series 3pm of Sunday till 2 in the morning, Monday night 7pm to 1 am, Tuesday night 7pm to 1 am, and Wednesday 8 pm to 12 midnight. Yes, we were that mad over 24 during that week. And yes, it is THAT good. It did not win the many awards it garnered for nothing.

SEASON 2 (may contain spoilers of Season 1 and Season 2, you can skip to the last paragraph)

We have recently concluded watching our marathon of Season 2. And yes, we spent almost an entire day watching the first hours of it, since we began watching on a Saturday. On the second season (which is about to start on AXN, and is in its final episodes in ABS-CBN) Sen. Palmer is now President David Palmer, the president of the US, who has found out that a terrorist group known as Second Wave is about to detonate a nuclear bomb in California, precisely on that day. In relevance to the current situation, he must enlist the aid of his trusted counterterrorist agent, Jack Bauer, who has resigned from CTU, and still devastated over the death of his wife, Terri, and is left in agony by his daughter Kim. It took a lot of convincing, but eventually Jack has gotten back into running after the terrorists. If you thought Season 2 would slack off, you’re dead wrong, because in this season the suspense is heightened and the complications are more than twice as shocking. We get to see the traitor Nina Meyers once again as she is tied with the terrorists. Her presence adds to the aura of fear and villain-hate. You can smell the hate that if you were in Jack’s shoes, you’d just want to torture her to death for what she did to his wife Terri.

The main storyline of Season 2 has a mirror image to what has happened during the days before the US has declared war against Iraq, although the writers claim it was unintentional. While in the storyline, President Palmer tries to hold his own government back from declaring war against the Arab countries suspected of funding Second Wave, America has, in reality, already declared war on Iraq. While this much is true, it kind of hints that what Bush has done was the evil act as what a comparison of the two may suggest.

As a conclusion to a feature that I still feel like discussing further on, all I can conclude is that so far, 24 is THE BEST television series that has ever been made. I could always set aside X-files, Friends, Mission: Impossible (the 1990s television series), Adultswim, or Buffy and Angel. But 24 is at the top. The second season is about to air on AXN. The final episodes of Season 2 is shown tagalog-dubbed at ABS-CBN on sunday evenings, and the third season is currently being shown in the United States. The first season is now available in DVD & VCDs (not only in pirate stalls but also) in video shops and video rental clubs.

(If you have your own reviews & articles on 24, please email me at tripxyde@hotmail.com)

KILL BILL, Vol. 01

MY TARANTINO FAVORITISM
KILL BILL vol. 1
By Reymundo Salao
Oftentimes Disturbing

Have you noticed that the past three big films that has been showing since January were included in CNN’s Best Films of the Year? The Return of the King, which was a fantasy epic that is now rumored to win a landslide on the Academy awards, the Last Samurai, a Samurai epic, which was Tom Cruise’s “finest performance”. And now, KILL BILL. A bad mother##cker with a big sharp samurai sword. One of it’s tagline is “Speak softly, and carry a big sword” Cheesy? Well, just watch the film and prove yourself wrong.

Kill bill is like a homage to 70’s grindhouse films. It is a movie that knows it is a movie. It has its own universe and does not need to conform to the standards of reality. Neither it is trying to be under the category of sci-fi or fantasy, it is clearly just a homage to old action movies.

Many of the film’s elements were actually inspired from that of the many movies and television shows that Tarantino loved. For instance, many of the actions of the samurai elements were inspirations from a 70’s ninja TV series. The hero of the series is Hattori Hanzo, the same character in Kill Bill, who gave Black Mamba the samurai sword. There was also the concept of a group of female assassins, which was inspired from 70’s chick assassin flicks, which were the earliest templates from which the concept of Charlie’s Angels was copied from. Even the name of the group “Deadly Viper Assassination Squad” had that retro-feel, that no real-life assassination organization would name their group as cheesy as that, except on 70’s action flicks. It’s like when you watch a Chuck Norris movie from the 80’s or a Lito Lapid as a legendary-hero-kind-of-movie, you know that somehow, you love it with a weird sense of audience. Take those elements and stylize those cheesy aspects, give them more art and life. It seems that this is what Tarantino did in KILL BILL.

I loved the nostalgia that saturated the film. The intro logo sequence of the Shaw Brothers Production, which was actually a production outfit which released Kung-Fu films of the 70’s, was an ideal jumpstart that led me on to grin throughout the film with sheer enthusiasm. The black & white prologue of a beat-up Uma Thurman, was astounding. The simplicity of it was more impacting than a multi-million stunt sequence prologue from a Bond film.

Although the storyline had a simple plot, the dialogues were injected with a lot of chuckle-inducing wit and panache. The stress of the film lies in the coolness of its medieval-type-honor-vengeance-mission, when warriors must settle their issues with an honorable duel. This is one cliché that has a surprising impact.

The film reeks of macho action. But at the same time, hands it over to women empowerment. Girl power with a very sharp killing edge. Like is the spaghetti westerns that were made by Sergio Leone, Uma Thurman was Tarantino’s Clint Eastwood. The bad-ass who wouldn’t stop her one-way quest for revenge. He doesn’t only blow-off her enemies, he bangs their head in the door, he bites off their bloody lips, slashes off their limbs, cuts them to pieces, decapitates their heads, and even scalps them. Bloody? Yes, deliciously bloody. This is one movie; you’d want to force your 5th grade theology teacher to watch.

The music was a major element in this film as it marinates its essence with that nostalgic oldies action. All the music here was geniusly arranged that fit all sequences to a perfect tee. My friend even said that the film transforms the ugliest songs into supercool themes. Its as if some of the songs were that of Japan’s Imelda Papins. Almost all the tunes here were music from an era long forgotten. If you have seen Tarantino’s other films, you wouldn’t be as surprised, but you would still have your attention 200% on focus as you would surely enjoy how these songs become immortalized in this film before your senses.

KILL BILL was also included as one of the best films of 2003 according to CNN (it was released November 2003). No doubt about it, it is a masterpiece. Tarantino has outdobe himself once more. Tarantino achieves, in this movie, to make an obramaestra with absurd and obscure elements, and succeeds miraculously creating a product that is magnificent and groundbreaking. We can do no more, but wait for the sequel. I will surely rant more when the sequel comes.

The Films of Quentin Tarantino

MY TARANTINO FAVORITISM
by Reymundo Salao
Oftentimes Disturbing
The Guardian, January, 2004

I feel it would be a great sin of negligence for me not to make an article/review/feature story on Quentin Tarantino and his new film "KILL BILL". There are only a few filmmakers that I love with utmost bias: David Fincher (Se7en, Panic Room), Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects & the popular X-men movies), Guy Ritchie (Snatch, Lock, Stock, & 2 Smoking Barrels), Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead Trilogy) and Kevin Smith (Clerks, Mall Rats, Chasing Amy). I would have loved to include John Woo on this list but then when he made the ultra-ugly-garbage of a movie which is Mission: Impossible 2, I lost my respect for him. Tim Burton too, but he made that awful "Planet of the Apes" remake, which to my opinion insults the reputation of the original 1960s version of the film.

Quentin Tarantino is like the numero uno among my list of "to worship" filmmakers. He may not be as deep as Stanley Kubrick (2001:A Space Odyssey, The Shining) or Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather, Apocalypse Now), he may not even be as far-fetched as David Lynch (Brazil, Twin Peaks, and Lost Highway-the film I really REALLY want to watch, but I guess local film distributors are too stupid to realize that people would love to watch a bizarre and mind-bending film sometimes even if it does not star some Hollywood jackass like Tom Cruise or J-Lo). No, Tarantino may not be up to the same caliber as these filmmakers, but Tarantino has his own planet of fans that "get" his style. After all, his style has proven to be appealing to all kinds of audiences.

Tarantino's early works include writing the story of the controversial film "Natural Born Killers" which was directed by Oliver Stone. It was a violent film in its most literal form. The story follows a couple out on a murderous rampage, and in their journey, interesting and enlightening points of view spring up, not to mention, letting people see the reflection of how ugly the system exists, how hostile and violence-loving our cultures have become, and how media glorifies that insatiable lust for violence.

Then came the finest film created under the classification of low-budget: "Reservoir Dogs", written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. A gangster parable of the criminal underworld. Tarantino's style employs a sense of B-movie nostalgia. Rough cuts, 70's music, actors from obscurity (the only ones recognizable on this film are Harvey Keitel and Michael Madsen). And along with all those aspects, inject the impressive storyline, to perfect the blend that opened the doors for Tarantino. "Reservoir Dogs" was literally a reservoir dog which barked loud enough to be heard by the entire film art community. Tarantino was on his way to godhood.

Just in time to welcome the era which I would refer to as kind of a modern renaissance era (the 90s was a decade when art was in its most raw and most prolific form ever: The music was grunge/alternative, which was the most artistic form on the expression of music, and the films and filmmakers which came out were milestones: Robert Rodriguez, Luc Besson, etc), Tarantino became a king as he released "Pulp Fiction" which created waves across the film globe (not so much with us, though, apparently many of our local brothers and sisters were more thrilled with Forrest Gump and that TGIS tagalog teen TV series, which seems to be a copycat of the "Friends" formula). "Pulp Fiction" redefined the norms of film. True, it was a gangster movie, but it had the appeal that keeps you in your seats with gusto. I was in my late teens, and it was then that I realized that you don't need big special effects, stunts, and famous actors & actresses to make a spectacular movie. All you need is a good storyline and a keen sense of style that adds the beauty of the film. Back then; Samuel Jackson was just an extra (If you watched Eddie Murphy's "Coming to America", he was the robber in the restaurant), an utter nobody. In Tagalog movie equivalence, he is rapist numero tres in a bad Caparas biopic. But "Pulp Fiction" gave him a lead role, which later made Sam Jackson one of the most famous movie actors in film history (he can now laugh at Eddie Murphy who's making flop films like "Daddy Day Care" and "Pluto Nash"). The film also pulled John Travolta from obscurity. It was a time that he was struggling in the movie world for a decent film job, his last role was in "Look Who's Talking" where he was destined to become a forgotten actor. But then, Tarantino used his nostalgic 70's appeal to add to the world of "Pulp Fiction". It was even better that he had a large belly at the time; it made him a character that is more the anti-hero. But then again, in the world of Tarantino films, all people share the trait of being an anti-hero jerk. Along with Travolta in this film are Bruce Willis, Christopher Walken, Ving Rhames, and Uma Thurman, who is now the lead character in Tarantino's "Kill Bill".

"Pulp Fiction" was a big series of underworld parables jumbled into one storyline, then intentionally cut the sequence in order to divide the parables from one to the other. Many of you may ask the question why he mixed the sequence of the parables. In my opinion, he designed it in a way, that the final parable was the most meaningful one (Sam Jackson's character Jules Whitfield decides to quit the criminal underworld and decides to "walk the Earth" as a bum). Like "Reservoir Dogs", Tarantino employed the nostalgic style of the 70's look. The music was superbly edited into the most appropriate sequences. The script was also magnificently laced with devilish wit. Tarantino makes every bit of dialogue, no matter how irrelevant it may be, irreverently precious ("If you yell at me, it makes me nervous, and if I get nervous, I get scared, and when mother##ckers get scared, that's when mother##ckers get shot" while pointing his gun at Tim Roth) .

After the hype of Pulp, Tarantino went back to writing, and wrote "From Dusk till Dawn", and turned it over to his "brother" Robert Rodriguez to direct. His storyline still had that underworld edge, but this time, it was injected with an oldies horror appeal, as it is revealed that the storyline wanders into being a vampire flick. Tarantino (who moonlights as an actor) even plays a lead part on this film. It was a bizarre experience just getting to appreciate "From Dusk". It was no doubt that I loved it, but it was like discovering how delicious spaghetti and shanghai rice can get to be, when mixed. It was spectacular, but it leaves you mumbling "Outlaws and Vampires? Wow! That was some weird trip!"

When his third film "Jackie Brown" came out, he didn't get much bravado from it. Understandably, people would expect it to catch up with the quality of his last work, which was a bit near impossible to do. But "Jackie Brown" had its beauty and charm that lives up to what a Tarantino film should be. Perhaps it was because "Jackie Brown" was a bit more feminine than Pulp, and the main storyline has some love story in it (at least, its not as mushy as most love stories). It was still Tarantino, just wrapped in a subtler packaging. It never gets old, because in the first place, it's nostalgia. It celebrates what is already old, stylizing it, making it (in the most cliché of terms) "cool".

(to be continued. With the KILL BILL vol.1 review. tripxyde@yahoo.com)

MATRIX REVOLUTIONS

THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS
The Guardian, October, 2003

Usually, whenever me and my barkada watch a grand film, most especially ones who influence a religious following, like the Star Wars saga, the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and the X-men series, we find time to hang out on a café or bar and discuss the film. We talk about how good or how bad the film is, and we discuss and try to dissect the other aspects of the film we just watched. Of course, MATRIX REVOLUTIONS have given us quite a lot to discuss about.

Unlike the so-called high brow critiques of film who dismiss sci-fi flicks like STAR WARS and The EVIL DEAD series as “mababaw”, there are many of us who see beyond just the special effects and the action, and see the philosophies and the prolific messages that are embedded in these stories.

THE MATRIX TRILOGY is one sci-fi saga which is rich in these subliminal philosophies. In fact, there are cults and groups of people who liken the Matrix storyline into religious ideas. Weird as it is, some of them even liken Neo to Jesus Christ. I’m serious, there are people bizarre enough to think of these things. Try to research this in the internet, by searching “Matrix and Jesus Christ” in any search engine like YAHOO! Or GOOGLE, and you’ll find out what I’m talking about.

But truly, MATRIX SAGA does carry within itself intelligent ideas. Chronologically, as based in the storyline in ANIMATRIX (go watch this animated collection of stories that revolve around the Matrix at your nearest video shops now) the Matrix saga began with mankind’s vanity that they took it upon themselves to create AIs (Artificial Intelligence, robots, etc..) to be their slaves. Then the AIs, like other intelligent creatures also desired freedom. But mankind’s pride hindered this. And thus, war has destroyed mankind’ future. The saga tells us of man’s destructive nature. Mankind is likened to a virus, a creature who spreads to one area, consumes and corrupts it, then moves on to another area and spreads even more, without serving a natural purpose.



The saga also makes us open our mind to understanding reality. “What IS real? How can you tell the difference between the dream world and the real world” It takes a lot of sanity to survive trying to ponder upon these questions, but these are all nonetheless, interesting. THE MATRIX makes us ask the question “Are we really in control of our lives? Or is it about time that we DID take control of our lives” Sometimes, we realize that we are slaves. Slaves to the standards of society. Slaves to religion. Slaves to modern culture. Slaves to the opinions of our peers and our contemporaries. Slaves to the government, taxes, obligations, employment, media, and vanity. In the MATRIX saga, the heroes are the individuals who are defined by their virtue to defy authority. It is because in this storyline, authority enslaves mankind. But does living in the dreamworld of the Matrix truly a state of being enslaved? In the first episode, the character named Cypher betrayed his allies and surrendered himself to live back in the world of the Matrix. Because back in the Matrix, he is free from the inconveniences of being in a state of war against the machines. It is like a symbolism for many things. If we were living back in the Spanish era, would you have chosen to be a Katipunero living in utter discomfort, chaos, and danger, but living in defiance, seeking freedom? Or would you have rather lived peacefully under the rule of the Spaniards, keeping a blind eye to the fact that we are under foreign rule? But if we desire to be free, what do we want to do with that freedom? At the end of the final episode of the Matrix, when mankind has indeed earned their freedom, would mankind live well, in civilized peace and independence once again? Do you think that after a while of peace, man would absolutely forget his destructive abusive ways? In the millions of human beings, are we sure that no one man can emerge to be one who can possess the human attributes of being abusive, hostile, envious, malicious, and destructive, and eventually lead to another downfall of the entire human race? In another standpoint, The Matrix is order. But it is much like the strict classes of order like Communism, Socialism, and Tyranny. While the humans desire an order based on freewill, like Democracy. But it was the humans, in the first place, who abused this democracy by depriving the machines of it. An order based on freewill is good, but should we dictate this freewill only to a particular group of citizens?

One of the premises of the Matrix is War and Order. Man has lived in Order, and for a time, it was good. Until man’s pride has led to war with the machines who only desired freedom, and so there was disorder among men. Then the machines established Order, and for a time, it was good. Until the machine’s pride has led to war with man, who only yearned freedom. Is this the cycle of war and order? It appears so. That is why at the end, the Architect doubts that peace shall not last long. It is because it is in the nature of man to , in one way or another, surrender to his harmful attribute. The end of the MATRIX REVOLUTIONS is indeed one that is uncertain, for it is honest to admit that there truly can be no absolute peace. If the producers would make another sequel to this saga, trying to continue the end of the last chapter, it would focus on the peace treaties between man and machine. The whole movie would be like watching a two-hour United Nations session.

Are you confused yet? The other sublime messages of the MATRIX are also those tiny bits of philosophy scattered around the trilogy. “Hope is the quintessential human delusion which is the source of one’s greatest fear and greatest strength” as said by the Architect. “It is purpose that guides us, that binds us…” and so goes Smith’s lecture about purpose. The Merovingian’s concept of “Cause and Effect”. The definition of LOVE and KARMA by a program who appears to be Indian. There are many more that one can learn from the saga of the Matrix. It makes MATRIX “More than meets the Eye”. It is perhaps because the storyline is inspired by so many things, aside from Japanese anime and Hongkong stunts, but by books on modern philosophy and other related studies, books like “Simulation and Simulacra” and other sources that discuss matters beyond the comprehension of sanity and reality.

Personally and honestly, I hated the action scenes of the second episode, but I was stunned by the storyline and the dialogues. The third episode is even more interesting. And I liked the action in this one because it was a war movie that focused on various cuts and scenes by the various characters of the story. Because this was not your usual “Jerry Bruckheimer garbage”, the running of the storyline is very unpredictable. Anybody could easily just die, anybody could do some crazy stunt, and anybody could end up doing something that is nearly a miracle.

Some of my friends have had so many questions and unpleasant opinions about one or two aspects of the film, reasonable points that make sense too, but I loved it almost flawlessly. Why? This was a war epic that appealed to me very much. It was the sort of sensation that only a STAR WARS movie (I’m talking about the first trilogy - ep. 4,5,6) could generate. The dialogues were so interesting that I find myself giggling to basically all of Smith’s lines. And we see Neo’s journey from a Geek who questions reality (first movie). To warrior (second). And until he finally emerges the charismatic Savoir who endured all the pains and challenges.

the TERMINATOR Saga (& T3 review)

The Terminator Saga
by Reymundo Salao
The Guardian, July 12, 2003



It was like almost ten years ago when the old Allegro theater was showing it. The moviehouse was so crowded. Many of the patrons were content on having to stand up while watching the film. I was one of them. A high school sci-fi geek who was watching the film that probably was the monumental sci-fi film of the late 80's/ early 90's; TERMINATOR 2, JUDGEMENT DAY (the first Terminator movie was in the mid 80's). In the history of sci-fi films, T2 (as it was called), was among the most popular. Everybody even got infected by the catchy lines of the protagonist played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the film like "Hasta La Vista, Baby!" and the "I'll be back" The movie was written and directed by James Cameron, the director who made the biggest blockbusting sci-fi movies "Aliens" (which was the sequel to Ridley Scott's "Alien") and critically-acclaimed "The Abyss". His creation, the world of the TERMINATOR was so famous that it deserves to be standing alongside icons like "Star Wars" and "The Matrix". And why not? It has a brilliant storyline which stood side-by-side with its heart-pounding action.

In the future, there is a war between humans and machines (sounds awfully familiar). In order to further their chances of victory, the machines had sent their cybernetic assassin, the Terminator, Model T-1000, back in time to eliminate John Connor, who was destined to be the leader of the human resistance that will crush the machines. Anticipating the move of the enemies, the human resistance also sent a stolen and reprogrammed Terminator, the T-800, to protect John Connor. There in the present time (which was actually way back in the early 90s), both terminators battled for the life of John Connor. In the end, John had the initiative to prevent the war in the future. That is by destroying every last bit of both terminators. And so he did. And Judgement day was prevented from taking place.

And now, after more than ten years, HE'S BACK. Arnold Schwarzenegger rises back from the ashes in TERMINATOR 3, RISE OF THE MACHINES. (Spoiler alert on this paragraph) John Connor is now a bum who was haunted by the nightmares of an apocalyptic future, so he lived a peaceful life that stayed away from technology. Not until a new Terminator, the T-X has been sent back from the future, to eliminate certain people, the other "destined-to-be" military leaders of the resistance. Similarly, another Terminator, the T-101, was also sent back by the resistance to counter T-X's mission. Judgment Day was never prevented. It was just postponed. And so war must begin. And this is where it starts.

In as much as I would like to express how much I loved this movie, it honestly didn't really offer anything original. The plot would've been superb, except that it did not add any details that spiced it up. It was the fast-paced action that was its weakness. Many of the stunts looked original and worthy of awe. But the pace was too fast that you wouldn't have time to relish the moments. It is as if it gave you a breathtaking action scene, but didn't give you enough breathing space, when it rushes to another breathtaking scene. In a blink of an eye, the movie is over, and you'd scream that it was bitin. You would have to watch the movie's action scenes all over again to have that higher sense of contentment.

The gaps of dialogue that made up the storytelling part of the movie was never interesting. Everytime they would have to stop for some chit-chat, you would find yourself not listening with an attentive ear, but that which yells "Hey, let's get on with the action".



Perhaps it was a bad choice to have a "nobody" direct such a prominent sci-fi saga. There was nothing special that director JONATHAN MOSTOW brought to this sequel. In one way or another, it even pulled the dignity of the Terminator saga down. Instead of giving it a rebirth, it just made T3 look like "Jaws part 2" or "Jurassic Park 3". If you ask me, I would blame its creator James Cameron. His creation would've gladly had stood up to becoming a timeless sci-fi icon by helming its third installment at an earlier time (T3 was originally planned to have been made as early as 5 years ago). Instead, he'd chosen to make the biggest love story film, the historically-adulterated TITANIC. A movie so famous that everybody wants to deny having liked it. It was as if George Lucas of Star Wars, Chris Carter of the X-files, and other sci-fi icons were seated in one presidential table, while James Cameron had to sit on with the rest of the non-icons. If only Cameron took good care of this project, he would've made The Matrix look like a copycat (Matrix will always be better though)

If there was one other thing that this movie was all about, it was the so-called "return" of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Yes, he hasn't really been gone, since he'd have made other movies (flops) like "Collateral Damage" and "The Sixth Day". But because his new movies were box-office tragedies, this was the one ace-card movie which he probably hopes would reclaim his dignity as a box-office action hero. In this movie, I would have to say he did fine. He was definitely kick-ass here. It kinda made the hair on the back of my neck grow cold when he walked into a smoking scene in slow motion. But his overwhelming presence here is sadly just a mirror of the image he portrayed in T2. Nevertheless, he rocked and I really couldn't say much except raise my fists and scream like an adolescent again "Bakod pre!" I could say the same for actress Kristanna Loken who played the dominatrix-like Terminator. This is one chick that I'd want to beat me up (VAVAVOOM! Shwing!). The film also stars Claire Danes and Nick Stahl, who plays John Connor. I couldn't figure out why they didn't get Edward Furlong, who played John Connor in T2 since he is about the same age as Nick Stahl by now.
In totality, TERMINATOR 3, RISE OF THE MACHINES was a rockin' movie. Kick-ass with an ideal twist. It may not be one for the classics, like we would've wanted to, but it was well worth the money. I'd even want to watch it again.