Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Rakenrol (2011)



Rakenrol (Quark Henares, 2011)

Rakenrol is a lot of firsts for its director, Quark Henares. It is his first feature film to be produced and directed independent of any major studio backing. It is his feature first film to be completely free from any genre limitations. It is also his first feature film after the untimely death of his most loyal supporter and most honest critic, Alexis Tioseco, to which he dedicates the film as a partial fulfilment to one of Tioseco’s famous wishes for Philippine Cinema.

Gamitan (2002), produced by Viva, was clearly bankrolled to maximize the very popular sex appeal of Maui Taylor, who pumped fresh blood and class to the waning genre of titillating films that dominated Philippine cinema in the last few years of the last century and the first few years of the new millennium. Keka (2003), also produced by Viva in an effort to launch the career of Katya Santos, another one of its up and coming sexy actresses, is a revenge film, in the same vein as Toshiya Fujita’s Lady Snowblood (1973) and Lino Brocka’s Angela Markado (Angela the Marked One, 1980). Wag Kang Lilingon (Don't Look Back, 2006), a horror film which Henares co-directed with Jerry Lopez Sineneng, is co-produced by Viva with Star Cinema. Super Noypi (2006), produced by Regal Films for the Metro Manila Film Festival, is a mash-up of sci-fi and superhero elements to unwieldy results.

Rakenrol evidently has all the heart a filmmaker can ever give his film, with storylines that are partly or wholly based on actual events and cameos of Henares’ friends and heroes. Henares has clearly taken independence seriously, showering his film with the little things that made his previous films work beyond their respective genres. It overflows with so much heart, its humor and unsubtle odes to whoever and whatever may tend to be alienating. Absent of any real genre, of an actual framework to work with, of self-control, the film doesn’t really have a story to stand on, just a flimsy tale of idealistic youngsters wanting to form a rock band called Hapipaks and in the process of doing so, form life-long friendships and romantic links with each other

It could have worked better if the flimsy tale were driven by real characters instead of just stereotypes and mockeries. It also does not help that the entire film rests upon the shoulders of Jason Abalos, who is unable to turn the character of Odie, the soft-spoken lead guitarist of Hapipaks, into anything more than the typical boy-next-door who happens to have a guitar on his hands. That Glaiza de Castro, who manages to inject Irene, the swoony Hapipaks lead singer with palpable sincerity amidst the film’s unabashed caricature of everything.

Ketchup Eusebio and Alwyn Uytingco, who play the other Hapipaks bandmembers, valiantly make most of their underdeveloped and over-typecasted characters. Ramon Bautista, who plays the self-absorbed director of the Hapipaks music video, Jun Sabayton, who plays misunderstood avant-garde artist, and Diether Ocampo, who plays Odie’s cocky rival to Irene’s heart, are more comedic acts than actual characters you care to love or hate. The film is unfortunately filled to the brim with characters, including the famous Ely Buendia who is reduced to play an inspirational deus ex machina, who serve no real purpose other than as arguably unsuccessful attempts at irreverence or just clutter.

Logic and the advertised promises of working with full independence dictate that outside the fences forced by his collaborations with commercial film studios, Henares would be able to create a masterpiece, or at the very least, a very good very personal film. Unfortunately, Rakenrol is hardly a masterpiece. Although it is indeed a very personal work, it feels more than a little bit scattered, with the story never evolving to be either the quintessential movie about the Philippine rock scene or to be one truly charming romance. With the way it seems to slide out of more interesting conflicts with humor and satire, the film seems to delight in its manufactured weightlessness, never really achieving anything except perhaps for personal nostalgia, and needless tons of it.

(Cross-published in Twitch.)

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Reading reviews for rakenrol is confusing. most rock fans and henares' friends say its the movie of 2011. while clickthecity and your review say the completely different thing. i don't understand. please elaborate, kuya ogs.

Oggs Cruz said...

It really is a matter of taste. I'd understand why rock fans would enjoy the film, since it is a film made by Quark the music lover than Quark the movie fan. There's so many things in the film that only the most fervent of rock fans would be able to relate to. I also understand why Quark's friends would love the film. This is his most personal film and it has so many things only his closest of friends would be able to relate to. And that is probably the biggest problem of the film, it is a personal film that attempts to be popular but doesn't quite make it there.

Anonymous said...

Hello,

How is this personal film different from Laurice Guillien's recent personal film? The one about her husband, written & starring her daughter?

Oggs Cruz said...

Hi,

This one's personal because it is something the director has worked on and sacrificed on for several years and has many touches that are deeply connected to the director's life. Maskara is personal because it tackles an event, a person, and a craft that is very close to the heart of the filmmakers. There's probably very little difference there.

You'd probably ask me why I disliked how this film is too personal it became alienating and why I liked Maskara despite its very personal touches that may be deemed alienating. The answer there is that Rakenrol also aspires to be populist. It is a romance. It's a comedy. It's everything and anything Henares wanted it to be without really being successful at being them. Maskara, on the other hand, maintained the fact that is a fictional account of a factual event, and in a sense, is very good at being that.

Anonymous said...

madami na kasing magagandang indy ngayon. di na papasa yun pa-cute lang. pero si jun sabayton nakakatawa dito.

marcus_bulacan3 said...

i think the main problem with henares is he keeps on working with people who are close to him, who are friends. there is nothing wrong with creating a personal film, but rakenrol was like watching something too personal to the director. it was a personal as soiled and cum-stained underwear. i felt alienated like watching some stranger's debut party.

isa pang problema dito ay puro mockery na lang. at ang 'venomous' ng movie talaga. 'venomous' talaga. si henares uses his vile and backstabbing sense of humor kaso nakaka-offend talaga.

henareas is more powerful than rockstars, given his stature in life. halatang maraming sipsep sa kanya na mga rockstars kasi siya ang may-ari ng nu107. baka matanggal sila sa playlist.

ang tapang ng review na ito, ogs. at maraming magagalit sa mga critics na hindi mabait ang review sa pelikula na ito.

SORRY sir. honest opinion lang.

Anonymous said...

TOTOO BA NA YUNG BAKLANG DIREKTOR NA SI RAMON BAUTISTA AY BASED ON AVIDE LIONGOREN, MUSIC VIDEO DIRECTOR??? HAHAHAHAHA.

Anonymous said...

Hindi ko masyadong nagustuhan ang pelikula na to. Ayaw ko masyado ang characters nila Ramon Bautista. Superfluous ang pagkakagamit sa mga cameos. Kulang talaga itong pelikula na ito. HIndi ko na ulit panonoorin. Very good review, Mr. Cruz. My sentiments are the same.

Anonymous said...

It's a shame that this movie is getting more media coverage instead of Zombadings.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Cruz, I commend you for a well-written review. But I daresay that I disagree on one point. Rakenrol, being a personal film by the director, should not be the reason that the movie had failed. There are personal, near-autobiographical films in the past that are truly personal works of the director such as Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous or Gus Van Sant's Elephant, and these films still connected to audiences whether or not we knew their kith and kin or not.

The reason Rakenrol failed is because Henares had written a terrible, terrible script and has exhibited poor directing. It is not because it is a personal film.

I'm sorry, Mr. Cruz. But I totally do not support your thesis.

Anonymous said...

I'm a fan of Keka. But it seems direk Quark has remained static while the new indies have moved on. It feels like they had a party doing this film at the expense of the movie itself. But maybe he's still young enough to reassess himself as a film-maker and make adjustments?

Oggs Cruz said...

Thanks for the comment, Anonymouses.

Let me make it clear, I'm not saying Rakenrol is bad because it's a personal film. I'm saying Rakenrol failed because of many other reasons which may include the fact that it's too personal to a fault (inside jokes, reliance on cameos). I've mentioned in my review that it is a flimsy story with underrealized characters.

Anonymous said...

I think quark should move on to more mature material. he keeps on making the same movie since gamitan. a bunch of cartoon-people and stereotypes and mockeries, as you have said, oggs. what do you think?

Anonymous said...

TWO WORDS ABOUT THIS MOVIE: cameo fatigue!

Anonymous said...

oggs, have you read richard bolisay's review? has philbert dy reviewed it? where is philbert dy's review?
where is dodo dayao's review? you have to tell them to write about this movie. because this is the one movie that has polarized audiences. nobody knows whether to like it or hate it.

Oggs Cruz said...

Yeah, Chard's review pretty much sums up everything that's lacking in the film, and it's beautifully written too. I'm not sure if Philbert will review the film since he had a cameo in it. Dodo will probably review it in the future and I hope he does. I'm not exactly sure why it's a polarizing film.

Anonymous said...

Oggs, I believe this movie is polarizing because it has the same number of praises as well as thumbs-down. This movie practically brought the house down during its premiere in Cinemalaya.

Anonymous said...

every scene in this movie is like "guess-which-real-living person-henares-is-poking-fun-at"? hahahaha. sicko.

Lead Character: said...

completely agree with you. there wasn't anything much about the movie, not even its "rock" music because the music is just awful, imho. i'm surprised to find out there were people who actually praised the film.

Anonymous said...

@marcus_bulacan3 awww, wawa naman. nahuhurt ka ba para kay marc abaya? lol

geeksturr said...

Ay nasaan ang good reviews ng pelikulang to? Di counted yung facebook comments ha! Yung legit film reviews! Loljk.

Wala, ang cluttered talaga nito. We all had high hopes for this film. Disappointment of the Year.

Anonymous said...

And the Most Overrated Movie of the Year Goes To...Rakenrol! And the most overrated director award goes to...Quark Henares. (seriously, mga peeps, is he really a good director? or is he just well-connected and the son of vicky belo? think about it hard, mga film critics.)

Anonymous said...

overrated movie of the year? hindi naman. wala pa ring makaka-agaw sa korona ng in the name of love.

newpilikmata said...

sorry guys pero nayayabangan ako kay quark henares. ang yabang niya. akala mo kung sinong important filmmaker. when in fact what he's really known for is bold films in the early 2000s featuring maui taylor and katya santos. he is a soft-porn maker pretending to be a legitimate filmmaker.

Anonymous said...

who cares if "rock fans" or "henares friends" say this is the movie of the 2011. a bad film is a bad film.
they didn't bother to use adjectives didn't they? they just wanna call it film of the year. yeah right.
it's just hard to diss of your friend's most personal work. these guys just needed to say something. anything.
- leon carbon

Anonymous said...

How much exactly did Henares pay his friends to give good reviews of this cinematic offal? (Hyuk hyuk hyuk.) -peter pandesal

Oggs Cruz said...

To the anonymous posters, I will not publish comments that border being libelous.

Anonymous said...

I wanted to post this in Erik Matti's blog but he refuses to publish it. Hope you allow me to Senor Oggs because it is pertinent to Rakenrol and the "art" of critiquing cinema. Thank you.

My response to his post:

Directors already live very privileged lives (especially the successful ones). They mingle with celebrities, high society types, politicians, business moguls, etc. For directors to expect critics to adhere to the film-makers' standards of judging films reeks of arrogance of the highest order. A critic is there to relay his personal opinion of the film, no more or less. Whether a reader chooses to trust or believe a review is strictly up to the reader alone.

And to call a critic's work inferior to even the worst film ever made is simpleminded and ignorant. That's doing a disservice to the giants of the craft like Farber, Bazin or Kael. If you've bothered reading any of them then you wouldn't be in such a rush to toss around flippant remarks as if they were yesteryear's currency.

You seem to forget that film-makers such as Truffaut, Godard or Schrader began their career as critics. And without critics, film-makers like Boetticher, Hawks, Mann and even Hitchcock would still be considered hacks to this day.

Director Matti should rethink his stance on this.

Anonymous said...

I watched the film. It is neither as bad as Henares' detractors make it out to be, or as great as his supporters hype it. It just seemed lazily put together. The bad sound didn't help.

Someone also forwarded to me on Facebook, producer Erik Matti's defense of the film. I found his logic misguided in that he basically put down all movie critics. You can't help but think that Matti has exposed himself with his article. He was always branded as just an "eye candy" director by his detractors and now we know why that is: he has no respect for writers and the beauty of the written word. Maybe he should start seeking advice from his better half.

Anonymous said...

A pinoy movie critic says: i read eric's piece on rakenrol and i don't necessarily agree with his opinions. In fact, i find some of them hurtful. I have nothing but the most absolute respect to you,sir oggs, for writing these honest, unbiased, well-thought reviews. Critics are as important as filmmakers. We do not diss just for the purpose of dissing. I also think that mr. Henares' reply in that post was very self-serving and a bit self-important. If he truly believed in the value of his personal work, then there wouldn't be a need for defending it, or getting back at his detractors. I think that was not classy at all. This has been a really sad day for Philippine critics. I truly find it improper when directors defend themselves in front of critics.

Oggs, i hope that eric's piece does not faze you at all. Decent and humble critic like you should be given respect.

Anonymous said...

Much ado about nothing.