IRINA PALM

Marianne Faithfull, Miki Manojlovic, Kevin Bishop

CineManila
Cinema 4, Gateway Cineplex

"Irina Palm" is the alluring pseudonym given to Maggie who works at an adult shop. Well if you are smart enough, you could correctly guess the service she provides based on her moniker. But the thing is Maggie isn't exactly your typical sex worker. You see she is a 50 year old widow who lives in a quiet neighborhood in a British suburb. Driven by a desperate need to gather enough funds so her ailing grandson can seek medical treatment in Australia, she suddenly finds herself working as a 'hostess' in an establishment appropriately named Sexy World. I should probably mention that Maggie as Irina Palm doesn't come face to face with her clients but merely provides the service through a little discreet hole in a wall.

The film although dealing with an obviously vulgar topic amazingly didn't come across as crass and sleazy. It helps that the male anatomy in question was never shown on screen. The camera angle would focus on Maggie's face so her work was simply implied by her gestures. There is a certain poignancy reflected through Maggie. She is obviously embarrassed about her work and goes to great length to keep it a secret from her family and her friends. The first time she tried it she was very uncomfortable about the whole situation, openly cringing each time the client finished. But it came to the point where she managed to detach herself from her 'activity' by making herself and her environment as homey as possible. She would go to work and get into her work clothes which looked like your average cleaning lady with an apron. I suppose in some ways she did provide some sort of cleansing. She even decorated the little room with picture frames of paintings from her house. I figure that was her way of coping with the terms of her very unusual job. Soon enough, word got around and she became "the best palm in London", with men lining up outside her booth to experience her unique service.

Marianne Faithfull, a renowned singer in the 50s (way before my time so I'm not familiar with her songs) portrays Maggie/Irina Palm. Her portly matronly demeanor was perfect for the role. She was able to convey a wide array of emotions. Funny, sad, poignant, even pitiful that a woman of her age range doesn't get too much opportunities in life. But mostly it is her undying love as a grandmother to provide her ailing grandson a new lease on life which would tug at your heartstrings.

I salute the fact that Sam Garbarski, the director was able to focus on the human beings involved in these type of business. He could have easily made it a sex oriented film but to his credit, thankfully he didn't. This quirky little film will make you cringe, laugh, cry and everything else in between! "Irina Palm" was the last film, I caught at the recently concluded Cine Manila.

2 DAYS IN PARIS

Julie Delpy, Adam Goldberg

Cinema 6, Gateway Cineplex

"He knew that Paris was for lovers.
He just didn't think they were all hers"

It is truly rare that everything I've obsessed about endlessly all blend together in just one movie. Let me elaborate. Paris is my favorite city in the whole world. I love the French language. Julie Delpy in my book can do no wrong after I saw her in Richard Linklater's "Before Sunrise", "Before Sunset" and even in her brief role in Jim Jarmusch's "Broken Flowers". This film which she wrote, starred in and directed deals with relationships which is among my favorite topics to discuss into bits and pieces. Even now that I am in a serious and healthy relationship, I still analyze every aspect to the point of obsession. So it isn't a surprise that I saw this film, twice with two of my favorite people. First with my beau, then a few days later with my sister.

Alright, enough with the long winding intro, let’s move on to the film. Marion (Julie Delpy) and Jack (Adam Goldberg) are a couple who have been together for 2 years. Theirs is a cross cultural relationship. She is French and a photographer, he is an American interior designer and they live together in New York. After their vacation in Venice, Italy they spend 2 days in Paris at her place before they head back to the US. It just so happens that her goofy parents live below them.

It is in Paris, the city of love where their relationship is put to the test. It slowly begins to unravel and frays at the seams. Despite being a couple for 2 years, it seems Jack and Marion don’t really know each other all that well. Both of them are equally neurotic and eccentric in their own ways. Marion has an eye defect which affects her vision yet she takes pictures for a living. Jack is a hypochondriac yet he is covered with tattoos. Yet their romantic chemistry is clearly evident, never mind if they bicker all the time. For 2 days, as Marion reacquaints herself with her city, her friends and her family, she drags Jack along for the ride. Jack, a paranoid Jewish American in Paris is overwhelmed with culture shock. But it is his view of Marion who is in her elements in her familiar surroundings which suddenly changes in each frame as the film progresses. He turns into this jealously insecure in his own skin boyfriend who suspects everything bad about Marion. These instances are manifested in funny situational scenarios which elicit chuckles and even loud laughter. Yet if we analyze it down to the core, it is a seriously rude awakening for Jack. It is painful to watch a relationship which seemed solid in the beginning of the film suddenly begin to fall apart. The ironic part is that it happens in Paris of all places. So while it is Marion who guides the audience through an on and off again narration, it is clearly Jack’s point of view about the relationship that sustains the entire film.

Except for a few psychedelic shots of blurry images, the insertion of catchy French tunes to liven some scenes, the plot is pretty concise and coherently executed. Typical Parisian scenes like going to the market on weekends, attending art shows, even the different encounters with all sort of taxi drivers are authentically depicted. Rapid witty dialogue reigns as the two main characters have very good repartee. Julie Delpy and Adam Goldberg act effortlessly and convincingly that you forget they are actors. Most of the amusing part of the film occurs when Marion’s parents are in the scenes. They are portrayed by Julie Delpy’s real parents (Albert Delpy and Marie Pillet) who happen to be good French actors in their own right. The best part for me though is in the last few minutes of the film. The conflict is at its peak, an emotional confrontation ensues. Jack and Marion’s faces are expressively fraught with emotions as they desperately try to resolve the different issues - it all unfolds as Marion’s voice over narrates the muted yet poignant scene. Brilliantly executed and well acted scene, I’d say!

Yes obviously, I loved this directorial debut film of Julie Delpy. It was realistically honest, very straightforward, a refreshing departure from the usual ‘love story’ angle and downright hilarious too!

GOODBYE BAFANA

GOODBYE BAFANA
Joseph Fiennes, Dennis Haysbert, Diane Kruger

"Based on the memoirs of Nelson Mandela's prison guard"

CineManila
Cinema 7, Gateway Cineplex

The true story based on the book written by James Gregory, the white South African prison guard of Nelson Mandela is a simple film which deals with sensitive subject matters. Discrimination, racism and the effect of the Apartheid policy during those turbulent years in South Africa's history but more importantly it is an interesting case study of one man's character development.

Joseph Fiennes portrays James Gregory from the time he was a young officer assigned to Robben Island till the time that Nelson Mandela is released after serving a 27 year prison term. As a young officer, he is still quite idealistic and full of 'hatred' towards the black South Africans. He is ably supported by his ambitious wife who is portrayed by the German actress, Diane Kruger of "Troy" fame. Gregory's ability to speak the local dialect puts him in close proximity whenever Winnie Mandela visits her husband to basically spy on their conversations for any traces of subversive activities. Eventually, his conscience as a human being prevails, we bear witness to the compassionate nature of Gregory as a special bond develops between the two main characters. The film allows us to see a different but rather unknown facet of Mandela, that of a prisoner as opposed to the larger than life figure that he has come to symbolize. But it is rather limited because after all, this film is about James Gregory's stint as a prison guard in Robben Island.

A subtle yet effective portrayal by Joseph Fiennes gives his character as well as the film some heartfelt emotions. Everything from the way he dresses to his South African accent is cleverly executed by Fiennes who in my opinion is the better actor between the two brilliant (Ralph) Fiennes brothers. His acting style doesn't involve over the top theatrics nor does he have a strikingly attractive demeanor yet he always effectively portrays each character with gusto. The only issue in this film anyway is how Gregory didn't seem to age much visibly as the years rolled by.

Dennis Haysbert's version of Mandela is good but not as forceful as I wanted it to be. He somehow lacked a certain charisma which seems to exude from the real Mandela. But as I said earlier, this isn't a film exclusively about Mandela so I guess Haysbert can be forgiven for it.

The setting is a bit constricting as it is limited to the prison island, the quarters of the Gregory family as well as the cramped prison cell of Nelson Mandela. Eventually, it evolves to the other places where Mandela was incarcerated throughout the years. But it provides a good solid background as the real story isn't about the island but the respectful bond which formed between a prisoner and his jailer. A grainy and 70s tone envelops the entire film which helps in making the events more authentic and realistic. The plot does move at a slow pace but it is still cleverly edited so the audience doesn't really get too bored watching it. Well at least I wasn't bored.

One question though that etched in my mind as the end credits rolled by after they flashed on screen what happened to the real Gregory and his family is - who exactly is Bafana and what happened to him? I think the film makers should have done some more research on the little boy, Bafana whom Gregory befriended when they were both kids. It does make me wonder if he really existed or if the film makers just added him as some sort of symbolic character. An illusion to show that Gregory as a person wasn't entirely a bigot since he himself grew up playing with 'the enemy' so to speak. It would have been more significant if they just mentioned even in passing about Bafana but I guess with Apartheid tearing the country apart during those tumultuous years, it would be impossible to trace him down, that is if he really did exist in the first place.

Fair enough!

VOLVER

Penelope Cruz, Carmen Maura, Lola Duenas,
Blanca Portillo, Yohana Cobo

Cinema 1, Gateway Cineplex

A vintage Pedro Almodovar flick with strong, feisty and multidimensional female characters reigning supreme. To reveal more about the plot would be sacrilegious because Almodovar presents this film in such a visually enticing manner, you have to experience it with your own eyes.

From the opening scene of a very windy day at the cemetery to the gastronomic feast at the restaurant, to the way his camera pans on the tissue paper as it absorbs blood - every minute detail of each scene is efficiently captured, you can't help but be awe struck at the cinematic treat. As usual, Almodovar chose women as his main characters. Women of all age, type and personality living in a world where they strive, where they do everything and where men are mostly portrayed in a bad light and/or non existent.

The sometimes funny dialogue is clearly enunciated in that normal rapid manner incumbent of the Spanish language. Several Spanish/Latin customs like the cleaning of grave sites, kissing noisily on both cheeks as a form of greeting and the whole family bonding experience centered around meals are also realistically shown with some added quirky nuances. The setting is a typical little rural Spanish town with its inherent picturesque charms like cobble stoned streets and white houses.

But I have to defer to the fact that the reason this film succeeds in telling a somewhat quirky story is due largely to Penelope Cruz. She simply radiates in this film! Her portrayal of Raimunda, a single mother with complex troubles who continues to strive in the wake of several adversities is superb. I have always believed that Penelope Cruz is best seen in Spanish movies than in those inane Hollywood ones where her English with an awkward accent tend to interfere with her acting. In "Volver" she is at her best elements. Almodovar knows exactly how to fully exploit her acting abilities. The only thing I felt was somehow out of place is the part where Raimunda (Penelope Cruz) starts lip syncing the song "Volver". It seemed forced and you could tell it wasn't her singing voice at all. But she still remains the very heart and soul of this film.

Of course she is ably supported by other good Spanish actresses. Each of them combining to give powerful performances worthy of praises. This film really deserved its numerous nominations at several award giving associations as Best Foreign Language film for 2007.

PARIS, JE T'AIME

"PARIS, I LOVE YOU"
Natalie Portman, Elijah Wood, Marianne Faithfull, Steve Buscemi, Rufus Sewell, Gaspart Ulliel, Daniel Podalydes, Miranda Richardson, Juliette Binoche, Gena Rowlands, Fanny Ardant, Nick Nolte, Gerard Depardieu

"Stories of Love. From the City of Love"

18 short stories by different directors all set in Paris, France. A montage of films each lasting about 5 minutes, cleverly edited which depicted snippets of life in the French capital. Each segment was directed by a different director and surprisingly every episode has a beginning, a middle and an ending which doesn't leave you hankering for more.
Directors like The Coen brothers, Alexander Payne, Walter Salles, Gus Van Sant, Daniel Podalydes to name a few all collaborated to come up with this refreshing concept to showcase the City of Lights through short love stories.

Stories with all kinds of emotions (sad, happy, strange, poignant, melancholic, quirky), different techniques (some had dialogues, a few were narrations, some were like silent movies, all of them with stunning cinematography), different genre (drama, musical, comedy, tragedy) and a variety of languages (French, Arabic, English, Spanish, Chinese)
A must see for lovers of Paris. The title of each episode is a locale in the French capital, places like Bastille, Montmarte, La Marais, Quais de Seine and so on and so forth. Actors from the different divides of the globe graced this film with their creative talent. The ones worth mentioning are Natalie Portman, Gaspart Ulliel, Fanny Ardant, Bob Hoskins, Rufus Sewell and yes even Steve Buscemi in a really quirky episode directed by the Coen brothers of "Fargo" fame.

My personal favorites are:
The one directed by Alexander Payne (Sideways) entitled "14e arrondissement". A Denver mailwoman, in short an American tourist amusingly narrates her Parisian trip in a heavily accented French as the camera pans to the different places she explores. The way she pronounces each French word, though correctly done, is funny because of her charming naivety.
Isabel Coixet directed "Bastille". A man in his 50s is about to leave his wife whose favorite item of clothing is a flaming red trench coat. Just as he is about to announce his intention, she tells him she has terminal cancer. The way he takes care of her throughout her illness was poignant and sad. In his attempt to quit loving her for her inadequacies, he ends up falling in love with her all over again only to lose her forever.

A montage, a collage, a medley, a travelogue - call it whatever you want - the fact remains that "Paris, je T'aime" is one delightful film to experience!

PREMONITION

Sandra Bullock, Julian McMahon, Kate Nelligan, Nia Long,
Peter Stormare, Amber Valleta

"Reality is only a nightmare away"

The movie starts off a bit slow as we are introduced to the characters. Linda (Sandra Bullock) is a SAHM (stay at home mom) with two young daughters. Her life has settled into a routine. Her husband, Jim (Julian McMahon) is mostly away on business trips. One day, the sheriff shows up at her door to announce that Jim died in a horrific car accident out of town. Things evolve and gets mildly interesting when Linda wakes up the next day to find out her husband isn’t dead. But this isn’t a case of mistaken identity. Neither is it a ghost story. Although there are traces of that Bill Murray movie “Groundhog Day” where he keeps reliving one particular day, over and over again, “Premonition” borders on an entirely different premise.

Without giving out much of the plot since it is better to watch it unfold, I figure the main message is - if you could change or prevent something from happening because you knew its outcome beforehand, would you? Or would you let destiny unfold and just make the most of the situation as it occurred? Or does altering a single event in your past really affect the way your life would unravel in the present? These and more questions abound when you see this film. I am not implying that the film is pretty deep like “The Eternal Sunshine on the Spotless Mind“. Nor does it twist and turn your mind like “The Butterfly Effect“, it doesn’t. Yet it does get you thinking about life in general.

Having said that, the film is not without flaws. There are gaping loopholes you can spot a mile away. Yet the way Mennan Yapo, the director chose to execute the storyline does have some thrilling moments which will grip your senses. He could have used the time tested technique of flashbacks or to simplify matters, he could have flashed the specific day everytime Linda woke up but he didn’t. He preferred to let the audience figure it out for themselves what day it was and what would unfold on that day. So if you pay close attention, it would be pretty easy to figure things out. Although it can get a bit confusing sometimes to put the complicated pieces together. I guess it is fair to say that it gave me a headache but only because it was pretty late when I watched the film so my coherence level was a bit off. For instance, I wasn’t acute enough to notice the events which brought about the little twist at the ending. But now that I think about it, it surely does make sense after all.

Sandra Bullock did good in her taxing role given that her character was in every frame. She has always been a believable enough actress to portray these type of roles where it pays to be subdued and not resort to over the top hysterics. Julian McMahon is and always will be eye candy material. His role is rather brief in this film to make any significant impact. I was a bit surprised that Peter Stormare was cast as the psychiatrist. He came across as a thug instead of a nurturing physician so thankfully it was just a small part.

Overall, the movie does convey that during the course of our hectic and monotonous life, we tend to lose sight of the more important things. We fail to acknowledge the relevance of our life. We often strive in a purpose-less existence. The film doesn’t really give you the answers but at least it gets you thinking twice or even thrice. I guess that should count for something, right?

LICENSE TO WED

Robin Williams, Mandy Moore, John Krasinski, Christine Taylor, Peter Strauss, Roxanne Hart, Josh Flitter

"First came love ... then came Reverend Frank"

Cinema 6, SM Megamall

I reckon being Robin Williams isn’t easy. Not when people expect you to be funny in every single comedy that you appear. But ultimately, people need to understand that an actor is only as good as the script/plot entails. I mean is it really fair to blame Robin Williams for this flop? Or do we shift the blame to the other stars in this dismally disappointing film? Mandy Moore’s refreshingly tall figure (my polite way of saying she is an average actress) didn’t do much to salvage the film. While John Krasinski of “The Office” fame (a TV show not included in my list of shows to tune in to every week) appeared painfully rigid in some if not all the scenes. And Robin Williams well he was trying desperately to just be his usual goofy self.

So I’d blame the lack of creative talent on the part of the scriptwriters. Surely the premise was good. An overtly eager to the point of being obnoxious reverend makes engaged couples take his personalized marriage preparation course. A kind of test to judge if they are indeed ready for the trappings of married life. The course has a list of rules like “no sex before marriage” and inane silly exercises the enrolled couples must engage in. Such as carrying the bride over the threshold, dealing with crying babies (freaky dummies which look more like gargoyles than cute infants) and simulating different scenarios so the couples would know how to react during such situations. It is during these situational comedic moments where the film really falters. Somewhere between the point where Reverend Frank wiretaps their phone to eavesdrop on Sadie and Ben to the point where a conflict arises, you simply stop caring if they pass the darn course or if they even get married, after all. Yes it was that bad, unfortunately.

Since I’m a positive type of person or at least I try to be one, I need to strike a balance and find something ‘good’ about the film. I guess the ‘nice’ thing about the film would be the fact that it deals with weddings or planning one. And yes weddings or planning one is indeed stressful and hectic but it is also a happy and exciting occasion to bond as a couple. So if nothing, this film shows us how Sadie and Ben connected together as a soon to be wed couple. They dealt with conflicts amicably, always being bright and cheerful when troubles arose even though Reverend Frank was hell (no pun intended) bent on ruining the rosy picture.

Oh huh does this mean that Robin Williams is indeed the culprit? The one who ruined the film? Hmmm I guess so! Because even the outtakes at the end of the movie wasn’t funny. Oh dear, I rest my case!

HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX

Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Imelda Staunton, Emma Thompson, Ralph Fiennes, Gary Oldman, Helena Bonham Carter, Julie Walters, Brendan Gleeson

Cinema 5, Greenbelt 3

Every time I see a Harry Potter movie, I feel the need to explain that I haven't read any of the books by J.K Rowling and nor do I intend to in the near or distant future. It is simply not my genre of reading material. Be that as it may, I still watch the movies for a variety of reasons.

First - the stunning imagery. The wizardry of the graphics department's ability to transport a set into a place of magic. Floating candles, talking paintings and the whole gamut of fascinating characters, human or otherwise that abound in Hogwarts and its environs are always fascinating to watch.

Second - the fluidity of the story line. I recognize the fact that a story of such magnitude is very difficult to present on screen. Yet at the same time, I believe the director has the prerogative to pick out the parts which he feels would make the most impact on the audience. The film although long (which is understandable) seemed rather concise and the story was presented in a coherent manner. Although it does help to see the film with someone who has read the book (in my case, my sister), I still felt like the story was well told. But then I guess it won't be fair for me to say for sure that it was a good adaptation of the book. So I won't go there.

Third - the ensemble cast. It is peppered with some of the British film industry's stellar actors and actresses. Gary Oldman, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Emma Thompson, Imelda Staunton, Helena Bonham Carter to name a few. They are all very talented artistes in their own right. They were all a delight to watch as they essay their roles with much flair and panache.

Lastly, sometimes it just feels good to watch a film where good always triumphs over the dark forces of evil. Even if the journey is peddled with hindrances and obstacles, the fact remains that we don't give up easily and keep trying till we succeed. Besides a little bit of magic never hurt anyone.

In conclusion, I think it is fair to say that one feels like a joyful parent beaming with pride as the three main characters - Harry, Hermione and Ron - are practically growing into young adults right before your eyes. Oh boy now I feel old! Heh!

LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD
Bruce Willis, Justin Long, Maggie Q, Timothy Olyphant, Cliff Curtis

Cinema 11, SM Megamall

John McClane is back in the fourth installment of the Die Hard series. The first time "Die Hard" was shown over 20 years ago, it was considered a gritty, action film with a loser type yet wise cracking cop fighting against "thinking" terrorists, but back then they were simply known as bad guys. A one man army against a band of technologically sophisticated bad guys out to wreak havoc.

Fast forward to current times in an age where TV shows like "24" and "Prison Break" reign supreme, "Live Free or Die Hard" pales in comparison to the edgy and gripping plots we are exposed to from those shows, every week. So granted that we had to sit for 130 minutes to see McClane blow away the bad guys, it was a far stretch. I guess in short what I am trying to say is that the novelty has worn off.

Ok but hang on all is not lost, director Len Wiseman did make it relevant to the times by making technology the main cause of the conflict in the film. A disgruntled ex employee from the Department of Homeland Security with an archangel sounding name, Thomas Gabriel is the protagonist. He gets all bratty when the software/server he developed to ensure the safety of a million citizens against terrorists attacks isn't recognized or developed by the US government. To prove his point, he attacks the main grid of every single system which runs the whole country to the point of complete paralysis. Isn't that the worst case scenario that the United States can experience in these volatile times? It definitely feeds to the paranoia that seems to be gripping the US at this moment in time.

But naturally John McClane is there to the rescue, ably supported by a young hacker/side kick type. A role essayed by Justin Long. A refreshing young actor who projects well on screen. Bruce Willis still has it in him to carry a movie but there is only so much he can do if the script limits his role. McClane this time is more subdued perhaps since he is much older but his wise cracking isms are sorely missed. His stunts are still well choreographed to get the adrenaline pumping and your ears busting from all that noise. The whole movie is filmed in this grainy, somber tone which Len Wiseman has used before in this "Underworld" series. So while it might be understandable to develop that style in a werewolf/vampire genre, I don't see the relevance in using the same technique in a supposedly action oriented film. But that's just me.

Anyways I suppose that Die Hard 4.0. is still entertaining enough so you won't fall asleep but it is nothing to lose sleep over, either.

Eiga Sai Japanese Contemporary Films 2007

All films will be shown with English subtitles. Screening venues are at the Cinema 3, Shangri-La Plaza Mall (June 20-26), UP Film Institute (July 2-5), and CCP Dream Theater (July 4-8).

Admission is free.

For detailed screening schedules and inquiries, please check the Japan Foundation, Manila website or call the JFM telephone numbers 811-6155 to 58.

Click here for the synopsis of the films

The screening schedule can be found here