eliasmakaraig
Joined Feb 2019
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews7
eliasmakaraig's rating
Due to its unique premise, I have very high expectations for Seklusyon... and rightfully so. The premise of its story is one of the more inventive in recent Filipino horror film history. I don't know if that priesthood ritual is true, regardless, it seems very convincing to me. The setting and atmosphere are wonderful as well; using the 1940's locale to boost its enchanting yet creepy mood. Similarly are the outfits. I love them so much especially Anghela's attire during the monastery mass. It really looks badass that I wanted to wear it during Halloween.
Another aspect that I like about the film is how it presented the lives of the 4 deacons. Their backstories are weaved carefully and it was showcased well on different scenarios happened during their seclusion. I admire the character presentation that is not over the top and the 4 deacons are the best example of this subtle but concrete identifiable character flesh-outs. Another beautiful subtlety is the film's open-ended denouement. It puts viewers in a position to ponder the themes of the film to decide who the true victors are. With that, Seklusyon sticks to our minds long after we finished watching it.
Despite of this, the film has a ton of flaws that in my opinion counterbalances the positives. First off, the dull acting. Don't get me wrong, the expressions and body language of the casts are nice; but the tone of their voices is really awful. It sounds unnatural. The intonations are hit and miss... sometimes they nailed the 1940's tone, sometimes they don't. The only decent actors on the film was Neil Ryan Sese and Lou Veloso.
Another big issue is the revelation of Madre Cecilia and Anghela's true nature. It's too convenient for my liking. It shouts the importance of the doctrine: "Show, don't tell." But in this case, they didn't even tell it! They just flashed the aforementioned characters' exposition on the screen. If they could just replicate what they did to the 4 deacons' exposition...
This writing laziness trickled down to another revelation: that Anghela is allegedly the daughter of Miguel. It's too cliché to be taken seriously, as if the writers just wanted to tie a loose end without no apparent reason.
Lastly, there are some minor observations I wanted to point out. The color grading is too sepia that it strains the eye. I also wanted to commend the filmmakers for not using special effects but sometimes to their own detriment; such as the blue-skinned Virgin Mary ghost that looks like a giant smurf.
So to sum up this long review, Seklusyon looks like a true magnum opus film from the outside as it really nailed the "realism" part of the equation. Yet, this ultra-realistic backdrop won't hide the ghosts of flaws that could potentially haunt viewers if they peeked inside the theatre's curtain.
Another aspect that I like about the film is how it presented the lives of the 4 deacons. Their backstories are weaved carefully and it was showcased well on different scenarios happened during their seclusion. I admire the character presentation that is not over the top and the 4 deacons are the best example of this subtle but concrete identifiable character flesh-outs. Another beautiful subtlety is the film's open-ended denouement. It puts viewers in a position to ponder the themes of the film to decide who the true victors are. With that, Seklusyon sticks to our minds long after we finished watching it.
Despite of this, the film has a ton of flaws that in my opinion counterbalances the positives. First off, the dull acting. Don't get me wrong, the expressions and body language of the casts are nice; but the tone of their voices is really awful. It sounds unnatural. The intonations are hit and miss... sometimes they nailed the 1940's tone, sometimes they don't. The only decent actors on the film was Neil Ryan Sese and Lou Veloso.
Another big issue is the revelation of Madre Cecilia and Anghela's true nature. It's too convenient for my liking. It shouts the importance of the doctrine: "Show, don't tell." But in this case, they didn't even tell it! They just flashed the aforementioned characters' exposition on the screen. If they could just replicate what they did to the 4 deacons' exposition...
This writing laziness trickled down to another revelation: that Anghela is allegedly the daughter of Miguel. It's too cliché to be taken seriously, as if the writers just wanted to tie a loose end without no apparent reason.
Lastly, there are some minor observations I wanted to point out. The color grading is too sepia that it strains the eye. I also wanted to commend the filmmakers for not using special effects but sometimes to their own detriment; such as the blue-skinned Virgin Mary ghost that looks like a giant smurf.
So to sum up this long review, Seklusyon looks like a true magnum opus film from the outside as it really nailed the "realism" part of the equation. Yet, this ultra-realistic backdrop won't hide the ghosts of flaws that could potentially haunt viewers if they peeked inside the theatre's curtain.
In a film that boasts its realism, almost everything looks unauthentic. Literally the cover of the VCD copy of this film has a quote: "The most realistic war movie ever made". My question is... in what aspect?
Is it in the weapons, vehicles, uniforms and equipment that although legit doesn't suit the time period of the film? Is it in the effects: badly-made explosions, unrealistic smoke and amateurish CGI. Or is it in the mid acting that looks like the cast comes from your local drama club?
Is the realism coming from the mechanism of the rifles that did not recoil in every shot? Or is it from the editing team that abusively overlays a bunch of soldiers to make a crowd?
The only thing that looks real to me is the film's atmosphere, specifically its music. The actual film's music breathes despair which encapsulates the grim fate of the German soldiers. It is further juxtaposed by the jolly music during the black-and-white news reports that desperately clings to propaganda in order to boost the morale of the populace. Well, that is the only realism that the film imbued, at least in my opinion.
So all in all, I still wonder why Steel Tempest shouts "realism" in its front cover. It just sets them up for failure when the audience finally realized that this film is less than authentic compared to majority of low-budget war films out there.
Is it in the weapons, vehicles, uniforms and equipment that although legit doesn't suit the time period of the film? Is it in the effects: badly-made explosions, unrealistic smoke and amateurish CGI. Or is it in the mid acting that looks like the cast comes from your local drama club?
Is the realism coming from the mechanism of the rifles that did not recoil in every shot? Or is it from the editing team that abusively overlays a bunch of soldiers to make a crowd?
The only thing that looks real to me is the film's atmosphere, specifically its music. The actual film's music breathes despair which encapsulates the grim fate of the German soldiers. It is further juxtaposed by the jolly music during the black-and-white news reports that desperately clings to propaganda in order to boost the morale of the populace. Well, that is the only realism that the film imbued, at least in my opinion.
So all in all, I still wonder why Steel Tempest shouts "realism" in its front cover. It just sets them up for failure when the audience finally realized that this film is less than authentic compared to majority of low-budget war films out there.
Spartacus, although far from the best Stanley Kubrick film, can still hold its grandeur compared to the average films released during this era. The most prominent aspect of the film that I love is its often successful use of practical effects. Practical effects involving crowds really captures the vastness expanse of the environment and sometimes the stakes of the situation, as being shown during Spartacus' final speech and the combatant's march before the final battle.
In terms of writing, the flow of the film is perfect for me. The runtime is technically long but there are no noticeable dragging sequences in its duration. The march before the final battle might look dragging to some, but for me, its tediousness adds a significant tension to the ensuing encounter. Another good facet of the film's writing is the Spartacus-Antoninus dynamic. The 2 character's personality fits perfectly, one being a rigid battle-tested brawn while the other being a calculated artist-scholar brain. This type of character dynamic is not new to films but in Spartacus' case, it is very natural and subtle, unlike other films that forcefully shove their characters' inter-personal mechanisms to viewer's throats.
When it comes to acting, Peter Ustinov being Batiatus brings home the bacon for me. There are no bad performances across the casts but Ustinov is the greatest among them by a wide margin. He manages to masterfully convey a very complicated character that hosts several range of motives and emotions throughout the film.
But in my opinion, there are still some aspects of the film that drags it down beneath perfection. The most evident for me is the lack of internal conflict inside the rebel army. During their march through Italy, after Spartacus takes charge, all the rebels seem to always agree with one another. No one opposed their leader, which looks unrealistic to me. Or if there's no internal opposition, at least show to the viewers the hardships the rebel army endured during the expedition such as their scavenging of food, battling with the harsh climate or even exhaustion or lack of morale to some slaves. Without these internal conflicts, the rebellion seems like it's all sunshine and rainbows, which is far from the truth.
This first concern springboards to my second issue which is the lack of characterization among Spartacus' generals. If only the writers fleshed out Spartacus' rebel comrades a bit more, it could at least create internal subplots inside the rebel camps.
My last concern, albeit minor, is a potential plot-hole during the Spartacus-Antoninus duel. Why did the 2 slaves didn't just slit their throats instantly? Both of them will die on the spot so none would be crucified. It's probably due to gladiator honor or whatever.
So with all things considered, I think that this film is more than your average money-grabbing product. Baring a few weak characterizations and unfulfilled potential conflicts that could make the story better, Spartacus is still a joyful spectacle that can be recommended to anyone if they could spare approximately 3 hours of their lives watching it.
In terms of writing, the flow of the film is perfect for me. The runtime is technically long but there are no noticeable dragging sequences in its duration. The march before the final battle might look dragging to some, but for me, its tediousness adds a significant tension to the ensuing encounter. Another good facet of the film's writing is the Spartacus-Antoninus dynamic. The 2 character's personality fits perfectly, one being a rigid battle-tested brawn while the other being a calculated artist-scholar brain. This type of character dynamic is not new to films but in Spartacus' case, it is very natural and subtle, unlike other films that forcefully shove their characters' inter-personal mechanisms to viewer's throats.
When it comes to acting, Peter Ustinov being Batiatus brings home the bacon for me. There are no bad performances across the casts but Ustinov is the greatest among them by a wide margin. He manages to masterfully convey a very complicated character that hosts several range of motives and emotions throughout the film.
But in my opinion, there are still some aspects of the film that drags it down beneath perfection. The most evident for me is the lack of internal conflict inside the rebel army. During their march through Italy, after Spartacus takes charge, all the rebels seem to always agree with one another. No one opposed their leader, which looks unrealistic to me. Or if there's no internal opposition, at least show to the viewers the hardships the rebel army endured during the expedition such as their scavenging of food, battling with the harsh climate or even exhaustion or lack of morale to some slaves. Without these internal conflicts, the rebellion seems like it's all sunshine and rainbows, which is far from the truth.
This first concern springboards to my second issue which is the lack of characterization among Spartacus' generals. If only the writers fleshed out Spartacus' rebel comrades a bit more, it could at least create internal subplots inside the rebel camps.
My last concern, albeit minor, is a potential plot-hole during the Spartacus-Antoninus duel. Why did the 2 slaves didn't just slit their throats instantly? Both of them will die on the spot so none would be crucified. It's probably due to gladiator honor or whatever.
So with all things considered, I think that this film is more than your average money-grabbing product. Baring a few weak characterizations and unfulfilled potential conflicts that could make the story better, Spartacus is still a joyful spectacle that can be recommended to anyone if they could spare approximately 3 hours of their lives watching it.