Monday, July 26, 2010

The International

Cast: Clive Owen, Naomi Watts, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Ulrich Thomsen, Brian F. O’Byrne; Director: Tom Tykwer; Producers: Llyod Phillips, Charles Roven, Richard Suckle; Screenwriter: Eric Singer; Music: Reinhold Heil, Johnny Klimek, Tom Tykwer; Editor: Mathilde Bonnefoy; Genre: Drama/ Thriller; Cinematography: Frank Griebe; Distributor: Columbia Pictures; Location: New York, USA; Running Time: 118 min;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

The IBBC, a global bank with headquarters in Luxembourg, does not merely lend money but also broker’s arms deals. In fact, its power-grabbing board would have no qualms about assassinating anyone who gets in its way or gets to know too much. On this premise, Interpol agent Louis Salinger (Clive Owen) who witnesses the mysterious death of a partner while working with him in Berlin, obsesses about meting out justice to IBBC’s victims. Sharing his probing dedication is New York assistant district attorney Eleanor Whitman (Naomi Watts), and together they pursue IBBC’s ruthless principal Jonas Skarssen (Ulrich

Thomsen), and the bank’s sinister German fixer, Wilhelm Wexler (Armin Mueller-Stahl). Their sleuthing takes them from New York to Milan to Istanbul, but whenever they would be on the brink of proving their case, the evidence vanishes.

The International succeeds in creating a scenario that would not seem improbable in a global economic situation that many fear has gone haywire. Surely with the restraint employed by director Tom Tykwer, Owen—intense, handsome and unshaven—comes on as the perfect Interpol agent who loses sleep on a case. Watts also plays up the plucky lawyer side of her character (and even swears like a man at one point) so that the platonic quality of the partnership between Salinger and Whitman is enhanced. There are no heroic feats for the hero here, not even stunts that are physically unlikely outside of a movie, because it is precisely his vulnerability that the plot tries to explore as he bears the weight of the conflict between the desire for justice and the dangers of vigilantism. Just about the only adrenalin-drenched action you’ll find here is the shooting scene at New York’s Guggenheim Museum, where the beautiful museum displays and installations being peppered with bullets threaten to distract the viewer from the gun battle going on. By the way, the Guggenheim shooting was filmed on an interior set in Germany.

The International delivers not so much a moral lesson as a moral warning. If there is one eye-opening thing it can do to moviegoers, it is arousing in them the suspicion that such a situation as this could not be far from being real. If movies in the past showed money-laundering as the worst that banks can do, The International is saying that keeping secret Swiss bank accounts is kindergarten stuff compared to international intrigue, arms trade, and murder that bankers may now be engaged in. That banks, armies and governments actually network independent of national boundaries could be frightening to dwell upon, particularly if you detect a connection between a country’s war expenditures and its plummeting economy. We dread to see the day when missiles and warheads are sold over the counter—like headache pills—but in The International that day is already here. All because bankers have jumped into the power-grabbing fracas that used to be the exclusive turf of armies and politicians.

The Reader

Cast: Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes, David Kross, Alexandra Maria Lara, Lena Olin; Director: Stephen Daldry; Producers: Donna Gigliotti, Anthony Minghella, Redmond Morris, Sydney Pollack; Screenwriters: David Hare, Bernhard Schlink; Music: Nico Muhly; Editor: Claire Simpson; Genre: Historical Drama; Cinematography: Roger Deakins, Chris Menges; Distributor: Paramount Pictures; Location: Germany; Running Time: 123 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and a above

In 1958 15-year-old Micheal Berg (David Kross) falls ill while traveling in Neusdadt , Germany . Thirty-six-year-old tram conductress Hannah Schmitz (Kate Winslet) helps him return home. Apparently Michael has caught scarlet fever and must rest at home for three months. When he recovers, he visits Hannah’s apartment to thank her. The two begin an affair during which Michael reads Hannah some literary works he is studying. Their affair is cut short when Hannah suddenly leaves after receiving news of her promotion to an office work in the Tram Company. In 1966, Michael, already a law student observes a trial of several woman SS guards accused of letting 300 Jewish women die in a burning church after the 1944 evacuation of Auschwitz . He is surprised to see Hannah as one of the defendants. The trial reveals that each defendant chose 10 women who were brought to the gas chamber every month. Hannah’s fellow defendant’s points to her as the mastermind of the church fire report. At first she denies but caves in after the court asks her to provide a sample of her handwriting. At this point, Michael realizes Hannah’s secret. Hannah gets life sentence for her presumed role in the genocide Meanwhile, Michael begins recording the stories he has been reading to Hannah and sends her the cassette tapes but never writes or visits. In 1988, Michael is asked by the prison official to help Hannah’s transition into society upon her release. Michael visits the aged Hannah, informs her that he has secured a job and a home for her, and that he would fetch her on the day she will be released. On that day, Michael learns that Hannah had hanged herself, leaving for him instructions on what do with her money.

The film is a powerful poignant drama of coming of age, heartbreak, guilt, shame and redemption with the Holocaust as backdrop. The drama is gentle and downplayed. Winslet, who already has won several Best Acting Awards for her role as the simple minded Hannah, delivers a profound and honest portrayal. Fiennes is believable as scarred and detached lawyer who in unable to develop a lasting relation and Olin is effective as a Concentration Camp survivor still bitter and damaged from witnessing the atrocities of the Holocaust. The movie, though shuffling from one decade to another, develops clearly with a crisp and powerful screenplay. The production design is truthful enough to transport viewers from Post-war Germany to the modernization of the 80s and at the same time creative enough to illustrate images and characters using the austerity of Hannah's apartment or the dignified set-up of the courtroom. This is one of those movies that creep in on you almost unnoticed but leaves a permanent imprint.

The film presents Hanna as being too morally or intellectually blind to understand the consequences and impact to other people of her words and actions. Her sensibilities are misplaced with her thinking that being illiterate is more shameful than deliberately tolerating mass murder, and that maintaining order as a prison guard is more important than saving the lives of 300 women prisoners. However, morality and goodness are not products of a literary excellence. It is assumed that choosing what is right is innate in every person and that ultimately one is responsible for the choices he makes, schooled or otherwise.

Guilt is presented as a shameful history of the young generation and a dark secret of the old. One’s crimes is cleansed not with social justice, personal suffering or tokens of apology but also with the realization of all aggrieved parties that one needs to accept responsibility, forgive and start anew in the effort to make life better for other people.

There are several disturbing premises and scenes in the film that may offend the sensitivities of more conservative viewers. However, over-all these do not make the movie objectionable. One, the sex scenes and nudity throughout the film, although graphic, are not exploitative. Two, although the affair between a 30-year-old and a 15-year-old is alarming, it is used to depict a young generation trying to understand the crimes of an older generation. Three, Hannah's suicide is morally unacceptable but from a psychological point of view one might say that an aging, lonely, broken and once illiterate woman who was coldly received by the one person she was fond of might have felt pushed against a wall and found no reason to continue living.

Parents are strongly cautioned as very young and immature audience may not handle well scenes of sex, nudity, suicide and others.

Watchmen

Cast: Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup, Matthew Goode, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Patrick Wilson, Carla Gugino; Director: Zack Snyder; Producers: ; Screenwriters: David Hayter, Alex Tse; Music: Tyler Bates; Editor: William Hoy; Genre: Sci-Fi/ Action; Cinematography: Larry Fong; Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures, Paramount Pictures; Location: Vancouver, Canada; Running Time: 162 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above

The story is a film adaptation of the 1980s graphic novel by Allan Moore and Dave Gibbons. It opens in 1985 with the murder of Edward Blake (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), afterwhich the audience is taken into a historical journey from the 1940’s World War 2 to the Cold War of 1980s in the six-minute opening credits. The main story is set in America during the time when superheroes have retired since they have lost their favor with the public. Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), a vigilante, tries to investigate this murder and discovers that Blake was actually The Comedian. Rorschach believes he has uncovered a plot to eliminate super heroes and sets forth to earn his retired colleagues. Although burdened with their own issues, the retired superheroes once again don their costumes as they try to uncover the conspiracy to tip the balance of power and rid the world of superheroes.

Watchmen is a visual treat with a profuse with images of metaphors and symbolisms. The historical montage set to Bob Dylan’s “The Times Are Changing” is cleverly brilliant. The musical scoring is outstanding with a selection of 80s songs aptly reflecting the scene’s essence. The movie is quite long but watchable with Snyder’s meticulous direction and treatment. However, the performances are so-so and the storyline a little tedious as it bombards with too many details and sub-stories, especially for those unfamiliar with the comics version. The adaptation, a little too faithful to the original material, does not make an interesting translation to film. The narrative which shuttles from one era to another also becomes confusing.

The movie is both relevant and obsolete. Relevant because it contains observations on real issues like the Cold War, the Vietnam War, nuclear destruction, quantum physics, the peace movement, drugs and crime, power and violence. However, although these issues are legitimate, they are now considered out-dated. The heroes of Watchmen represent different moral choices one makes – Rorcschach strictly adheres to the letter of the law, Ozymandias will sacrifice himself for the good of the many, The Comedian prefers pleasure over what is good and what is right while Nite Owl always does what he feels is the right thing even if it is unlawful.

The movie is definitely not suitable for children and teenagers mainly because of the graphic and disturbing violence and explicit nudity and sex scenes.

The Unborn

Cast: Odette Yustman, Gary Oldman, Meagan Good, Cam Gigandet, Idris Elba; Director: David S. Goyer; Producers: Michael Bay, Andrew Form, Bradley Fuller; Screenwriter: David S. Goyer; Music: Ramin Djawadi; Editor: Jeff Betancourt; Genre: Horror/ Suspense; Cinematography: James Hawkinson; Distributor: Rogue Pictures; Location: Chicago, USA; Running Time: 86 min;

Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Casey (Odette Yustman) is constantly having bad dreams (i.e. a scary little boy turns into an ugly dog wearing a mask that leads her in finding a fetus inside a bottle of formaldehyde). And even if she’s awake, she still sees things both crazy and strange (scorpions on her eggs and the scary little boy seems to appear everywhere she goes). The fear starts to manifest in her eyes so she consults an eye doctor who later reveals to her that she could have a twin brother or sister because her tests show a genetic irregularity usually seen in twins. Casey confronts her father who later reveals to her the truth and this may have something to do with the death of her mother. She conducts her own investigation and the mementos of her mother lead her to an old woman (Jane Alexander) confined in a nursing home. She turns out to be her Holocausts survivor grandmother who reveals to her the evil truth behind her twin brother and the mysterious death of her mother. A mythical Jewish demon named Dybbuk is out to get her so Casey turns to a Jewish Rabbi (Gary Oldman) for some sort of exorcism.

There is a certain level of creepiness in The Unborn. But the incoherent storytelling makes all the creepiness ineffective. The characters and images seem not to connect to create a cohesive flow making all the thrills and scares less impactful. Yustman projects well on screen but she lacks the substance and depth needed for the character. The other stellar casts like Oldman are such a waste with their underdeveloped characters. Most scenes are nothing more than functional and less incidental. Although the editing is tight, it fails to create a sense of urgency and suspense. The mood and composition is consistent but somehow something is certainly lacking in entirety. Perhaps it’s the clichés scattered all over the place that make the entire feature crappy.

Evil attacks and succeeds if one is weak. This is the driving message of The Unborn amidst all its inconsistencies. The demon may have all the arms and weapons to succeed but human beings need only one thing to survive – faith. Faith in oneself and faith in one true God, that is. This kind of faith is depicted as the human strength in the movie though it is not clearly defined. The mythical demon moves in a universe far beyond control of human beings. It is as though evil rules in a certain place where God is absent. Such superstitions distort the real message the movie wants to convey. In the end, love saves Casey from evil possession but that same love brings her to a more horrifying situation fit for a sequel. This makes the message all the more confusing not to mention incongruent. The sexual connotations, some scenes of brief slight nudity and alcoholism and exorcism as a theme along with scary images make the film appropriate only for viewers 14 and above.

Taken

Cast: Liam Neeson, Famke Janssen, Maggie Grace, Xander Berkeley, Katie Cassidy; Director: Pierre Morel; Producer: Luc Besson; Screenwriters: Luc Besson, Robert Mark Kamen; Music: Nathaniel Mechaly; Editor: Frederic Thoraval; Genre: Horror/ Suspenser; Cinematography: Frank Lebreton; Distributor: Viva Film; Location: USA/ France; Running Time: 93 min;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Retired government operative Brian Mills (Liam Neeson) seems perfectly content grilling barbecues with his chums and fellow retirees to while away inactive years. In truth, Mills nothing more and nothing less than to be close to his 17-year-old daughter Kim (Maggie Grace), so he moves to Los Angeles where Kim lives with his divorcee mother Lenore (Famke Janssen) and her effortlessly wealthy husband. But Kim—naive and somewhat bratty—wants only her father’s signature to allow her to spend a summer in Paris with some “cousins”. Mills is not about to give his permission, knowing how bad the “world” is, but later on relents after some cutting remarks from Lenore, as well as tears from daughter Kim. So he signs the permit, on condition that Kim call him up everyday. Soon Mills discovers a map showing the route Kim and her companions were to take; it turns out they are going to follow a rock band across the continent. Mills confronts ex-wife Lenore who admits she knows everything; besides, Mills has signed the permit. Mills’ nose for disaster proves keen. Upon landing in Paris, Kim and companion Amanda (Katie Cassidy) are befriended by young French guy speaking English with a charming accent. They share a cab to the flat the two girls would be staying, and even agree to go out that very night. A few minutes later, as Kim is on the phone with Mills, armed men barge into the flat and kidnap Amanda and Kim. As Mills is to discover soon enough, the two are now with an Albanian women-trafficking syndicate who kidnap young women and turn them into prostitutes. Mills then embarks on his relentless chase to rescue Kim.

Taken is an enjoyable movie from the technical point of view. It’s well-crafted, lending a lacquer of credibility to an obviously ludicrous plot, thanks largely to Liam Neeson who plays the spy-father role with beastly ferocity and focused anger. Director Pierre Morel shows no let up in bringing to life the fictional genius of writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen, the real masterminds behind this cat-and-mouse chase. If you don’t mind leaving behind your skeptical instincts when you go to see this movie, you might even like it, as most likely you’ll be rooting for Brian Mills to rescue his virgin-daughter at all cost. To get the bad guys out of the way, the (super) hero uses every trick in the spy’s manual: eavesdropping on telephones, psywar, car chases, mind-reading, torture, carnapping, and killing everyone who gets in the way! The bad guys, on the other hand, are so stupid and inept that one Hollywood critic describes them as “walking showcases of testosterone gone bad.” The conclusion offers a resolution to the main storyline, although it asks that you overlook the loose ends.

The questions that the film’s plot prompts in the viewer but are squelched by the blinding velocity of the action nonetheless haunt you as you come out of the theater. Why? Because the theme touches on the high cost of parental devotion and filial disobedience. What father would go that far, killing people to save a bratty daughter? Is he making up for lost time—time he would have spent with her when she was growing up but instead spent elsewhere killing people? And now, to save her, is it okay for him to kill still more people, thus taking the law into his own hands? The daughter would have learned her lesson after going through that ordeal—and being sold to porcine sheik— but what happens? After a few hugs, thank yous, I love yous, blah-blah-blah, daughter rides off with indulgent mother in her timorous step-father’s limousine, gleefully waving at the real father who must queue for a cab. Well, at least the real father has the dignity to decline a free ride—that’s superhuman. But the father is not simply being superhuman here, he is almost divine in his omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, owing to his years steeped in espionage. And he has a boundless capacity for forgiving the almost prodigal daughter. Superhuman father comes to the rescue with love and nary a glitch—without even wearing a mask and a red cape.

CINEMA gives this an R-14 rating, for the benefit of parents and children alike, for the simple fact that syndicate men really do lurk about waiting for naïve women to ensnare. Human trafficking is a reality in our world--as the father in this film insists on. It is the illegal trade of human beings for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation or forced labor. Considered a modern-day form of slavery, human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal industry in the world and is tied with the illegal arms industry as the second largest, after the drug-trade. So girls, beware. The next victim could be you, and your father would be helpless—unless your father is James Bond.

Punisher: War Zone

Cast: Ray Stevenson, Simon West, Dough Hutchison, Colin Salmon, Wayne Knight, Dash Mihok, Julie Bens; Director: Lexi Alexander; Producer: Gale Anne Hurd; Screenwriters: Matthew Holloway, Art Marcum, Nick Santora, Kurt Sutter, Lexi Alexander ; Music: Michael Wandmacher; Editor: William Yeh; Genre: Action/ Crime/ Drama/ Thriller; Cinematography: Steve Gainer; Distributor: Lionsgate; Location: Canada; Running Time: 107 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above

BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS

PUNISHER: WAR ZONE, the third screen appearance from Marvel Comics' angel of death, continues the saga of Frank Castle, normal New York citizen turned Mafia-slaying vigilante following the murder of his wife and daughter. This highly violent film, to the intensity level of horror, features an appealingly stoic performance from Ray Stevenson, who cuts an imposing physical presence, and is a more-than-worthy successor to previous Punishers Dolph Lundgren (1990) and Thomas Jane (2004). Six years after the death of his family, Frank Castle is still waging war against organized crime in New York. After he ambushes a party for an aging mob boss and turns it into a bloodbath, the battle moves to a recycling warehouse where Castle pushes gangster Billy Russoti (Dominic West) into a swirling vat of broken glass. During his escape, Castle accidentally shoots one of the FBI men who have arrived on the scene. Russoti undergoes plastic surgery, but after seeing his badly disfigured face for the first time, he shoots his surgeon and dubs himself “Jigsaw. While a deeply regretful Castle attempts to make amends with the widow (Julie Benz) of the agent he has slain. Jigsaw rallies an army of criminals in an attempt to take down the seemingly indestructible Punisher. Though there are scenes to lighten its impact, the graphic bloodshed in PUNISHER: WAR ZONE is often startling and is sure to satisfy the bloodlust of any fan of violent action cinema.

Knowing

Cast: Nicolas Cage; Director: Alex Proyas; Producers: Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal, Alex Proyas, Steve Tisch; Screenwriters: Ryne Douglas Pearson, Juliet Snowden; Music: Marco Beltrami; Editor: Richard Learoyd, ; Genre: Sci-Fi/ Fantasy; Cinematography: Simon Duggan; Distributor: Summit Entertainment; Location: Melbourne, Australia; Running Time: 125 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance

In 1959, a group of students in a small town elementary school is asked to draw pictures of their imagination of the future which be placed in a time capsule. Lucinda, a mysterious girl, fills her sheet of paper with rows of random numbers to which she just cannot stop writing. Fifty years later, the time capsule is opened and a new generation of students examines the contents and Lucinda’s cryptic work ends up in the hands of the young boy Caleb Koestler (Chandler Canterbury). Caleb’s father, a science professor, John Koestler (Nicolas Cage) discovers the random numbers are actual predictions of dates, death tolls and other coordinates of each major global disaster of the past 50 years. As he unravels the document’s secrets, he realizes it further foretells three more tragedies and the last of which hints a global scale destruction which somehow involve his son. Will he be able to do something to prevent the prediction from happening?

Knowing seems to be another “doomsday” movie at the onset but it turns out to be more than that. The story does not simply dwell on catastrophes and disasters rather it also attempts to provide a discourse on the accuracy of science and the truthfulness of religious doctrines concerning end of the world and life after death. The storytelling technique used in the film makes the audience glued on their seats. Although filled with many improbabilities, the spectacular execution of both small and big scenes allows the audience to suspend disbelief. For its visual mastery of creating suspense and thrill backed by fluid storytelling and effective portrayals of the actors, Knowing is worth watching.

Science and religion usually do not meet in matters concerning the physical world and the spiritual dimension of life, but Knowing is able to somehow present both sides head on without offending any beliefs or practices. Fortune telling has always been condemned in the teachings of the church but the Book of Revelations in the Bible contains many prophecies of the future. John’s character is an epitome of skepticism in terms of religious faith which has something to do with his tragic past. But then, his faith in God is rekindled by the sudden turn of events in his life. Most significant of which is the realization that there must be a life and a place somewhere else beyond the physical world. He goes back to his most treasured relationship- his family. Above all else, he makes an ultimate sacrifice defying his own belief, rationality and emotions for the sake of his beloved son. The film says there is a God who is all knowing and above everything; and there is one place, a heaven, meant and prepared for those who are ready and worthy to be there.

New In Town

Cast: Renee Zellweger; Director: Jonas Elmer; Producers: Paul Brooks, Tracey E. Edmonds, Phyllis Laing, Andrew Paquin, Peter Safran, Darryl Taja; Screenwriters: Ken Rance, C. Jay Cox; Music: John Swihart; Editor: Troy Takaki; Genre: Romantic Comedy; Cinematography: Chris Seager; Distributor: Viva Films; Location: Los Angeles, California, USA; Running Time: 96 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Lucy Hill (Zellweger) is a high-profile successful executive in Miami. She wears designer’s clothes, drives an expensive car and lives in an upscale apartment. She would do anything to move up the corporate ladder and become Vice President, including volunteering to oversee the restructuring of the company’ Minnesota plant. She relocates to New Ulm and the community’s reception at the beginning is as cold as the weather and Lucy couldn’t care any less for the number of people she would make jobless. With the insistence of a tapioca expert Christian local named Blanche (Fallon), she warms up to the community and befriends union rep Ted Mitchel (Connick Jr.). Lucy is forced to reconsider her goals and priorities when she receives the order to close down the underperforming plant and put the entire community out of work.

The movie is a typical romantic comedy with a lot of warmth and a little heart. There is nothing new in New in Town with its overdone formula, deadpan jokes and forced humor and uninspired characters. The comedy is little weak that the director needs to embellish it with music to make it more tolerable. Still, it has a certain charm that makes the audience laugh and cry. In the end, it is what every film needs to be: enjoyable.
Lucy’s transition from a cold apathetic yuppie is relatable. Most women nowadays are so engrossed in building a career and becoming successful that they set aside the more important things in life: family, humanity and friendship. Sometimes it takes the cold sting of truth and loneliness to realize that there are more valuable things than a career. At a time when the world is experiencing economic crunch, someone who tries to save jobs is a hero.

What is rude on the other hand is the way Christians are presented. Although Blanche's character shows a positive portrayal of Christians in film, the fact is she is still treated as a joke and is the source of some of the film’s comedy.

There are occasions of strong languages and some suggestive scenes. The film should be viewed only by older teens and adults.

They Wait

Cast: Jaime King, Terry Chen; Director: Ernie Barbarash; Producer: Andrew Koster; Screenwriters: Trevor Markwart, Carl Bessay, Doug Taylor; Music: Hal Beckett; Editor: Lisa Robison; Genre: Horror; Cinematography: Gregory Middleton; Distributor: Brightlight Pictures; Location: Canada; Running Time: 89 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

After three years of stay in Shanghai China, couple Jason (Terry Chen) and Sarah (Jaime King) along with their son Sammy (Regan Oey) return to Canada for the funeral of Jason's uncle. The timing of the travel coincides with the Chinese festival of Ghost Month where it is believed that during this time ghost’s turn to demons if no offerings and sacrifices are made. Soon after their arrival, many strange occurrences happen which include Sarah and Sammy seeing ghosts, and worst when Sammy became mysteriously ill. When modern medicine fails, Sarah desperately turns to a Chinese pharmacist (Henry O) who tells her that her son is likely in a death grip by a disturbed ghost of a Chinese teenager and Sarah may lose him forever by end of Ghost Month festival if she will not subject herself to a dangerous ritual that will bring peace to the angry ghost. Will Sarah submit herself to the ritual and save her dying son?

They Wait offers a good package of horror film that has an interesting plot and compliments of acting, sound effects, and production design. The visual effects are likewise commendable for being effective in jolting the viewers without being destructive. The combined Western and Asian setting blend well for overall theme of the movie. There were scenes that were bit slow and dragging like when the child was being haunted and during the funeral wake with camera panning on the guests. But in general, scenes were well-coordinated and keep up to the interest of the viewers. Technically, the film has above average quality that pays off the time and money of the viewers.

The film gives emphasis on the importance of respect for the dead for peace of their souls and those who are living. Otherwise mysterious thing can happen and poses danger to life like what the family in the film has experienced. Similarly, life is precious and should be protected. Any dark secret specifically against life will come out no matter how long it takes and those responsible will pay for it. Whilst the overall theme of the film is horror and overpowering evil ghosts in the context of Chinese culture, it also highlights one great love of a mother to a child. A mother did not have second thought of risking her life to save the life of her son. A husband who is equally concerned to his child listens to the plead of the wife and trusts and supports her all the way. On the whole, "They Wait" is a positive film projecting values of respect, love, peace, faith and justice. However, scenes may be too scary for children, CINEMA recommends to viewers age 14 and above.

Monster VS. Aliens

Cast: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriquez, Jordana Brewster ; Director: Justin Lin; Producers: Neal H. Moritz, Vin Diesel, Michelle Fottrell; Screenwriter: Chris Morgan; Music: Bryan Tyler; Genre: Action/Adventure;; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: Los Angeles, USA, Panama, Mexico; Running Time: 107 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS

Van Diesel and Paul Walker re-team for the ultimate chapter of the franchise built on speed –FAST AND FURIOUS. Heading back to the streets where it all began, they rejoin Michelle Rodriquez and Jordana Brewster to blast muscle, tuner and exotic cars across Los Angeles and floor through the Mexican desert in the new high-octane action-thriller. When a crime brings them back to L.A., fugitive ex-con Dom Torette (Diesel) reignites his feud with agent Brian O'Conner (Walker). But as they are forced to confront a shared enemy, Dom and Brian must give in to an uncertain new trust if they hope to out maneuver him. And from convoy heist to precision tunnel crawls across international lines, two men will find the best way to get revenge: push the limits of what's possible behind the wheel.

Fast And Furious

Cast: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriquez, Jordana Brewster ; Director: Justin Lin; Producers: Neal H. Moritz, Vin Diesel, Michelle Fottrell; Screenwriter: Chris Morgan; Music: Bryan Tyler; Genre: Action/Adventure;; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: Los Angeles, USA, Panama, Mexico; Running Time: 107 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS

Van Diesel and Paul Walker re-team for the ultimate chapter of the franchise built on speed –FAST AND FURIOUS. Heading back to the streets where it all began, they rejoin Michelle Rodriquez and Jordana Brewster to blast muscle, tuner and exotic cars across Los Angeles and floor through the Mexican desert in the new high-octane action-thriller. When a crime brings them back to L.A., fugitive ex-con Dom Torette (Diesel) reignites his feud with agent Brian O'Conner (Walker). But as they are forced to confront a shared enemy, Dom and Brian must give in to an uncertain new trust if they hope to out maneuver him. And from convoy heist to precision tunnel crawls across international lines, two men will find the best way to get revenge: push the limits of what's possible behind the wheel.

Race To Witch Mountain

Cast: Dwayne Johnson, Anna Sophia Robb, Alexander Ludwig, Carla Gugino; Director: Andy Fickman; Producer: Andrew Gunn; Screenwriters: Andy Fickman, Mark Bomback, Matt Lopez; Music: Trevor Rabin; Genre: Sci-Fiction, Action/Adventure; Distributor: Walt Disney; Location: USA;

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance

BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS

Johnson plays Jack Bruno, a surly former felon who is trying to stay out of trouble by driving a cab in Las Vegas and who embarks upon the adventure of a lifetime when two teens appear in his taxi and need a ride to (seemingly) the middle of nowhere. He quickly realizes that the mysterious siblings, Sara (AnnaSophia Robb) and Seth (Alexander Ludwig), are far from average—especially when they are pursued by a villain wearing a high-tech suit of armor. With the help of Dr. Alex Friedman (Carla Gugino), the two travel to Witch Mountain, a secret government outpost in the Nevada desert, with the hopes of evading their pursuers and sending Sara and Seth home—and saving Earth in the process. This latest installment in the Witch Mountain series comes more than 30 years after the release of the first two films, ESCAPE TO WITCH MOUNTAIN and RETURN TO WITCH MOUNTAIN. Kim Richards and Ike Eisenmann, who played siblings Tia and Tony in the original films, appear in small but pivotal roles as waitress and a sheriff. Johnson makes Bruno likable, even though the character barely likes himself. Robb and Ludwig are well cast as the earnest siblings who hold the fate of the world in their hands. Chase scenes abound and special effects that highlight the teens' special powers are prevalent, but the film remains kind-friendly.

Slumdog Millionaire

Cast: Dev Patel, Madhur Mittal, Freida Pinto, Anil Kapoor, Irrfan Khan Genre: Comedy, Drama, Romance;; Director: Danny Boyle; Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy; Location: India; Running Time: 120 mins.


Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), an 18 year-old orphan from the slums of Mumbai who works as a tea maker in a call center, is about to experience the biggest day of his life. With the entire country watching, he is just one question away from winning a total of 20-million rupees on the Indian version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" But when the show breaks for a night, the show’s producer and host Prem Kumar (Anil Kapoor) calls a police to arrest Jamal on suspicion of cheating; how could a slumdog know so much? To prove his innocence, Jamal tells the story of his life in the slum where he and his brother, Salim (Madhur Mittal) grew up, of their adventures together on the streets, of vicious encounters with local gangs, and of Latika (Freida Pinto), the girl he loved and lost, and found again. Each chapter of his story reveals the key to the answer to almost each of the game show's questions. Convinced with his story, the police inspector and show’s producer allow Jamal to return to the game show for the final 20-million rupees question. Will he be able to become the biggest winner of the game show? But little did the audience know they are up for a bigger surprise on Jamal’s real reason for joining the game show.

Slumdog Millionaire is a hybrid of Hollywood and Bollywood filmmaking. The stylistic, fast-paced direction and fresh approach to a worn-out rags-to-riches story receives the nod of critics and of the Oscars’ jury, winning the most coveted Best Picture. India’s slum area is captured in picturesque detail juxtaposing the rising technological skyscrapers depicting both poverty and progress and the price its citizens have to pay to cope with changes. The film takes the audience into another part of the world rarely seen in mainstream Hollywood films without being culturally myopic and politically incorrect. It is able to depict realities of Eastern, Third World poverty through a Western lens. Although the film specifies an ethnicity, the heart and soul of the story remains to be universal- eternal love, familial concerns, poverty, money and power. All these make the Slumdog Millionaire a real winner not just with critics but with the regular audience as well.

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? For sure everyone does. But apparently, the films protagonist depicts a character whose real wealth does not depend on money. Jamal never desired to become a millionaire for money’s sake although fate brought him there. What is really compelling and commendable in the movie is Jamal’s pureness of heart and undaunted values amidst the slums, despite his dark past. It only goes to show that more than the events itself, a man’s reaction to such events in his or her life, whether good or bad, determines his or her character. Jamal has all the reasons to blame his country, his family, his neighborhood and his fate for all his miseries but he never did. In spite of all the hardships he went through in life, he never pitied himself and he never allowed miseries to defeat him. Most of all, despite of poverty, he never really desired millions of money, rather, he desired in his heart to find his one and only love. Such love remains to be his purpose and ultimate desire. Slumdog Millionaire tells the audience that amidst the darkness, there is awaits a light and people should never stop dreaming. Everyone has a right to dream big and hope springs eternal even in slums. And the real wealth of everyone is not money but significant relationships where one is able to share love. In this time and age where everyone is busy looking for fame and fortune, here is a movie that tells the audience time and again, that real fortune lies in the heart that loves truly and trusts deeply.

Some scenes of violence, physical and suggestive sexual abuse may not be suitable for the very young audience so CINEMA sees the movie fit for audiences 14 and above

Dragonball Evolution

Cast: Justin Chatwin, YUn-Fat Chow, Emmy Rossum, Jamie Chung, James Marster, Joon Park, Randall Duk Kim; Director: James Wong; Producer: Stephen Chow; Screenwriters: Ben Ramsey, Akira Toriyama; Music: Brian Tyler; Editor: Matt Friedman, Chris G. Willingham; Genre: Action; Cinematography: Robert McLachlan; Distributor: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation; Location: Los Angeles, USA; Running Time: 85 min.;

Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance

Two thousand years after Piccolo (James Marsters) is imprisoned when he attempted to destroy the Earth, he escapes and begins to search for the 7 dragonballs that will enable him to summon the Shen Long dragon and make a wish to finally conquer Earth. In his search, he kills Gohan (Randall Duk Kim), grandfather of 18 year old martial arts master Goku (Justin Chatwin). Meanwhile, Goku seeks out an old family friend Master Roshi (Chow Yun-Fat) so he can unlock the secret of the dragonball and defeat Piccolo and save the Earth before the solar eclipse happens.

Dragonball Evolution is a film remake of anime TV series of the 90s. However, despite using real characters and hi end CGIs, the film falls short compared to the original cartoon. The movie is filled with tacky actions sequences, ghastly performances and below average direction. The slow-mo technique to emphasize or style an action sequence becomes tedious and corny. Another problem area is the characterization. The translation from anime to big screen real life comes to nothing with mediocre acting and weak dialogue. Fans of the original TV anime will be disappointed and first timers will be bored.

The heart of the movie is about “searching” – a search for the talismans, a search for victory, a search for one’s true character, a search for heroes and saviors. Life is a continuous journey to search and discover and to realize one’s worth and mission.
The movie’s fight sequences become more violent and destructive after it was translated to real life action. Parents should take precaution in allowing their young children to watch the movie unsupervised and unguided.

Crank High Voltage

Cast: Jason Statham, Amy Smart, Efren Ramirez, Bai Ling, David Carradine, Reno Wilson, Joseph Julian Soria, Dwight Yoakam; Director: Mark Neveldine, Brian Taylor; Producers: Gary Lucchesi, Tom Rosenberg, Skip Williamson, Richard S. Wright; Screenwriters: Mark Neveldine, Brian Taylor; Music: Mike Patton; Editor: Marc Jakubowicz, Fernando Villena; Genre: Action/ Adventure; Cinematography: Brandon Trost; Distributor: Lionsgate; Location: US; Running Time: 85 min.;

Technical Assessment: 2
Moral Assessment: 1
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above

In Crank's prequel, Chev Chelios (Statham), the unstoppable hitman, survives a freefall from a helicopter. Now, he is kidnapped by some Asian gangsters who want to take his vital organs. His heart is replaced with a plastic, battery-powered machine. After three months, Chelios wakes up and upon learning that they’re taking away his other organs, he escapes. He soon learns he must keep the batteries managing his artificial heart charged while Doc Miles (Dwight Yoakam) tries to figure out a way to put the real one back in. Desperate to find his literally stolen heart, Chelios searches Los Angeles, running into old girlfriend Eve (Amy Smart), insane prostitute Ria (Bai Ling), and various criminal types. All clues and paths lead to a Chinese gang leader named Poon Dong (David Carradine). Chelios must get his heart from Dong before the battery of his artificial heart runs out of power.

This second installment (hopefully the last) of Crank series has nothing new to offer but its usual lousy filmmaking they call non-conventional and postmodern, trash aesthetics. Surely all these are but excuses and cover-ups for an otherwise sloppy and slapstick comedic style of storytelling. The post-structural combination of cartoons and live action could’ve been promising but the shallow premise, with all its shock value, just does not work to create an impressive and compelling movie. Crank High Voltage may be a real parody that should not be taken seriously; however, as with any other films of the same genre, there must be a real message intended for the audience to learn, or to be enlightened or inspired by. Unfortunately, Crank High Voltage does not in any way achieve any of these. Even the entertainment value of the film falls flat in most scenes.

The entire premise of Crank High Voltage is an absurd and lewd depiction of underground city living. The ultra realistic violence, lots of nudity and profanities, and stereotypical portrayals of Asians which are all out of context make the film morally abhorrent. Chelios’ fight for life could’ve been commendable but his very character and means of getting back his vital organ and thus, getting back at all his enemies, is beyond human forgiveness. The film has no saving grace. It tells the audience how dark and bad the world has become with the advent of technology. No single character or incident in the film portrays goodness. Each scene or character is maliciously done to tickle the audience’s wild and naughty imagination. The blood and gore in the film’s many scenes coupled with racial discrimination, outright disrespect for elders and authorities, and tolerance of scandalous behavior are totally disgusting, not to mention silly and depressing. CINEMA finds the movie appropriate for mature audience only.

Seventeen Again

Cast: Zac Efron, Lelie Mann, Thomas Lennon, Michelle Trachtenbeg, Sterling Knight, Matthew Perry, Melora Hardin, AllisonMiller; Director: Burr Steers; Producers: Jennifer Barrette, Adam Shankman; Screenwriter: Jason Filardi; Music: Rolfe Kent; Editor: Padraic McKinley; Genre: Romance/Comedy; Cinematography: Tim Suhrstedt; Distributor: New Line Cinema; Location: Los Angeles, California, USA; Running Time: 100 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance

Mike O’Donnell (Matthew Perry) is experiencing what a lot of people call midlife crisis. His wife Scarlet (Leslie Mann) is suing for divorce, his children are aloof and indifferent to him and his most awaited promotion is given to someone else. Everything has gone awry since that memorable year in high school when he was 17, the year he was the idolized hero and golden boy of basketball with a promising future, what with all the scholarship offers to college. Now feeling at his lowest, Mike meets an old janitor who has not forgotten his exploits. Telling the janitor about his regrets over his mistakes, he wistfully wishes he were 17 again. Magically, Mike is plunged into a whirling vortex from which he emerges with his body at 17. Teenage Mike (Zac Efron) moves in with his best friend Ned (Thomas Lennon) who poses as Mike’s father when the transformed Mike enrolls at the high school. Though Mike inhabits his teenage body he has the same wife and children. He also retains the wisdom he has gained through his experiences. He helps his insecure son Alex (Sterling Knight) and his daughter Maggie (Michelle Trachtenberg) overcome their teenage problems and guides them so they do not commit the same mistakes he made. His wife thinks it weird that Mike looks like her husband when he was a teenager. She is attracted to him, though she thinks it’s wrong, she being the mother of Alex who considers the teenaged Mike his best friend. Mike is still very much in love with his wife but he can’t explain just yet why it’s not wrong for them to fall in love again. What’s in store for them?

Hitting the number one spot in the U.S. box office chart after its opening day take of $24.5 million, 17 Again, the latest Zac Efron movie is said to outdo at the tills all of his other successful movies, including the High School Musical. This, in spite of the fact that here, the heartthrob does not have his usual equally popular partner, Vanessa Hudgens to put across with sweet chemistry that enviable romance which makes the idealistic young and the not-so-young swoon with delight. In 17 Again, Zac has only a brief scene with a teenage sweetheart and in the rest of the film, is paired with a lead, old enough to be his mother. The photography and the movie are not much to rave about, yet the movie has somehow clicked. Could it be the plot then? A story about body switches is not new in the movies and it challenges our credubility. But if, when going to the movies, the moviegoer is ready for even some strange possibilities, then probably a light film like 17 Again can be pleasantly entertaining especially when it is a bit more surprising than others. It has its own kind of humor like the first dinner date between Mike’s best friend, the weird millionaire Ned and the frosty principal Jane Masterson (Melora Hardin) who can inspire true love in this man whose greatest happiness before meeting her was to flaunt Darth Vader’s light saber, Now older, with a new adult persona and sensibility, Zac Efron has retained his boyish charm and is the film’s main magnet. Outgrowing his juvenile performances, he exudes more confidence and does adequately in important scenes.

Unlike most teenage movies, 17 Again has a lot of values that can give moviegoers especially young ones, some food for thought. We have met some people like the middle-aged Mike O’Donnell. Someone who blames others for his failures. In the movie, Mike blames his wife Scarlet because he thinks the teenager pregnancy of Scarlet caused him to lose his equanimity, his games as a basketball star and eventually his college scholarship and promising future. Harping on that, he has been living in the gloried past and what would have been and not doing enough in the present to succeed. The result: failure in different aspects of his life including his failure as a husband and a father. But the good thing in the end is his realization that he wants to change if given another chance. Another positive value is the correct idea regarding sex, espoused by the “17-again” Mike. The health class teacher in the film wants to teach “safe sex” with the use of condoms, like many misguided teachers today. Mike contradicts this by advocating abstinence from sex until marriage. He is speaking from experienced. He does not want others to commit his mistakes. He is especially concerned about his own children. And he gives his daughter very good advice after he finds her weeping because she is “dumped” by her boyfriend for not consenting to have sex with him. Mike tells her she will come across many such men who are undeserving of her but eventually she will meet someone who will appreciate her for her true worth as a person and not as a sex object. There is, however, something dismaying in the way the teenaged girls are portrayed. All of them appear wild, sex-crazed and sex-starved. Even Mike’s daughter seduces him, though unsuccessfully. Three teenaged girls proposition him angling for sex, saying he does not have to remember their names. Is this a true picture of teenaged girls in high school? We hope not. This is an American film. Good forbid that our local teenagers will imitate unthinkingly what they see on the screen.

The Haunting In Connecticut

Cast: Virginia Madsen, Kyle Gallner, Elias Koteas, Amanda Crew, Martin Donovan, Sophi Knight, Ty Wood, EriK J. Berg; Director: Peter Cornwell; Producers: Paul Brooks, Daniel Farrands, Wendy Rhoads, Andrew Trapan; Screenwriters: Adam Simon, Tim Metcalfe; Music: Robert J. Kral; Editor: Tom Elkins; Genre: Horror-Suspense; Cinematography: Adam Swica; Distributor: Lionsgate Films; Location: USA; Running Time: 105 min.;

Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Sara Campbell (Virginia Madsen), a doting wife and mother with her husband Peter (Martin Donovan), a recovering alcoholic decide to buy an old and almost dilapidated house in Connecticut, despite its “past” to be nearer the hospital where their teenage son Matt (Kyle Gallner) is receiving an experimental treatment for cancer. As soon as they move in, Matt decides to use the basement as his bedroom and at once starts having creepy visions. The family dismisses these strange hallucinations as effects of his sickness and the treatment and decides to remain in the house. When Matt’s cousin Wendy (Amanda Crew) realizes that the visions the boy Matt has been seeing are the same ones in the old pictures she found, they decide to investigate further. Eventually they find out that the house had been a funeral parlor with people conducting séances and the participants dying except for the owner’s son Jonah (Erik J. Berg) who has mysteriously vanished. Matt realizes that the spirits of the dead people are still living and hunting the house and he must try to put them at peace.

One good thing about The Hunting In Connecticut is skillful sound engineering. The sound effects have been tediously and meticulously applied to create a convincing scary atmosphere. Other than this, the movie is cliché and flat. The performances are unrealistic and weak, the storyline develops predictably and the script follows an old and tired formula. The spiritual points of view become confusing with frequent references to the Bible and to God interspersed with occult beliefs. The strong Christian references in the movie are watered down by the equally strong pagan practices. Disturbingly, this has become the custom of some Catholics. Today, you will see people who combine their faith practices with pagan beliefs or compromise their Gospel values when convenient – for instance commitment to the spouse can be abandoned and justified one has fallen in love with someone else.

As in any horror movie, spirits are portrayed as violent and revengeful. The movie contains several gory scenes that may offend the sensitivities of most viewers. Parents need to guide their children when watching.

Fuschia

Cast: Gloria Romero, Robert Arrevalo, Eddie Garcia, Armida Siguion Reyna, Gina Alajar, Iza Calzado, Tony Mabesa; Director: Joel Lamangan; Producer: Antonio P. Tuviera; Screenwriters: Joel Lamangan, Ricky Lee; Music: Vanda Guzman; Editor: Marya Ignacio; Genre: Drama; Cinematography: Carlos Montano; Distributor: APT Production; Location: Philippines; Running Time: 95 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3.5
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above


BRIEF FILM SYNOPSIS

An elderly woman causes a scandal in a small community when she takes in her terminally ill first husband while still living with her current partner. But even as gossip surrounds her, she begins to find the strength within herself to speak out against the town's corrupt mayor.


OUTSTANDING FEATURES OF THE FILM:

How a woman courageously handles marital infidelity of her spouse enables her to speak out the truth against injustice and corruption in local government.

Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day

Cast: Frances McDormand; Amy Adams, Tom Payne, Mark Strong, Lee Pace, Shirley Henderson; Director: Bharat Nalluri; Producers: Nellie Bellflower, Stephen Garrett; Screenwriters: David Maggi, Simon Beaufoy; Music: Paul Englishby; Editor: Barne Pilling; Genre: ; Cinematography: John de Borman ; Distributor: Viva Films; Location: London; Running Time: 90 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Miss Guinevere Pettigrew (Frances MsDomand) has just been fired from her 4th job as a governess and she finds herself jobless and desperate on a bench in a London train station because of her rigid moral views. The day progresses and she encounters one bad luck after another that she finally she decides to pose as the applicant sent by her previous employer to an American social climber Delysia Lafosse (Amy Adams). Unfortunately, the position as Delysia’s social secretary compromises her morals as the former uses her sexuality to attain success. Amidst the backdrop of the 2nd World War, Ms. Pettigrew and Delysia become friends as each opens a new world to the other.

Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day is delightfully entertaining. Dormand and Adams deliver outstanding portrayals of an uptight and cloistered woman exposed for the first time to the world and a social climber with deep secrets. The comedy is powerful and leaves you thinking hard after the nervous laughter. The production design and music ingenuously delivers the feel and elements of circa pre-war era. Over-all, Nalluri succeeds in delivering an honest movie with a strong moral lesson without being preachy or corny.

The movie makes one very strong statement: morality cannot be compromised. We often hear people saying certain principles and ways are “already too old-fashioned” or are “no longer applicable in modern times”. And in order to have fun or be successful, certain lines are crossed without batting an eyelash. The movie proves otherwise. Although people need to adapt to ways of change and experience, the line of morality remains. While it is not prohibited to have fun and enjoy life, or to be assertive to achieve success, all must be done in a way that is proper, modest and good. At the end of the day, one finds true love and happiness when she remains true to herself and to what she believes in.

Parents should caution their very young children against watching because of some partial nudity and the tolerance of promiscuity and premarital sex.

Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past


Cast: Jennifer Garner, Matthew McConaughey, Brekin Meyer, Michael Douglas; Director: Mark Waters; Producers: Brad Epstein, Jonathan Shestack, Marcus Viscidi; Screenwriters: Jon Lucas, Scott Moore; Music: Rolfe Kent; Editor: Bruce Green; Genre: Romantic Comedy; Cinematography: Daryn Okada; Distributor: New Line Cinema; Location: USA; Running Time: 100 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Connor Mead (McConaughey) is a famous and successful fashion photographer with commitment-phobia who treats women as a temporary source of entertainment. He discards women as fast as he flashes his camera ,immediately after sleeping with them. He attends the weekend wedding ceremonies of his younger Paul (Meyer) to discourage him of being perpetually tied to one woman. He almost succeeds in ruining the wedding as he flirts with the bride’s mother. On the eve of the wedding, his late uncle and mentor Uncle Wayne (Douglas), another womanizer, visits him and sends three ghosts to warn him to change his ways before it is too late. The ghost of girlfriend past (Emma Stone) is the 16 year old girl with whom Conner first slept after his childhood crush Jenny (Garner) was charmed by another man. He is shown all the women he played along with as well as his short lived relationship with Jenny a few years after graduation. The ghost of girlfriend present is Connor’s assistant (Noureen Dewulf) who shows him what the wedding guests, including Jenny, really think of him. The ghost of girlfriend future (Olga Maliouk) shows Connor’s funeral and Jenny’s wedding to another man. Now Connor must find a way to redeem his reputation and win the love of his life before it’s too late.

The movie is cute and enjoyable if you have nothing to do on a lazy afternoon. The Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol formula provides a new flavor to the usual “boy meets ex-girlfriend; boy discovers she is the one, boy tries to win ex-girlfriend before she marries another”. There are enough crisp and clever dialogues to save the film from becoming and over-romantic movie. The acting is so-so, but then again the characters do not require much from McConaughey or Garner except to be charming and agreeable. Douglas portrays a hilarious ghost who comes back to warn his protégée of the wrong he has taught. Overall the technical aspect is satisfactory while the creative part is a little bit lacking.

The Ghost of Girlfriends Past is full of sexual innuendos. Premarital sex is glamorized and accepted as part of the lifestyle of the successful, and marriage is portrayed worthless and restricting. The women in the film are shallow, pathetic and have a low self-worth as they consent to Connor degrading them again after they have been cruelly dumped. Connor’s moral awakening in the end does not make up for all his negative attitude.

Major Movie Star

Cast: Jessica Simpson, Vivica Fox, Cheri Oteri, Steve Guttenberg; Director: Steve Miner; Producers: Avi Lerner, Boaz Davidson, Danny Dimbort, George Furla, Joe Simpson; Screenwriters: April Blair, Holly Sorensen; Music: Dennis Smith; Editor: Nathan Easterling; Genre: Comedy; Cinematography: Patrick Cady; Distributor: Millennium Films; Location: ; Running Time: 95 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

Megan Valentine (Jessica Simpson) is a pampered but naive Hollywood actress who feels stuck in the roles she is given to play. She discovers one day that she is bankrupt, with her estate wiped off by her boyfriend. Totally clueless, she drives aimlessly until she meets an accident which she survives anyhow. Carless and homeless she sleeps outside a US Army recruiting office where she is found by a handsome guy in uniform. Since her loss (of property, bank accounts, etc.) has jolted her into taking a deeper look at her life, she applies to become a soldier, thinking she would then be taken seriously from now on. But life in a boot camp proves too tough for this silver-screen babe; she calls her agent to bail her out of the army but it’s too late. She has signed a binding contract which would constitute a crime to breach.

With a poster showing a glam blonde in military uniform Major Movie Star evokes images of an old Goldie Hawn starrer, Private Benjamin, but the former is not a clone of the latter. Private Benjamin carries a social message laced with humor; Major Movie Star is thick candy floss containing a message of personal transformation inside. It’s a relief to see that while Major Movie Star’s message is noteworthy, it doesn’t come across as heavy, preachy, or angst-laden, thanks to the over-all light-and-fluffy treatment of the whole story. It has light romance and lightweight entertainment, but offers a peep into how soldiers are trained. It is predictable, and with adaptability actress Simpson displays, she just might become—given the right roles—a major movie star in real life.

Somewhere along the 95-minutes of watching Major Movie Star, you could get the feeling that it could be propaganda for the US Army. Although not exactly a class-B potboiler, Major Movie Star seems almost too positive about army recruitment, focusing on wholesome (army) characters or experiences and watering down the nastier elements of training camp life. Nonetheless it tries to say that there are values worth training (or dying) for, like love of country, respect for authority, self-discipline, determination, duty-before-pleasure, maturity, firmness of character, etc. It may be a good movie to examine by young people entering adulthood and beginning to appreciate the value of self-respect. At least, girls can be helped to realize that if they want to be taken seriously, they should reconsider dumping their “hot blonde” or shampoo-model looks and cultivating their more lasting assets.

Wolverine

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Danny Huston, Will I Am, Lynn Collins; Director: Gavin Wood; Producers: Hugh Jackman, John Palermo, Lauren Schuler Donner, Ralph Winter; Screenwriters: David Benioff, Skip Woods; Music: Harry Gregson-Williams; Editor: Nicolas de Toth, Megan Gill; Genre: Action/ Fantasy/ Sci-Fi; Cinematography: Donald McAlpine; Distributor: Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation; Location: Otago, New Zealand; Running Time: 107 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

In 1845 Logan and Victor (played as adults by Hugh Jackman and Live Schreiber) are shown as mutant half-brothers. Witnessing the murder of his father in their own home, the boy Logan discovers the deadly blades sprouting out of his knuckles and in his rage uses them for the first time, killing his father’s assassin. To dodge the murder charge, the two boys go on the run. Their closeness is demonstrated over the years as they fight side by side in the Civil War, World Wars I and II, and Vietnam. Booted out of the army in Vietnam, Logan and Victor are recruited into an elite team going on a secret operation led by army honcho Gen. William Stryker (Danny Huston). In Nigeria, however, Logan gets repulsed by the by Stryker’s atrocious methods and breaks away to lead the quiet and hidden life of a logger living with his lover Kayla (Lynn Collins). He is nonetheless found by Stryker who recruits him anew for a clandestine plan to create a Mutant of Mutants who will have all mutant powers. Meanwhile, Victor feels betrayed and abandoned by Logan and now turns into Logan’s enemy.

The action sequences in Wolverine are entertaining to watch. Like with all fantasy/sci-fi movies, if you wish to get your money’s worth, you need to suspend disbelief and to just savor the joy ride. Never mind if the movie doesn’t explain how the human body can manufacture steel blades that heed the command of anger. (Oh, we forget he’s a mutant.) If they can spread the technology it could come handy in the kitchen where you may want to chop firewood, or in the garden—to trim the hedges. But Wolverine is more sophisticated than that so this contraption is used to slice a helicopter’s rotor blades. Movie buffs who go for this genre will be thrilled to watch the adventures of this superhero; who cares about logic when what you seek is nonstop fantastic action? On the more serious side of movie making, Hugh Jackman serves as the redeeming factor of Wolverine: despite the fact that he is basically a tool in the action sequences, he takes his role seriously, as though he believed it could be real. That’s good for an actor, especially since the muscleman Jackman enjoys the support of countless female fans like the ones we sat next to in the theatre who would giggle, swoon, sigh, squeal or squeak every time the camera focuses on the actor’s physique.

We wonder, why the title? A wolverine is not a wolf, and Logan is not a werewolf. A wolverine, according to Encarta, is a “strong, dark-furred, usually solitary carnivore of the weasel family…” That harmless? Hmmm, maybe because “wolverine” just sounds nice. As we said, forget about logic. Anyway, the only saving grace CINEMA sees in yet another superhero is: this one refuses to be brutal without a cause. Now, that’s something. He would not work for a megalomaniac because he cannot stomach hurting innocent people—human beings who are simply counted as “collateral damage” by warmongering world powers. Despite his good heart, however, Logan/Wolverine registers as a pathetic idealist who is simply overpowered by evil elements around him. Superheroes need their memory, too, so what happens when they lose it?

Star Trek

Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood; Director: J.J. Abrams; Producers: J.J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof; Screenwriters: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman; Music: Michael Giacchino; Editor: Maryann Brandon, Mary Jo Markey; Genre: ; Cinematography: Daniel Mindel; Distributor: Paramount Pictures; Location: Bakersfield, California, USA; Running Time: 126 min;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 3
CINEMA Rating: For viewers 14 and above

It’s the 23rd century. The spaceship helmed by Capt. Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) is under attack by the formidable Narada spaceship under Capt. Nero (Eric Bana). Pike’s son, James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine) is about to be born as his mother is being evacuated from the besieged ship. As a young boy, Kirk is shown maniacally driving (without license, of course) a car to the Grand Canyon, outspeeding a flying traffic cop and almost plunging to his death. He climbs up the ledge, hardly unnerved. He is suspended by the Academy for a few years and in due time smuggled into the starship Enterprise. Here he continues to swagger around, gets the hots for the sultry but sensible Uhura (Zoe Saldana), and soon after appoints himself as Captain after his nearly fatal encounter with Spock (Zachary Quinto). Kirk gets the ship, but Spock wins his woman, so who’s the real winner? That is not resolved until Kirk and Spock put their heads together to save their ship from Nero the destroyer.

This 27-year old Star Trek series has many fans younger than itself. That’s because its producers have learned to adapt so that Star Trek may evolve and keep up with the times. You’ll like this 11th Start Trek movie, too, if you’re young at heart, which means even as a Senior Citizen card holder you’re still open to such things as warps, starships, time travel and black hole idiosyncracies. You’re also young at heart if you think movies are fun and do not bleed yourself dry looking for logic at every turn. Star Trek tries to strike a balance between then and now, old and new, courtly and cool. Pine as Kirk the hero is reminiscent of the 50s’ James Dean, a rabble-rouser without a cause; Quinto as Spock the other hero resurrects the refined and principled gentleman that girls fall for. Star Trek supports its story with a nifty script and good character development, and tries to inject a little naughtiness and humor in order to be more palatable at the box office.

What lessons may be learned from a movie with characters evocative of Noah’s Ark but using starships? One, Star Trek science is not to be taken as plausible—you’ll flunk Science class if you believe in it. Two, recognize the implausible and the impossible as entertainment—for instance, enjoy the sight of the spaceship Narada emerging from the Black Hole looking like a mutated cockroach magnified a quintillion times—harmless in spite of its size. Three, to win a woman, it’s better for a man to have gentle manners than cockiness and a strong libido. Four, no matter where humans find themselves in time and space, man-woman love will live on in the human heart, as the song “As Time Goes By” says, “You must remember this, a kiss is still a kiss…” Five, in times of danger, even spacewalkers still call on God—as when Capt. Pike utters upon seeing the the “giant cockroach” Narada threatening his spaceship: “Oh my God….!”

IP Man

Cast: Donnie Yen, Sammo Hung Kam-Bo, Siu-Wong Fan, Ka Tung Lam; Director: Wilson Yip; Producer: Raymond Wong; Screenwriter: Edmond Wong; Music: Kenji Kawai; Editor: Cheung Ka-Fai; Distributor: Innoform Media; Location: China; Running Time: 105 min;

Technical Assessment: 4
Moral Assessment: 3.5
CINEMA Rating: For viewers age 13 and below with parental guidance

Wushu (chinese martial arts) Grandmaster Ip Man (Donnie Yen) is highly regarded in Foshan for his passion, discipline and fighting skills. Other martial arts masters seek training under him that they can transfer to their students in martial arts schools which Foshan is known for. Ip Man belongs to a rich family who hardly says no to people asking for help including those who want to learn wushu from him which is to opposition of his wife. When the Japanese occupation comes to China, the people Foshan and the property of Ip Man are not spared. The people succumb to hunger and cruelty of Japanese soldiers claiming lives including friends of Ip Man. During this difficult situation, the Japanese officers witness Ip Man's fighting ability and think he can be an asset to them.

"Ip Man" is a well-crafted semi-biographic film with combined fictions for cinematic effects and actual facts about the life of Mr Yip Man, a known personality in the field of Chinese martial arts and the highly regarded teacher of world's famous late martial artist Bruce Lee. The film successfully makes the viewers admire Yip Man as a person. All the actors effectively delivered their portrayal of their characters especially Donnie as Ip Man. The treatment of the story including choreography of fighting scenes, friendship and siblings’ drama, and cinematic effects showing gruesome war are commendable. Lights, sounds, music, and overall production design have likewise contributed in making the film more interesting and entertaining for viewers.

The film conveys that as the saying goes like 'great power', possessing skills and talents like martial arts also come with great responsibility. Responsible people use them at the right time and opportunity. But this is not easy because most of the time there will be opportunity to challenge the person's ability and discipline. A person true to his principle and ability will find a way to continue beyond any circumstances. But over and above the cliche of the saying about great power, the film also shows that material things can perish but not the friendship and value of family. As a person who showed love for his family, friends, and country is rewarded by kind remembering of the good deeds and contribution to society. "Ip Man" is a film worth viewing, however due to some scenes showing brutal killings children age 13 and below should be accompanied by adult.

Angels And Demons

Cast: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Tom Wilkinson, Paul Giamatti, Dan Daily; Director: Tony Gilroy; Producers: Laura Bickford, Jennifer Fox, Kerry Orent; Screenwriter: Tony Gilroy; Music: James Newton Howard; Editor: John Gilroy; Genre: Drama/ Romance; Cinematography: Robert Elswit; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: several North America and Europe; Running Time: 125 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above

The film opens in slow motion as two corporate honchos brawl in the tarmac after they descend from their respective private jets with their staff watching in horror. Then we return to 2003, when smooth-talking M15 agent charmer Ray Koval (Clive Owen) meets sassy CIA operative Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts) in a consulate party in Dubai. Instantly attracted, they begin flirting with each other until they share a passionate night. However, the next morning Claire drugs Ray and steals the Egyptian documents they were both assigned to look for. Fast forward 5 years after in the US, the two, this time working for the same multinational company as intelligence operatives, cross paths and are teamed together for an assignment much to Claire’s disgust. Or is it so? After a series of flashbacks and flash forwards, as the audience is taken to a jet setting tour around the world, we realize that Claire and Owen have been meeting for years and are now planning a scheme to double cross their employers, steal the secret formula and make a few millions before leaving the spy game. But first, they have to overcome their trust issue before learning to work together.

The biggest achievement of the movie is overcoming the difficulty of non-linear story telling which is both confusing and hard to follow while being clever and amusing. Duplicity relies on cerebral work instead of muscle power. Needless to say, the violence of the film is in the script and words rather than in actual fighting and blood shedding. The cinematography and production design are dramatic as they transform and gloss every single scene regardless if it is in an Italian hotel suite or dingy spy headquarters or the bland corporate office. Owen and Roberts deliver powerful performances but do not quite achieve an intense chemistry to make their long standing love affair believable. The witty complicated plot is washed down by a pathetic and weak ending. Over-all the movie is entertaining and worthwhile albeit a little problematical with the story telling.

Duplicity raises the issue of trust and loyalty. Self-interest and greed seem to be the main motivation of the characters that it becomes hard to have faith in the very person they love.

Again, pre-marital sex is tolerated and glamorized.

But the most disturbing issue with Duplicity is the glorification of crime and presentation of criminals as funny, charming, loveable characters you root for. As it lessens the impact of the misdeed, it may deliver the wrong message especially to young viewers.

Duplicity

Cast: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Tom Wilkinson, Paul Giamatti, Dan Daily; Director: Tony Gilroy; Producers: Laura Bickford, Jennifer Fox, Kerry Orent; Screenwriter: Tony Gilroy; Music: James Newton Howard; Editor: John Gilroy; Genre: Drama/ Romance; Cinematography: Robert Elswit; Distributor: Universal Pictures; Location: several North America and Europe; Running Time: 125 min.;

Technical Assessment: 3
Moral Assessment: 2
CINEMA Rating: For mature viewers 18 and above

The film opens in slow motion as two corporate honchos brawl in the tarmac after they descend from their respective private jets with their staff watching in horror. Then we return to 2003, when smooth-talking M15 agent charmer Ray Koval (Clive Owen) meets sassy CIA operative Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts) in a consulate party in Dubai. Instantly attracted, they begin flirting with each other until they share a passionate night. However, the next morning Claire drugs Ray and steals the Egyptian documents they were both assigned to look for. Fast forward 5 years after in the US, the two, this time working for the same multinational company as intelligence operatives, cross paths and are teamed together for an assignment much to Claire’s disgust. Or is it so? After a series of flashbacks and flash forwards, as the audience is taken to a jet setting tour around the world, we realize that Claire and Owen have been meeting for years and are now planning a scheme to double cross their employers, steal the secret formula and make a few millions before leaving the spy game. But first, they have to overcome their trust issue before learning to work together.

The biggest achievement of the movie is overcoming the difficulty of non-linear story telling which is both confusing and hard to follow while being clever and amusing. Duplicity relies on cerebral work instead of muscle power. Needless to say, the violence of the film is in the script and words rather than in actual fighting and blood shedding. The cinematography and production design are dramatic as they transform and gloss every single scene regardless if it is in an Italian hotel suite or dingy spy headquarters or the bland corporate office. Owen and Roberts deliver powerful performances but do not quite achieve an intense chemistry to make their long standing love affair believable. The witty complicated plot is washed down by a pathetic and weak ending. Over-all the movie is entertaining and worthwhile albeit a little problematical with the story telling.

Duplicity raises the issue of trust and loyalty. Self-interest and greed seem to be the main motivation of the characters that it becomes hard to have faith in the very person they love.

Again, pre-marital sex is tolerated and glamorized.

But the most disturbing issue with Duplicity is the glorification of crime and presentation of criminals as funny, charming, loveable characters you root for. As it lessens the impact of the misdeed, it may deliver the wrong message especially to young viewers.

SIGNIS Statement: Angels And Demons

(Rome, May 11, 2009) Just what everyone has been waiting for: a film of a Dan Brown novel!

However, with the report of a review in L'Osservatore Romano after the film's premiere in Rome saying that the film was commercial and entertaining and that Ron Howard had made an effective thriller (although the review also suggested a mind game while watching the film, to pick the inaccuracies!), it means that a lot of the heat should have gone out of any controversy. SIGNIS Cinema Desk would certainly endorse the reviewer's conclusion that the film is 'two hours of harmless entertainment' and not a danger to the church.

Had there been no Da Vinci Code novel, film or controversy, then Angels and Demons would have probably been reviewed as a blockbuster doomsday, murder mystery thriller with a Vatican setting (looking rather authentic), discussions about the church and science with the Catholic Church treated quite respectfully. (References to persecution of scientists in the 16th and 17th centuries was sometimes inquisitorial – and is documented; prison was not easy for Galileo.) There are speculations about the secret society of scientists, The Illuminati, who seem to be a Masonic equivalent.

Angels and Demons was written some years before The Da Vinci Code and is a better written book though it is an 'airport novel', a page-turner. As with many historical novels (and Shakespeare himself was not above creating 'historical' scenarios that were inventive rather than factual), the author takes imaginative license with characters, events, and hypotheses: what if...? But Angels and Demons has a character who seems to do a 180 degree turn in character and behaviour which makes the psychological realism of the book rather absurd. In the film, there is less depth of explaining this character and so the revelation tends to be a cinema twist which, however preposterous, is somewhat more credible, at least in terms of the far-fetched plot itself.

While Ron Howard did not have permissions to film in the Vatican , the sets of the Sistine Chapel, St Peter's interiors, the Vatican Archives look quite convincing and were commented on favourably by the L'Osservatore Romano reviewer.

The scenes of the CERNS reactor are very impressive.

The key point about Angels and Demons is its church subject: church and science, past conflicts, the present challenge, a feature of recent Vatican discussions about evolution and creationism, the meeting of science and religion rather than antagonism. Not a difficult subject when one thinks of Galileo and Pope John Paul's apology in 2000. Which means that the central issues are not as threatening or offensive as the hypothesis of The Da Vinci Code with its relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and their descendants.

The day before the preview of Angels and Demons in London , channel 5 screened The Body which came and went several years ago without too much angst or even discussion. Antonio Banderas portrayed a Jesuit from Rome going to Jerusalem to examine bones discovered in what might have been Jesus' tomb and which would threaten a traditional understanding of the resurrection. There are plenty of novels and films which raise such issues by way of interest and entertainment but are not put forward as theology.

The controversy about The Da Vinci Code, book and film, certainly got people going all around the world, given the number of books sold and the multi-millions of readers. The Opus Dei connection also contributed to some of the furore.

However, this time, with only science and the church (and issues of anti-matter and its potential for mass destruction in the wrong hands) and the Vatican itself calling in Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) to solve the problems, the potential for argument is limited. As with the screenplay for The Da Vinci Code, lines have been inserted more favourable to the church. Langdon reminds the Vatican that, despite the previous controversy, they have called him in this time. There are respectful lines concerning faith and non-belief – and a final request to Langdon from Cardinal Strauss that he write gently about the church!

One of the issues facing the conclave in the film is the 'Church in the Modern World' vis-a-vis science, with the dialogue for the meeting of ideas of science and theology or extremist attitudes towards religion capitulating to science and so destroying the church – the point being that this kind of fanatic stance can become a cause, righteously crusading with violence against those who hold more moderate views – leading to what could be labelled 'ecclesiastical terrorism'.

A key issue prior to the release of the film has been the raising of controversy about the film, sight unseen, a protest that undermines the protesters' credibility.

Any controversy and protest about a film is a challenge for the church to look at how it responds. The Vatican comments from Fr Federico Lombardi deflected some heat with offhand humour (that he would say something if the film-makers took out 1000 10 year subscriptions to L'Osservatore!). However, several Italian papers began making comments about Vatican officials possibly criticising the film some months earlier. This made headlines in the media that the Vatican would object or was objecting. And publicists must have been offering prayers of thanksgiving that these rumours were doing some of their job for them.

But, in the Catholic world, the main protest has come from William Donohue, president of the Catholic League in the United States . As he did with The Da Vinci Code and The Golden Compass, he issued lists of errors in the book and said that they were to insult the church. It was alleged that he had a Canadian priest contact, not wearing clerical dress, on the set of Angels and Demons who reported that director Ron Howard and members of the production were verbally anti-Catholic. On the basis of this, spurred by an Indian journalist who is linked with the Catholic League, processions of protest were held in India and Taiwan . Many of the errors and alleged insults to the church in the Catholic League list are not in the film.

Ron Howard's publicist (or Howard himself) came up with some smart repartee, that William Donohue must be a man of faith because 'he believes without seeing'. And that Donohue and himself were in agreement – that Angels and Demons was fiction. There were some acrid comments reported from the producers about the Vatican prohibiting filming in the Vatican and parts of Rome but there were also many quotes from Tom Hanks and Ron Howard that the film was not anti-Catholic and that the Vatican would enjoy it (as has seemed to be the case from the review). The Donohue one-liner was that Howard was 'delusional'

This kind of thing (which may not go much further because of the L'Osservatore favourable comments) indicates that there is a profound difference in responding to a film, or anything that is challenging, from an 'education' point of view which leads to dialogue rather than a 'crusading' point of view which leads to two-sided polemic with antagonists rather enjoying the experience of battle in crusade. Dialogue can lead somewhere. Polemic leads nowhere but simply confirms antagonists in their positions and stances and introduces the hurling of invective which in no way mirrors the charity and peace of Christ.

The (good) news is that Dan Brown has completed another conspiracy novel, The Lost Code, due for publication and optioned for filming!



ANGELS AND DEMONS: A REVIEW by Fr. Peter Malone



May to August in the northern hemisphere spring and summer is a time for almost weekly release of blockbusters with huge budgets, action and effects and potential for high grosses at the box office. 2009 has seen Wolverine, Star Trek, followed by Angels and Demons, with Night at the Museum 2, Transformers 2 and Terminator Salvation in the offing.

Here is a doomsday plot, murder mystery, action thriller with a cast led by Tom Hanks as symbologist Robert Langdon and Ewan McGregor as the Vatican Camerlengo and an international cast portraying scientists, police, bishops and cardinals.

Angels and Demons, unlike the film of The Da Vinci Code, is fast-paced, the L'Osservatore Romano review referring to Ron Howard's dynamic direction. It also used the word 'commercial' as well as noting that it was 'harmless entertainment' and not a danger to the Church.

In fact, the film treats the church quite interestingly, scenes behind a conclave and inside the conclave, fine sets of the Sistine Chapel, the interiors of St Peter's, Castel San Angelo, the Vatican Necropolis, the Swiss Guards centre, the Vatican archives and several churches with art by Bernini. The film won't harm tourism to Rome or to the Vatican . Probably, the contrary.

The issue is science and religion. There are some very impressive scenes of CERN in Switzerland where the Big Bang was re-created in 2008. Dan Brown, writing years earlier, posited this explosion and the formation of anti-matter which is then used as a terrorist threat in Rome . Arguments are put forward about the church's record in persecuting scientists in past centuries, especially Galileo (true) with some inquisitorial interrogations and tortures. The material about the Illuminati, the underground society of scientists has some foundation but was not as extensive as speculated on here – a kind of Masonic brotherhood of scientists. (They appeared in the first Lara Croft film without anybody taking to controversy.)

One of the issues facing the conclave in the film is the Church in the Modern World vis-a-vis science, with the dialogue for the meeting of ideas of science and theology or extremist attitudes towards religion capitulating to science and so destroying the church – the point being that this kind of fanatic stance can become a cause, righteously crusading with violence against those who hold more moderate views – leading to what could be labelled 'ecclesiastical terrorism'.


Oh, the tale has so many plot-holes (with the action moving so fast you don't quite have time to follow through on them) that they don't bear thinking about – so, either one sits irritated at the inaccuracies about dates and historical figures and driven up the wall by the lack of coherence in the course of events or, as one does, offer a willing suspension of disbelief and enjoy the action for what it is, a lavishly-mounted, pot-boiling thriller.

Followers