Kanzler's Movie Review: Scarface ('Nuff Said)

Image retrieved from Wikipedia

(Disclaimer: While stringent measures have been done to avoid placing spoilers in the following review, some movie elements placed below may still appear as spoilers to some people. Readers may choose to skip the synopsis and proceed to the opinion part further below.)

When one mentions the name Al Pacino, a lot of adjectives follow, but the ones you'd likely hear the most would be "great", "legend" and "epic". And he has proven himself worthy of those adjectives from the great roles he has done in numerous movies throughout the years. While some critics would disagree with me, one of those films is Scarface.

Scarface is a 1983 film by Brian de Palma about a narcissistic political refugee named Tony Montana (Pacino) who arrives to the United States after Castro orders mass emigration of Cubans due to economic problems. As soon as Montana hits US soil, he knew he was destined for great things.

After successfully finishing his first "job offer" from a rich drug dealer named Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia), the murder of a former Cuban high official also living in the same refugee camp as Montana's, he and his close friend Manny (Steven Bauer) land a daily wage-earning stint in a small burger joint. Discontent, he confronts Omar Suarez (Murray Abraham), Frank's henchmen, and the latter tells them about buying drugs from Colombians. The buy fails, and one of Montana's friends dies in the process. Manny was there to say Montana, and the two kill off the Colombians. Distrustful, Montana insists on delivering the package straight to Frank, instead of giving them to Omar.

Montana kills off one of the Colombians

Image retrieved from Clothes on Film

From this gutsy move, Tony Montana gets the respect of Lopez. Tony quickly moves up the ranks and is sent with Omar to Bolivia to negotiate with drug lord Al Sosa (Paul Shenar). Tony strikes a deal with the Bolivian, and Omar is taken out of the equation by Sosa's henchman. Upon his return in the US, Frank disagrees with how Tony handled the job and they go their separate ways.

Montana now repeatedly meets Frank's girlfriend Elvira (Michelle Pfieffer), and tells her of his plans about her. Elvira is reluctant, ultimately unresponsive towards Tony's move on her. On the other hand, Frank plots Montana's death. After a threat/offer from Frank's police friend Mal Bernstein (Harris Yulin) falls on deaf ears, an attempt to kill Tony materializes. It also fails, but not without enraging the hot-tempered Montana. He with his men go to Frank's place, finds Bernstein there, and kills them both. With Frank out of the question, Montana persuades Elvira to go with him.

Tony & Elvira dancing at Frank's favorite place

Image retrieved from home-of-hip-hop.tumblr.com

Tony Montana becomes an expert of the trade and hauls in a lot of money. With his partnership with Al Sosa growing, his relationship with Elvira and best friend Manny deteriorates. Tony is hit with a tax evasion charge and he blames Manny for all the recent string of problems. All the while, Tony blames Elvira because she can't give him a child. Elvira soon leaves Tony. With Tony on the verge of serving a jail sentence, Al Sosa offers a way out through his powerful contacts. In exchange, Tony helps Sosa get rid of a journalist attempting to expose the Bolivian to the UN.

With Tony's instability, the assassination fails. Sosa is exposed and like a wounded lion, plots his revenge against Montana. Montana's mansion is soon overrun by Sosa's soldiers, and they easily pick off Montana's guards and corner Tony himself in his room. Tony kills off a number of them using a grenade launcher, but their number was soon too much for the narcissistic Cuban, who gets repeatedly shot until he falls in his own pool of blood.

Pacino doing the trademark "Say hello to my little friend!"

Image retrieved from The Reelist

During its release, many critics slammed the film for being over-extravagant, over-stylized and excessive, or as Simon Cowell would say, "too over the top." And yet, the film's earnings showed how much different the moviegoers felt. Over time, the movie would soon rise to its now legendary status.

In some ways, this film could be seen as a ramped-up, extreme version of Martin Scorcese's 1990 film, Goodfellas. A guy, engulfed by money and power, was soon broken is the central theme of Scarface, albeit to outlandish levels. If you look at it, you can actually view it as how critic Richard Roeper puts it, a "kind of B-movie version of The Godfather (Link to source)," which, at some point, actually is. Ultimately, the movie can be deduced to two words: crime pays.

While it may be true that the excesses the film took was nothing more than facetious gratification, it was that stark showing that was key to the movie's success in sending its message. The theatrical, over-the-top portrayal of the roles is just spot-on, especially for a stature of Al Pacino.

Pacino fits well in Tony Montana's shoes. His grand gestures, his witty remarks, all his subtle movements show the method to the madness. Montana's almost bipolar personality can only be delivered so well. It's a proven fact: Pacino is a master actor.

The grandiose picturing of violence in this film, compounded by thin lines of morality, particularly those dutifully displayed through Pacino's superb acting, show an full-impact reality of the world, and how it allows you temporary satisfaction of a small part of its riches for your soul.

When all is said and done, Scarface is simply put, a classic.

Kanzler's Movie Review: Circling My Head on "Looper"

Image retrieved from "Man, I Love Films"

I don't usually post blogs on movie reviews, but I thought it's about time I started doing so with this cool film.

To say that Looper is a routine movie is way out of line. To say it pulled a Mind Screw like Inception effortlessly, however, would also be a bit off the mark. Looper is a film that, pun intended, would make your brain run in circles, which, at some points, leave you just confused.

Looper is a sci-fi movie set in 2044 with the protagonist Joe, played by Levitt, who's making a living as an assassin. There's a catch: He assassinates people from the future, who are brought back to his time via a time machine. It is when he is tasked to kill his future self (Bruce Willis) that things go loopy, so to speak.

(Disclaimer: Spoilers ahead, even if I still did many elements of the story out of my narration.)

Through a series of point-blank, no-nonsense flashbacks, Joe actually succeeds in killing his old self and gets the huge bounty for doing so - think of it as your separation pay after a long tenure. He grows old, falls in love, lives the high life (though of crime), knowing that after 30 years, he would be assassinated. When his time arrives, he objects to it, but still goes back to the past, albeit now with a different reason.

Image retrieved from http://tinribs27.wordpress.com

After a not-so-good first meeting, Old Joe tells Young Joe that there's this big boss in the future named "Rainmaker" who's pulling all the strings. As to how he's related to one of Grisham's characters is something I'd discover some other time. Anyhow... the big man now wants all the loopers killed. Old Joe went back to the past to kill the rainmaker when he's still a child. Young Joe tells Old Joe he doesn't care, and that the young must kill the old to get things back in order. Old Joe didn't take this too well. A fight ensues, and Young Joe (YJ from now on, same with Old Joe - OJ) discovers OJ's plan. YJ goes to protect OJ's child target.

The thing is, YJ developed some sort of attachment with the child, named Cyd (who's a telekinetic - another outlandish sci-fi ingredient) and his mother, Sara (played by Emily Blunt). They got er, really close, and this made YJ want to protect the child even more. Despite the fact that YJ discovered the child is indeed the future rainmaker, he still goes out of his way to guard the child from his older self, who finally arrives at the epicenter. OJ aims his gun at the child, the mom blocks the route of fire, OJ shoots nonetheless and ends up missing the target. The future is certain at that point.

Or is it?

Somewhere between this cascade, though, YJ sees through all the circles and discovers that he is Rainmaker's creator. This is one of the greats of this movie. The title itself is a subtle, invisible foreshadowing of the whole story. I only realized it till I walked out of the theater. You see, OJ's plan was to kill the child Rainmaker, right? But the mom wouldn't let him, so OJ kills the mom, making for a psychologically-unstable child with freaky telekinetic powers (Think of that music video of David Guetta's "Titanium") that'd pave the way for the development of the sadistic villain. Confused? This diagram of the film's timeline should help:

Image retrieved from Wired.com

(Click image to enlarge)

Another thing cool about this movie is how it pulled a Chekhov's Gun really well. It hinted nonchalantly of telekinetic people very early in the film. It turns out that power would have a great impact on the film's plot.

In all the spot-on acting, the brilliant writing of the plot, the movie lacked something. Somehow, somewhere, it made me lose my suspension of disbelieve. Perhaps it's the telekinesis thing? Perhaps it's the way the movie used time travel? I can't say for sure. It's something about how it toys with realism (or at least how realism should appear) and the fact that this stark manipulation is taken so... lightly, as if the radicalness of it all was non-existent.

Overall, the film sure got my head in circles. It's a great film, a very good mind screw movie that played all its cards right but somehow didn't win all the chips on the table. Still, not bad... not bad at all. If you want a watch that makes your brain tick, then Looper would certainly give you a run for your money.

Perversing the Freedom of Speech: How Filipinos Set Aside Rationality for Radicalness's Sake

Newly-appointed Chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno visited the offices under her new position today

Image retrieved from GMA News

Three months after the ouster of Renato C. Corona as the Chief Magistrate of the Philippine Supreme Court, and the public hearing of the nominees for the vacated post soon after was conducted, President Noynoy Aquino has finally given his choice: the highest court in the country was now to be presided over by the first ever woman Chief Justice, in the person of Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Taking this in retrospect, we Filipinos have that sometimes debilitating tradition of paying utang-na-loob, or that oh-so-generous hospitality we give to people who have helped us in the past. It is but unavoidable that we give some leeway led us to where we are. Surely Sereno is not immune to that, is she? Sereno's could arguably make decisions in the future that will be beneficial to the president and his interests.

However, my opinion, which could also be the opinion of many others, is not significant at this point. She had barely done anything in her job as the new Chief Justice (I repeat: It's her first day) and so we can only wait until she pulls off a favor for the president and point it to her, blatantly, if I may emphasize, once she does that.

And yet, there are many of us who seek to ignore this rational, logical cascade, and instead jump the gun on such matters. Case in point is the flock of picketers in front of the Supreme Court today, protesting Sereno's appointment. They were quick to accuse her of being a "puppet" for the administration and that her rule is merely for the president's benefit.

Rallyist groups flocked in front of the Philippine Supreme Court Tuesday (Aug. 28) to protest the appointment of Maria Lourdes Sereno as the first Woman Chief Justice of the country

Image retrieved from ABS-CBN News

Look at this for a moment: "So its the chief justice's first day of office... She's a friend of the president and she was put there by the president. She's a puppet of the administration!!" That sentence pretty much summed up the call of the picketers today at the Supreme Court. Time out: Did you get what that sentence meant? The new chief justice is barely getting things running and you say that? isn't that a bit premature? To quote Robin Williams, that's like saying obese people have a high chance of getting healthier because they might exercise. It's ludicrous, absurd and irrational.

The protest at the Supreme Court earlier this morning is just the latest of a long line of protests aimed at various people in various positions for various reasons not bearing the credibility usually associated with logic. Whether it is of students protesting of sudden increases in school fees, or of public vehicle drivers rallying about fuel price hikes, or of people from the "informal sector" - politically correct term for people who don't legally own the houses they live in, a.k.a. squatters - complaining in the streets about not liking the place where they are being relocated (note: they are being relocated to somewhere else for free), or of the usual "poor" people who go on and on about aberrations in the government (Like that RH Bill debate - that's for later)... They take to the streets not for talks, not for deliberations, not for negotiations... It's never that. It's because we've been spoiled by that illusion of People Power, that "revolution" to get what we want, period.

Some will say, "But you've never been to our position. You've never experienced what we've experienced..." But I say to them, "Heck, your experience isn't even what you're heralding! You complain about not getting what you want, and that's all there is to it. No heralding of any cause, no protecting of anything that needs to be vanguarded... You complain simply because you have the capability to. There's no issue being defended here. You're simply choosing a side, not knowing what that side actually stands for, and wait for a fight to pick up, getting a few minutes of fame alongside it."

And that is what being an "agent of change" is now for the many of us. We want people to listen to us simply because we have a voice, but it takes more than a voice to make a change. Our freedom of speech doesn't give us carte blanche to say anything we want, whenever we feel like it, wherever we want to say it. That's not what this right is for. The freedom of speech is for us to be able to channel our reason to others. Our voice now becomes our microphone to spread our logical view to other people, with other people doing the same, in an effort to seek the general will of the people and the enact changes that will benefit the society.

Rizal himself stated it, and that great historian Zaide has this in his book: "Let us be reasonable and open our eyes. God... wants us to use and let shine the light of reason with which He has so mercifully endowed us." 

Let me end with a quote from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, whose statement said it best, "Let your words be better than silence, or be silent."