Frisson Break

08 Sep

Review of On the Job (Erik Matti, 2013)

J. Pilapil Jacobo

On the Job preoccupies itself too much with the techniques of cinema which make “action” a legitimate object of Filipino film that its so-called treatise on Philippine violence barely works even as police reportage. Recent cinema is entitled to its own illusion—that it is intelligent enough to launch a “critique” of establishment, but as far as commentaries are crafted, this attempt is bad writing.


However enervated, the film tracks the Bildung of Mario Maghari (Joel Torre) in his last days as an assassin who eliminates, without deliberation, but with utmost derring-do, enemies of a military general whose grand ambition is to swagger and stutter at the Philippine Senate. I write Bildung (a German word that means “maturation” or “development”) as the story pertains to a life at the cusp of  integration into the social or alienation from its space. And I write “last days,” because Mario, the inmate, has been granted his date of release.  Two documents signify two stipulations of  “freedom” then: 1) the photograph of the target that orders a occasional foray into the “outside” and 2) the parole that sends Mario back into the life before penalty and all manner of privilege projected from the semblance of power distributed to those singled out as deft from among those punished. The rewards of the latter release may be amorphous, far from pecuniary, but it should be worth a shot for Mario, who is still able to hold on to the assurance of an idea or a prospect becoming concrete in spite of its abstraction. The love from a wife and a daughter is a chance to be finally free from mercenary subsistence.

Without a doubt, there is thrill, frisson (French this time), in the demonstration of the ethos that is born and bred from this character who slouches, with de rigeur conviction, toward soulful deliverance. Notwithstanding the temporal promise that is hinged upon the date of release, that calendrical sign becomes a premise to digress into melodrama, particularly the defiles of the domestic lumpen, and into the Bildung of the apprentice Daniel (Gerald Anderson). The writing could have just concentrated on the scenarios which persuade Mario to train Daniel into becoming a death machine, and on the sequences which drive Mario to meet his “social” death on the verge of his reprieve, but a final digression sends the story spiralling into its nadir: a heroic narrative dramatized by lawyer Francis Coronel, Jr. (Piolo Pascual). This is where the thrill becomes cheap; the action that is produced by such titillation is found out as derivative of what has been done in more rigorous,albeit less lustrous lifetimes of the action film. Coronel’s Bildung proposes the figure of the redeemer who is only fulfilled after going through the motions of a naïveté that will be subjected to an epiphany on the crisis of the republican state and revised by a savoir-faire that drives the practitioner of skill to self-destruct in righteousness.

The way Coronel’s deplorable character is essayed sends the film to the pits. Pascual tackles the role as though he had the finesse to acquit himself in the polytropic milieu of a crime scene. He poses and tries too hard to pass as investigator, resorting to musculature, apparel, coiffure, gadgetry, choreography, all manner of gimmickry that his studio allows him to claim just to be legible as suave hero. His hysterical sheen is the film’s principal technical achievement. The gifts of Jay Halili as editor, Erwin Romulo as musical scorer, and  Ricardo Buhay III are wasted here. Their sophisticated knowledge of the state of film art has been instrumentalized to conceal the deficiencies of Michiko Yamamoto’s writing, the imposture of Erik Matti’s direction, and the hallucinations of Piolo Pascual’s acting (he is almost endowed with extra-sensory perception when the smoothest of criminals is within a strut away). As far as technical excellence is concerned, On the Job should prove that cinema in these parts has come a long way. And yet, one must call out expertise, when its role is merely prosthetic, dissimulating the offenses of a visual politics whose hermeneutics of suspicion is an ideological chore that “manufactures consent” through the erotic appeal of a hyper-realized metropolis. Ishmael Bernal must be turning in his grave,after that allusion to his “tropical traffic.”  The disarray is sensuous, but it does not mark out a sentient cinema complex.

The supporting actors need to be cited for their participation in this folly. There was something facetious that worked for Leo Martinez as the irreverent politician in a forgotten satirical film. None of that comic timing should have been transported into this film. Michael de Mesa languishes as the senator who has invented a philistine lexicon of political savvy. Shaina Magdayao’s exposures can be compared to her sister’s futile campaign to intuit the possibility of an actress in an obscure Viva Films experiment. Angel Aquino is a banshee, but her shriek could have been calibrated by no less than the premier technician of today’s vocal contest (even if she doesn’t have the range to show for it).Gerald Anderson looks and sounds the part of a Filipino American deprived of his Adidas in a Palawan penitentiary. Joey Marquez interprets the ineffectual policeman type along the lines of imbecility. Vivian Velez botches an opportunity to bring the film into noir terrain. One must remind her that wearing black and speaking in a smoky tone are not enough to resurrect the femme fatale image.

Lito Pimentel’s vignette on fear is instructive, a counterpoint to Joel Torre’s opera on the menace that devours all manner of hope in a man who discovers that freedom taken away can never be taken back once one commits to the occupations of violence.

The selection of the film at the Director’s Fortnight in Cannes is a travail to the mind. Can sheer technical tenacity elide the most alienated consciousness of crime and punishment in this hapless country? The surface is enthralling, yes, but only because visceral content that is inevitably bloated has been neutralized, if not almost “always already” negated. Such technology of thought can only be savage.


Image source:


Posted by on 08/09/2013 in Film Review, Philippine Film


Tags: , , , ,

366 responses to “Frisson Break

  1. Laurence Sevilla

    08/09/2013 at 4:46 PM

    I have to say that your review has not achieved its purpose. You’re work has reflected your personality rather than the movie. Anyone could have written what you wrote without sounding arrogant. Reviews are not reaction papers.

    • tatang

      10/09/2013 at 3:26 PM


    • Aia del Mundo

      10/09/2013 at 10:43 PM

      Well said Laurence.

    • Jc Limcaco

      10/09/2013 at 11:14 PM

      Exactly my thoughts. I stopped reading after the second paragraph.

      • aileenpiacos

        11/09/2013 at 12:59 PM

        Make it first sentence. My eyes rolled.

      • racsalcedo

        11/09/2013 at 1:24 PM

        I stopped reading after the first sentence, instead, I scrolled down and read the comments… he should have written this in layman’s terms… MUCH SIMPLER.

    • Gershom

      11/09/2013 at 12:33 AM


      One should always remember that an excellent grasp of language cannot and should never be a license for intellectual masturbation, as most deem this poor review to be.

      • joem

        12/09/2013 at 6:45 PM

        I’m going to quote this some other time. You made the perfect argument sir. 🙂

      • Boboy Garrovillo

        12/09/2013 at 11:28 PM

        Pointless nose bleed language . Doesn’t really explain where you stand. Shakey foundations.

    • Gregorio de tirad pass

      11/09/2013 at 1:41 AM

      Bravo Lawrence

    • aileenpiacos

      11/09/2013 at 12:58 PM

      Hahaha. Same thoughts.

    • Gara Pata

      11/09/2013 at 5:46 PM


    • juxtapoz

      11/09/2013 at 6:29 PM

      Funny how people tried so hard to show that they’re intelligent by making use of such old-fashioned imposing words even the British government released a notice for mandatory use of plain English for all british government institution (see here Even a Briton would roll his eyes and call him prick.

    • Anddy

      12/09/2013 at 10:52 AM

      Wow, a reaction paper should be more scholarly and intellectual than a review, so students are asked to write film or book reaction papers at school pala! I didn’t know that. And i really wonder how you would write this review by J. Jacobo in your own style, since you said ANYONE can write what he has written “without sounding arrogant.” Can you do the honor for all the people here who are intimidated by this review? Please? Hope you can really separate content from style, if you know what it means.

      • Pujot

        12/09/2013 at 2:43 PM

        Technical prowess < storytelling. Then he bashes all the actors.

  2. Gerardine de los Reyes

    10/09/2013 at 12:42 AM

    Are you trying to be funny?

  3. Bea

    10/09/2013 at 1:19 AM

    Just what are you saying, really.

  4. Blue

    10/09/2013 at 1:33 AM

    What are you talking about?!?! What language is that? This is not a review! It’s an exhibition of words that nobody’s using in the real world!

    • Gregorio de tirad pass

      11/09/2013 at 1:47 AM


    • twilalalala

      11/09/2013 at 7:48 AM

      Ahahah! This almost brought me to tears. Very well said! Stopped reading at the first paragraph and just scanned the rest because I can’t help shaking my head.

  5. carl dizon

    10/09/2013 at 1:52 AM

    brad. ang pretentious ng review mo.

  6. dudung

    10/09/2013 at 3:29 AM

    May bagong thesaurus app si koya (free edition). Kulang nalang “Chutzpah” tsaka “Oomph factor”

    • mario

      24/03/2014 at 5:08 PM

      hahaha 70% thesaurus 10% google translate 20% stupid

  7. Matthew

    10/09/2013 at 8:08 AM

    I feel OTJ could’ve been so much better. It’s a step in the right direction when it comes to local wide release movies but the script, casting, acting, could still be improved. I’d give it a score of 3/5 overall and an A+ for effort.

  8. blizzards14

    10/09/2013 at 8:36 AM

    I hate YCC. Feeling high-brow critique na mas mahirap pang i-please kaysa kay Manohla Dargis, Kenneth Turan at Roger Ebert. hmmpf…. who writes something that only the writer can understand. This is not the language of the youth.

  9. Miss Enscene

    10/09/2013 at 10:22 AM

    Wow, deep.

  10. hshshshs

    10/09/2013 at 11:46 AM

    Feeling mo anggaling mo magsulat. Dami mong alam. Manood ka na lang ng no other woman

  11. Jacobo

    10/09/2013 at 11:47 AM

    Umm. ano kamo? English please.

  12. Ramon Lanuza

    10/09/2013 at 12:11 PM

    WTF did I just read?

  13. Chris

    10/09/2013 at 12:33 PM

    This is hands down the worst, most overly written review for anything I have ever read. Quit your day job.

    • milkman

      10/09/2013 at 9:47 PM

      I think you mean don’t quit your day job cause obviously he is not good at this…

    • James

      11/09/2013 at 9:10 PM

      yes please

  14. Nosliw

    10/09/2013 at 12:40 PM

    Ano ??? Wala akong naintindihan !!! Pa review mo sa kanya ang Kuwento ni Mabuti at Thy Womb ang sasabihin niyang EXCELLENT ! Walang maganda at magaling sa kanya kundi ang idolo niya…

  15. jani boker

    10/09/2013 at 12:42 PM

    So, deep ka na sa lagay na ‘yan, teh?

  16. jed arboleda

    10/09/2013 at 12:53 PM


  17. sinagpiptipayb (@Sinag55)

    10/09/2013 at 12:53 PM

    You’re the one to talk about bad writing. “mercenary subsistence”? Really? “Calendrical sign” ? God, you’re pretentious.

    “the parole that sends Mario back into the life before penalty and all manner of privilege projected from the semblance of power distributed to those singled out as deft from among those punished.”??????????

    Next time, use a word from another language only when there’s no equivalent in English or if something of what you mean will be lost. Otherwise, it’s just pretentious. It’s just you saying “I know these words and you don’t! Woohooo, I’m smarter than you!” I mean, I don’t have a Ph.D on Comparative literature, but I know that this is bad writing.

    So, basically, your point is that the movie became derivative because of Pascual’s character arc, right? That it would have been an ok movie, if it focused on Torre’s and Anderson’s characters. That you don’t like either the cinema verite that Matti used or the depiction of urban squalor (I don’t know what you meant by “hyper-realized metropolis”, I haven’t watched the movie yet), and that the movie’s technical aspects are great. Well, your analysis is nothing really special, shallow even. So maybe you’re writing’s surface is enthralling (I’d say confusing but that’s just me) but it lacks depth. Such technology of thought can only be savage.

    • twilalalala

      11/09/2013 at 7:52 AM

      After reading your comment I FINALLY understood what this whole trash of an article meant. Thanks for the translation, bro! Mehehe You should re-write this! (Or make a better one haha) Srsly.

      • kace

        11/09/2013 at 3:31 PM

        I second the motion.

  18. Francis Maria Regalado

    10/09/2013 at 1:00 PM

    What is so bad about the way this guy writes? It doesn’t take two minutes to google what specific words mean and how they’re used in context. Writing doesn’t always have to pander to an audience, especially when discussing a field one holds in high regard. Self-indulgent? Maybe, but I understand that. Young Critics’ Circle nga e. So I assume the nature of discourse would be between people who share terms/jargon. If you didn’t like the review, move on the next one. You’re not its intended audience.

    • Miss Enscene

      10/09/2013 at 2:45 PM

      >Look at me, I’m being an edgy contrarian!

    • ws

      10/09/2013 at 4:22 PM

      what is so bad is precisely what you’ve touched on – that you had to google words while reading (though i’d be surprised if someone actually did this). there’s a difference between using technical terms/jargon and writing like you discovered a thesaurus for the first time and felt that using the longest synonyms made you smarter and more elite.

      and hey, this is a public-access website with a comments section, so intended audience or not, it’s open season.

    • Vincen

      10/09/2013 at 7:27 PM

      Francis, I assume that’s a rhetorical question. What’s so bad about the way this guy writes? This IS bad writing. And if we’re dragging the American film critics into the conversation, have you ever read Ebert or Scott? They are VERY READABLE– especially Ebert, and I hope you do know who he is. If anything, the “review” above only lessens the credibility of this site.

    • Jo-ann Sanchez

      10/09/2013 at 7:45 PM

      and by extension, you – because you appreciate and understand the point of this godawful piece of writing – are above average in your mental capacities?

    • milkman

      10/09/2013 at 9:53 PM

      Self indulgent? Try intellectual masturbation… A review is meant to be read by an audience. If it can’t be shared with someone, I guess you are just stroking yourself.

    • Gershom

      11/09/2013 at 12:46 AM

      The issue, I believe, is not that he uses uncommon (and to quote most other comments, “pretentious” and “pa-deep” words) jargon, but that the choice of language does not seem to justify the points he raised. Indeed, the beauty of writing, as most literary and academic authors would push for, is to make the complicated simple–and doing just that, perhaps one can say, “Less is more”. Another more glaring point of contention though, is that if the review is aimed at participating in or creating a discourse, then one expects the review to contribute to it, and not just read or sound “ooh, pa-deep.”

    • twilalalala

      11/09/2013 at 7:54 AM

      It does take more than two minutes to Google because I had to Google every other word it says haha Also, any form of writing that does not pander or even help a reader does not serve its purpose.

    • @gelibeans1

      11/09/2013 at 9:47 AM

      I don’t think anyone has the leisure to be self-indulgent when writing a review, because reviews are supposed to be objective. Intellectual grandstanding–well-realized man o pretentious–makes you veer away from the point; in this case, to deliver a critique of OTJ.

      We are not saying that this person is a lesser writer; I’m sure he has written better posts than this. It’s just that; this article is an insult, not to OTJ, but to writing film reviews in general.

      Also, “you’re not its intended audience,” so.. sino pala ang intended audience?

      • bribe

        11/09/2013 at 11:16 AM

        “Young Critics’ Circle nga e. So I assume the nature of discourse would be between people who share terms/jargon.” para lang daw sa kanila na nakakaintindi ng ~*terms*~ at ~*jargons*~ nila. in short, bawal (ata) umepal. ha ha ha

    • bullet soup

      11/09/2013 at 1:15 PM

      fist bump bro

    • Alexander Villafania

      11/09/2013 at 3:10 PM

      I guess you’re also a member of the YCC. Of course, you need to defend your own.

      But seeing as it is, movie reviewing shouldn’t be an indulgence in vocabulary. As what was stated above, IT’S A REVIEW, not a term paper. The magnificence of a review is based solely on how one understood the film, reflected upon it, interpreted it, and delivered to the reader those exact same thoughts. By posting that review in this blog, the target audience is essentially anyone who comes across it. We’re not the teachers here, but rather the students who are supposed to be given a glimpse of the movie through this reviewer’s words.

      And it was quite obvious in the way the article was written that the writer basically had a thesaurus beside him (if he’s lazy, he has to look at). When he thinks an appropriate Filipino or English word comes to mind, he runs over to the book to find a near-equivalent French, German, or whatever European translation he may find. In fact, I believe that he even wrote the article based on a number of keywords that he feels compelled to include in the review. As such, the review’s — and the movie’s — essence dissipates because the writer was too self indulgent in his quest for verbal grandeur.

      So boy, you cannot blame the public audience for criticizing the critic. Even Roger Ebert knows that and he made it a point to state that he tries to give an honest and readable review when he can — something that Mr Bocobo has utterly failed to do here.

      PS: I don’t care if he’s got more PhDs under his belt. Kudos to him. But the fact remains that the review barely even made sense, even to a learned person.

      • juxtapoz

        12/09/2013 at 3:31 PM

        On top of it, reviews are meant to be as simple as anybody who comes across it can easily understand. But I would say, this is a good way of advertising, because, I would rather watch the movie for about or over an hour than to read his article in minutes.

    • WhitstableSEACreature

      12/09/2013 at 5:08 AM

      Even if we assume that you’re right and he didn’t intend for the typical reader of this site to be his audience (which is strange in itself, because why post this review here if that were the case), this is still bad writing, and it has nothing to do with the words he used. It’s the nonsensical, rambling and convoluted way he crafted his sentences.

      It’s true, writing doesn’t have to pander to everyone, but it does have to appeal to an audience, or else why not just write in your diary and never have anyone read it? I write as a profession, for the medical industry. Half the terminology I would use in an article, laymen wouldn’t understand. But when I do write for doctors, I have to make sure that the piece is interesting for them to read, and delivers the message it was meant to.

      I understood every word this young man used and yet I struggled to navigate my way through his through process. In other words, this review was just absolute drivel, to anyone who reads it.

      Just bad writing all around. He should learn how to master his craft before critiquing anyone else’s.

    • Ernesto Dedel III

      12/09/2013 at 10:24 PM

      What is so bad about the way this guy writes? In case you haven’t noticed, almost all comments here are about the article’s language. And that’s because there is really nothing to criticize about its substance. THE ARTICLE HAS NO SUBSTANCE. Take away all the pretentiously intelligent-sounding words and you’ll have nothing left but crap. The author doesn’t even offer any substantial argument, only subjective opinions. You’re right. We’re not its intended audience. The writer is his own intended audience. No one else.

  19. jinggoy fernando

    10/09/2013 at 1:04 PM

    The point of an essay is to explain, not to confuse the phuck out of people.

  20. Anne Abad (@annecarlyabad)

    10/09/2013 at 1:09 PM

    Intellectual masturbation. Slow down, you might chafe.

    • milkman

      10/09/2013 at 9:55 PM

      Hahaha! It’s nice to see someone who thought the same thing… Alas, you said it first.

  21. Jo-ann Sanchez

    10/09/2013 at 1:12 PM

    pretentious much? These pseudo-intellectual bullcrap made me laughed so hard I almost spilled coffee on my copies of Barthes and Derrida!

  22. sinagpiptipayb (@Sinag55)

    10/09/2013 at 1:17 PM

    Nice one! Like!

  23. Yes.

    10/09/2013 at 1:18 PM

    • letterstoluna

      10/09/2013 at 3:24 PM


    • Tex

      12/09/2013 at 8:35 AM

      Haha! I laughed even without watching the video. I remember this scene and yes, you are absolutely right!

  24. bobby nonymous

    10/09/2013 at 1:19 PM

  25. Yula

    10/09/2013 at 1:22 PM

    Ang sarap mo siguro kainuman, ser.

  26. thesaurus

    10/09/2013 at 1:38 PM


    • Julie

      15/09/2013 at 12:21 AM

      Lol. Yes.

  27. mico suayan

    10/09/2013 at 1:40 PM

    Feeling ka masyado dude! My 6 years old daughter makes more sense than this shit!

  28. Christian Lucas S. Santos

    10/09/2013 at 1:42 PM

    Pfft. Pretentious. Big, foreign words do not make a good critique. Try to be intelligible before trying to sound intelligent.

  29. I am an Intellectual

    10/09/2013 at 1:57 PM

    I must interpose with my flatulent discombobulation since it is apparently noteworthy to signify that the INTENT of this vocalization is to INTERNALIZE, not to EXEMPLIFY the social elaboration of your so-called argumentative conjunction betwixt my buttocks vis-vis the context of the purpose of discussion albeit complementary in nature but parliamentary in spirit of the word as interpreted by the omniscient presence of the lord of the alternate universe thus I thank you for the gratuity to interejaculate my intestinal fortitude upon this steaming pool of utmost verbosiification.

    • taleweaver (@taleweaver)

      10/09/2013 at 2:08 PM

      Your comment was actually more comprehensible than the article. Kudos to you!

    • Rev

      10/09/2013 at 2:32 PM

      You win the internet today sir.
      I offer you a solo standing ovation. And a slow clap. While shaking my head in amazement.

    • Louise

      11/09/2013 at 8:54 AM

      You made me tear up (in laughter) :))

    • ilovetoread

      12/09/2013 at 2:57 AM

      The humor in sarcasm is still unparalleled.

  30. taleweaver (@taleweaver)

    10/09/2013 at 2:05 PM

    Dude I don’t know what you are trying to prove in this article. The whole thing is barely understandable. Flowery words are meant to enhance articles not make them garbage. Flowery words don’t make you a critic. And whatever message you wanted to say got diluted in all your high browed gibberish

  31. Harry Docena (@hvd617)

    10/09/2013 at 2:10 PM

    Fcuk the reviews! I came here for the comments! Very nice!!! I like!!!

    • Tanya Blay

      10/09/2013 at 6:17 PM

      Here for the comments!!!

    • Popcorn

      10/09/2013 at 8:48 PM

      Incidentally…. Me too! Go comments! *grabs popcorn*

    • cheesecake

      10/09/2013 at 10:54 PM

      I didn’t even read the post lol.

  32. bonx

    10/09/2013 at 2:15 PM

    i’m sorry, i get what you’re trying to say here, but but the way you approached your critique just comes off as annoying. your points could have been better appreciated if you chose to step down from the ivory tower and talk like a normal man. jargons are cool, i should know, i’ve spent over half the decade working and using them, but sometimes that finest ideas are delivered in the simplest of ways.

  33. fap

    10/09/2013 at 2:24 PM


  34. Sam

    10/09/2013 at 2:32 PM

    Huh????? You’re enligsh is so malalim nosebleed ako! Pang mayaman review mo. Pa German German at French French ka pa. “We Ho Lan” (That’s puro ka naman drawing in Chinese!!) Kala mo ikaw lang marunong ng poreign language??? “Take note” this is one of the so called Young Critics Circle. Aristotle J. Atienza teaches language, literature, and popular culture in the Filipino Department at the Ateneo de Manila University. He has also taught special courses on eroticism and pornography. We have a pornographer in the Haus!!!!

    • Mayaman

      10/09/2013 at 7:03 PM

      Sam, I’m mayaman, but I still can’t make-intindi what he’s saying 😦

  35. TheSmilingBandit

    10/09/2013 at 2:51 PM

    His poor thesaurus must have felt like it was abused.

    • HereForTheComments

      10/09/2013 at 9:57 PM

      Lumabas kanin sa ilong ko *handshake*

  36. Josemari Garcia

    10/09/2013 at 3:02 PM

    Ano daw?

  37. Brent

    10/09/2013 at 3:04 PM

    Oh sorry, but what exactly were you rambling about, Mr. Jacobo? 🙂

  38. Andy

    10/09/2013 at 3:05 PM

  39. raffynotarypublic

    10/09/2013 at 3:16 PM

    Plugging my own review, in plain English. :3

  40. Joal

    10/09/2013 at 3:20 PM

    Tangina, si Miriam Santiago film critic na rin pala.

  41. Chuck

    10/09/2013 at 3:22 PM

    It was a good film. Let it be.

  42. Edz Del Rosario

    10/09/2013 at 3:27 PM

    Proof that you dont need highfalutin words to prove a point. The author of this review is just trying too hard. Students, learn from this.. And please if its not necessary, dont overattempt and use unfamiliar french or german words especially if it has a clear and more comprehensible english counterpart.

  43. Solomon

    10/09/2013 at 3:27 PM

    shallow or pa-pampam!

  44. JC Malapit

    10/09/2013 at 3:34 PM

    ..nagpapapansin lang author nito. para ma-TV. e sa kaco-comment natin malamang sumikat nga sya. -_-

  45. Chris

    10/09/2013 at 3:48 PM

    Hey man! Don’t be discouraged just because almost everyone, if not all, negatively criticized your work. They all have a point though – nobody understands your writing because it’s too flowery and has a lot of high fallutin and flowery words. Tone it down. Having said that, LISTEN to the OBJECTIVES of what they’re telling you, and forget the SUBJECTIVES. You’ve been criticized and you’ve been trolled – it’s INTERNET!
    Don’t be discouraged. Be encouraged and motivated by this.

    • penpenpenpen

      10/09/2013 at 4:46 PM

      Ditto. Instead of judging the author, do a little background research if he really writes that way. Let us not easily tag people as pretentious or whatever. Don’t be so quick to assume, guys. We all have room for improvement.

      • Quality Education

        11/09/2013 at 9:46 AM

        Actually, don’t. You’ll find that he’s a PhD and a professor in Ateneo, which makes this review even sadder.

      • penpenpenpen

        11/09/2013 at 9:51 AM

        Yes but even professors can learn too. 🙂 Let’s give the guy a chance to improve.

      • sinagpiptipayb (@Sinag55)

        12/09/2013 at 4:44 AM

        Actually he really writes this way. Check out his review of Ekstra.

      • penpenpenpen

        12/09/2013 at 8:39 AM

        Yes, precisely my point. How can someone pretend about something that seems like his nature? I know for a fact that the review he wrote was really hard to comprehend, a good example of what you shouldn’t do upon writing a review because it contradicts the very essence of it but more than harsh words, all he needs is constructive criticism.

  46. John Robert L. Luna

    10/09/2013 at 4:02 PM

    Ang cryptic. Hindi kaya may mga nakatagong code ang review na ito pag-binasa sa Kabbalah. Baka, may nakatagong mensahe ‘to para sa mga terorista, secret society, satanista etc. at nagpapanggap lang na review kaya magulong basahin.


    • kace

      11/09/2013 at 3:36 PM

      High Five!

  47. ocknarf

    10/09/2013 at 4:10 PM

    Things like these prove, yet again, that brevity is indeed the soul of wit.

  48. ekong

    10/09/2013 at 4:23 PM

    Note to the admin of this blog: take this down now or you’ll never hear the end of it. Better yet, if you want what little of your readership back, get sensible writers, rewrite everything.

  49. Luke

    10/09/2013 at 4:25 PM

    Jeezus what a horrible read. Congrats on the highfalutin words. Good job mr.thesaurus!

  50. Boggs

    10/09/2013 at 4:44 PM

    your message didn’t reach your readers, you are a failure as a writer

  51. Joaquin

    10/09/2013 at 4:52 PM

    tangina this.

  52. themoth

    10/09/2013 at 5:18 PM

    Wow. Is this in English? If it is, then I don’t know why I can’t understand a single sentence. And I’m trying really hard. I’ve got and on

  53. Emy Ruth Gianan (@kyemeruth)

    10/09/2013 at 5:21 PM

    Totally pretentious.

  54. Valerie

    10/09/2013 at 5:44 PM

    This is friggin’ lame excuse of a critique…stop trying so hard to sound high-brow because you’re not!!!

  55. Dzhango

    10/09/2013 at 5:47 PM

    Did I just read an article from the postmodern generator?

  56. N.

    10/09/2013 at 5:54 PM

    Bigyan ng jacket!

  57. Bry

    10/09/2013 at 5:55 PM

    Oh my. Maybe if we put it on an HTML code, we’ll get something.

  58. Jhong Verayo

    10/09/2013 at 6:04 PM

    “Koya” nasobrahan ka yata sa right click ng mouse mo habang nagttype sa MS Word at naghahanap ng synonyms. Ayos ka pare.

  59. Ernest

    10/09/2013 at 6:18 PM

    “…as commentaries are crafted, this attempt is bad writing.”

    Yup. Bad writing indeed.

  60. Allan

    10/09/2013 at 6:19 PM

    Your thesaurus short-circuited, hon.

    Big words do not indicate intelligence. Often, they indicate pretentiousness and lack of coherence.

  61. Miko

    10/09/2013 at 6:46 PM

    Please release an audio reading of this, I kinda want to hear you speaking your own words.

    Not angry, not insulting you, I’m just genuinely curious to hear how you sound in real life.

    • bloggerharry

      11/09/2013 at 4:05 PM

      Yes, please. With Morgan Freeman so it would be bearable.

    • asjlkasjf

      16/09/2013 at 2:59 PM

      I know! He’s my Fil prof haha. He’s such a pretentious man.

  62. triggerHAPPYboy

    10/09/2013 at 6:54 PM

    saying a lot without actually saying anything… big words but not much sense…

  63. Joel McVie

    10/09/2013 at 6:54 PM

    What this review needs are subtitles like these:

  64. Robby Iñigo

    10/09/2013 at 6:55 PM

    Shaina rocked! And kim jong un getting his head blasted at the start was fitting. Last Filipino movie I ever saw was “di bale nalang” then “scorpio nights 2”. Rather off topic..but since this dude is feeling V For Vendetta.. Ill just say it as well.

  65. Jojo Pasion Malig (@JojoMalig)

    10/09/2013 at 6:56 PM

    Who is this boy’s editor?

  66. bud tercus

    10/09/2013 at 7:01 PM

    a word of advice: never bring a knife, no matter how long or ornate, to a gunfight.

  67. Franco Mabanta

    10/09/2013 at 7:04 PM

    This comment section is so entertaining. For those of you that didn’t like this review, mine’s posted here: Comments I received were a bit different 🙂

  68. editslips

    10/09/2013 at 7:13 PM

    Love the reviews on the review! Then again, we can’t complain. We have been fore-warned: “as far as commentaries are crafted, this attempt is bad writing.” Sentences that go as long as paragraphs! (^__^)

  69. Anonymous student

    10/09/2013 at 7:21 PM

    Dr.Jacobo can write whatever the hell he wants to write because he has the right to write, like every single one of us. Don’t judge a person because he writes extremely good for your feeble minds to understand. Go Prof! Don’t mind them.

    • anonymousnalang

      10/09/2013 at 9:29 PM

      Papampam na estudyante. Bigyan ng 1.0… ay mali, Atenista pala, bigyan ng 4.0… 😛

    • Jack

      10/09/2013 at 11:50 PM

      It’s just bad writing. You don’t need to use 3 sentences if you can express your thoughts in just 1. Also, just because it’s in the dictionary, does not mean you have to use it. Compare this negative review of a movie to Roger Ebert’s negative review of this movie.

      Spot the difference.

    • ilovetoread

      12/09/2013 at 1:00 AM

      Are you trying to be sarcastic?

      If not, then, you should read the comments again. They are not judging him but his work, this review, by calling it pretentious.

      And more than the comments, read and UNDERSTAND the entire review again and prove that you are not the one with feeble mind.

    • sinagpiptipayb (@Sinag55)

      12/09/2013 at 4:46 AM

      Estudyante ka nya? Kawawa ka naman. Wag mo gayahin ha. “Extremely good” << made my day. =D

    • Lah

      12/09/2013 at 10:48 PM

      Sprry but if I were Jacobo’s prof, I would fail him.

  70. T-bag

    10/09/2013 at 7:38 PM

    So I could also be a reviewer by rambling like the ultimate warrior.


    now to sit and wait for my Pulitzer.

  71. exgangleader

    10/09/2013 at 7:51 PM

    that’s so bidung!

  72. This S#it

    10/09/2013 at 7:53 PM

    Use pretentious in a sentence.

    This stuff is pretentious.

  73. Kaye Antonio

    10/09/2013 at 8:05 PM

    Too many ignorant comments from trolls who do not realize that this form of writing is an art dedicated to the study of cinema. Trivializing his writing and calling the writer “pretentious” is just rude and cheap.

    • Alvin

      11/09/2013 at 12:17 AM

      This is art? No wonder artists are starving.

    • Ijustwantapicasso

      11/09/2013 at 1:51 AM

      Ah, art naman pala eh.

    • Mac!

      11/09/2013 at 7:06 AM

      The thing is, it is tagged as a “review.” I don’t think this is a review as much as it is a critique or an academic paper.

    • Dharma

      11/09/2013 at 10:40 PM

      While I concede that commenters could be more constructive with their criticism, I disagree with rationalizing poor writing choices as “Art.” Parang lalo mong ine-endorse ang pag-iisip na hiwalay ang sining sa araw-araw na buhay. Which…no. We have enough of that going around, thank you.

      Writing is ultimately about communication. If an author fails to achieve that because of clunky sentence structure and just, well, bad writing in general, then we have the right to call him on it. We don’t have the right to be RUDE about it, but we CAN call him on it.

    • Babushka baby

      12/09/2013 at 10:50 PM

      Saying that this review is the epitome of Filipino cinema studies is just rude and cheap too.

  74. Ra Flores

    10/09/2013 at 8:30 PM

    My eyes crossed and my nose bled reading the review but, surprisingly, I got the point that On the Job is a badly written, badly directed and badly acted movie. One helluva messy gobbledygook is what I would call this prose. Pero sa totoo lang inggit po ako kasi andami nyang alam na words 🙂

  75. bata sa kalye

    10/09/2013 at 8:49 PM

    hi guys. please criticize his arguments, not the medium.

    literature (and art in general) does not exist to please you, so please stop feeling a sense of entitlement

    get a dictionary, at paghirapan niyong basahin. the choice of words make sense, and it’s far from pretentious. tamad lang talaga kayo maghirap. which is why wala kayo PhD in comparative literature hahaha joke

    • These people are assholes.

      10/09/2013 at 10:17 PM


      People, try reading higher level dissertations and papers. Then maybe you’ll thank Sir Jayson for his simplicity

      • I tried

        10/09/2013 at 10:55 PM

        I’m no stranger to comparative literature, but the thing is, once you get to the very heart of his arguments, there really isn’t much. (Nasummarize na ni sinagpiptipayb yung gist arguments niya in a previous comment I think.) It was quite a disappointment to go through all the trouble of looking up the hard words only to find out na wala naman masyadong substance and 80% of the post was just fluff.

        I welcome intellectual exercise and discourse – but this feels like the critic is just hiding behind the jargon and hoping that no-one notices that he isn’t saying much?


        11/09/2013 at 7:47 AM

        Kahit magbasa ka ng mga dissertations at journal articles, hindi ganito ang pagka cryptic ng use of language. Sa totoo lang sa comments section, mukhang mga MA to Ph.D level ang mga nagcomment. Simple pero may sophistication sa substance.

      • qsq

        24/03/2014 at 12:34 PM

        The problem is, not everyone who reads this has a PHD or an academic intellectual. This is a blog, not term paper. Most of the people who read blogs are laymans.

    • macho man

      10/09/2013 at 11:18 PM

      His arguments are bullshit, along with his medium.

  76. backtoschool

    10/09/2013 at 8:53 PM

    I always thought that one should write with his or her audience in mind to effectively get the message across. Better go back to school then and learn this alienating technique!


    10/09/2013 at 8:59 PM

    you guys would say that too about heigegger’s being and time. why do you guys think that everything unintelligible to you doesn’t make sense? your comments show that you either 1) understand him, but that you are complaining like a kid because hindi mo na gets na kailangan niya gamitin ang mga salitang iyon para ma-nuance (mabigyan-linaw) ang mensahe. 2) don’t understand him and you’re complaining like a kid.

    grow up, kids.

    • anonymousnalang

      10/09/2013 at 9:33 PM

      “ma-nuance” ?? talaga??? hindi “mabigyan-linaw” ang translation ng nuance. Hiramin mo kaya yung thesaurus ni Prof. Jacobo para mas madaling i-translate. hayst.

      • dearestyellowstar

        10/09/2013 at 9:49 PM

        ano translation ng nuance?

    • macho man

      10/09/2013 at 11:20 PM

      Heigegger? It’s HEIDEGGER. Magqu-quote ka na nga, mali pa.

      • nor

        12/09/2013 at 11:08 PM

        *anonymousnalang: when you don’t have a literal translation of a word, you base its translated meaning on context. Hayst.

        *macho man: He didn’t quote. He referenced. And it’s more natural to assume that as typo since he does use the word on the right context, unlike your mistake which is fundamentally incorrect. Magbabash na nga lang, mali pa.

  78. F

    10/09/2013 at 9:01 PM

    A bit heavy handed on the thesaurus i see. You actually sound like the Matt Leblanc character Joey in one Friends episode. Sorry, your review all the more doesn’t make sense.

  79. happyhour

    10/09/2013 at 9:05 PM

    doc jacobo, sana nilagyan niyo muna ng warning na hindi para sa masang tao na bobo at tamad magbasa/mag-itindi ang kritisismong ito. para po ito sa mga handang magsikap magbasa. yuck mga tamad, bigyan ko kayo ng 4. sa UP, pasado kayo pero warning na iyon na hindi kayo nag-iisip nang sapat

    • These people are assholes.

      10/09/2013 at 10:19 PM


    • macho man

      10/09/2013 at 11:21 PM

      Woooooooooooooooooow. You’re from UP? Watch out, we got a genius over here!


      11/09/2013 at 7:53 AM

      UP mo mukha mo. Even the brightest professors of the country’s premier university never use this kind of language. Here’s why: they’re not afraid that people would understand what they’re saying, because they’re ready to defend that position; and they’re sure may may substance and sophistication.

      • Anonymous

        11/09/2013 at 11:08 PM

        “Even the brightest professors of the country’s premier university never use this kind of language.”

        Wrong. Clearly you haven’t been graced by these brightest professors yet. Taga san ka ba? UE? Ulol.

  80. Janon

    10/09/2013 at 9:15 PM


  81. leironmartija

    10/09/2013 at 9:15 PM

    It’s a free country, you can say whatever you want. Your review is solid, and I appreciate the time and effort you put to elucidating the finer points in the movie. I agree that it was indeed “Bildung” that developed in Joel Torre’s character, even if he was pitched to be the older man in the story. I also agree that the supporting cast, save for Leo Martinez, really dragged this movie down. My point is I read your review.

    But since you place upon yourself the task of being the intellectual who reveals these points to the masses, I would say that you have failed. In the proper context, these would be a great starting point for quite possibly a thesis on film analysis, or an assessment as to the different nodes of Philippine society that this film taps on to drive its plot across. And you can, nay, SHOULD, write such a review, such a thesis, or such an assessment. But a more refined, more “user-friendly” version of your review would have been more appreciated. Without any implication against what you’ve already written (note the first sentence in this comment), but it would not hurt to always cut down to an accessible review.

    Is your review steeped in academic jargon? Yes. Is it pretentious, snobbish, and aimed at the 1% of the population in this country who have actually bothered with a Stanley Kubrick marathon? Yes. Are you a horrible person for writing it? No.

    In fact, Mr. Jacobo, I would urge you to write more reviews in this temper. Please keep writing reviews like this one. Someone has to do it.

  82. Banukisms

    10/09/2013 at 9:17 PM

    tagalugin na lang kase.
    “A” for “a”-ffortful “a”ttempt.

  83. boboako

    10/09/2013 at 9:17 PM

    Kung tamad kayo sa pagbabasa (kaya’t wala kayong mga PhD o summa cum laude o Fullbright), aminin niyo na lang po na tamad kayo. Sa tingin ko, mas mabuti pa aminin niyo ang pagiging tamad niyo kaysa sirain si Dr. Jacobo na hindi niyo naman naipakita ang mga kamalian sa argumento niya (kung meron man). Habang malinaw naman na mahilig ang masang pinoy sa “brevity” at sa “quotes,” minsan wala naman talagang kabuluhan ang mga ito. Akala niyo ba na para sa tamad ang lahat na mga nakasulat sa internet? Ulol niyo po.

    • anonymousnalang

      10/09/2013 at 9:38 PM

      Hindi po kami tamad magbasa. Mas maraming reviews na mas mahaba pa kaysa dito pero hindi ko sinukuang basahin at sinubukan kong intindihin ang konteksto ng mga salita sa punto de bista ng manunulat.

      This is pretentious. Aminin.


        10/09/2013 at 9:44 PM

        sinubukan mo eh hindi ka naman nagtagumpay

      • It's Me :)

        10/09/2013 at 9:59 PM

        ‘Edi paghirapan mo pa para maitindihan mo. Para saan ang pagsubok kung hindi lang naman magtagumpay.

        Sabi ni L. Sanchez tungkol dito:

        The problem is, we could not properly speak for a “general” public, a public that seems to be deemed as only reaching a certain level of understandability–especially in the sphere where discursive engagements take place–without self-reflexivity. Arguing against difficulty or “un-understandability” and perceiving this stance as “sincere” service to this “public” do not validate this posturing that claims to speak for that public, a construct, an ideal in the very mind of the consciousness that calls it to being. It would be better to let the public/s receive as much discourses, and experience as much crises (especially in understanding). For all we know, the supposed “gatekeepers” of public knowledge and information–they who “stand” for the silenced–may be more narcissistic and oppressive than the ones they accuse of being postmodernly incomprehensible, by way of refusing to participate in the Rancierian distribution of the sensibile.

        Kung tamad ka para itindihin iyon kasi akala mo pretentious rin, sinasabi niya na dapat kang masanay sa paghihirap sa pagbasa. Kung oks ka na sa ganiyang pagsusuri, na “this is pretentious” lang ang mailalabas, aber okey na ‘yun kasi at least sinibukan mo. Pero sa UP, babagsak ka (halata namang hindi ka UP) dahil wala ka naman makabuhulang naisabi.

        – Joshua Monzon, Oblation Scholar. MIT. Add kita sa Facebook, Diskurso tayo. Sino ka ba?

      • Ijustwantapicasso

        11/09/2013 at 2:22 AM

        Naintindihan ko naman yung sinabe ni L. Sanchez, medyo malalim yung ibang salita pero understandable naman siya. Yung review ni Jacobo medyo parang nilaliman niya for the sake na malalim lang. Wala naman mali dun ciguro, baka art, baka nagpapapogi, baka ganun lang trip niya…ewan ko, di ako UP eh 🙂

      • Jing Panganiban-Mendoza

        12/09/2013 at 9:29 PM

        Iyan ang punto, marami namang reviews. Pumili ka ng gusto mong basahin. Kung di mo type, huwag mong basahin. Ganoon kasimple.

      • Anonymousnalangbullshit

        13/09/2013 at 12:57 PM

        This is not pretentious. To be pretentious means that the author is pretending to know what he’s talking about. In this case, Dr. Jacobo got his masters degree from the Ateneo, another masters and his Ph.D. in New York.

    • ilovetoread

      12/09/2013 at 1:47 AM

      First, congratulations! Your name is on point. Brief yet gets the message across. (Maybe Mr. Jacobo can learn a thing or two from you).

      Now on serious note, the author’s only argument in the movie is coronel (piolo pascual)’s story arc, which he easily dismiss as too heroic and redeemable. I’m one to disagree, I believe his subplot is essential to the story and presents an interesting scenario opposite to those of Torre’s and Anderson’s. Pascual’s character has his own set of dilemmas. Some people might associated this character to a hero as he died fighting with the “evils” of government. However, his death is more of a realistic approach to someone of that circumstances.

      Anyway, the rest of it was just dissing on the supporting cast. And in spite of his superfluous words, it still failed to hide the shallowness of his commentary.


    10/09/2013 at 9:21 PM

    Guys, mas matalino ba kayo kay Jacobo? Mas “pang-masa” ba ang pamamaraan ng pagsusulat niyo? Kung gayon, paki-comment na lang ng mga pangalan niyo: i-google nating lahat kung may mga award ba kayo tulad ni Jacobo. Hindi naman siya siguro inuulanan ng awards at degrees dahil pretentious siya? Sinasabi niyo ba na pretentious shit lang ang diskurso sa mga unibersidad sa labas ng bansa?

    Ay, walang nakamit sa buhay kaya’t hindi kayang maisulat ang pangalan? Sorry na lang

    • Ijustwantapicasso

      11/09/2013 at 2:46 AM

      Feeling ko mas matalino si Jacobo sakin dahil sabi mo marami siya awards at degrees, pero natawa ko sa comment mo, kase binase mo sa talino at awards at degrees yung validity nung opinyon nung mga tao 🙂

    • @gelibeans1

      11/09/2013 at 10:05 AM

      Napaka high-and-mighty at holier-than-thou naman ng ganyang challenge. So kung wala kang awards and degrees, lesser person ka na? Hindi na valid ang opinion mo?

    • Leeteraytyur

      11/09/2013 at 5:25 PM

      Hahaha!!! Parang bata kung magdahilan.

      “Ay, walang nakamit sa buhay…”
      “Ay, hindi naman masakeeet…”
      “Ay, walang salawal…”

    • Anonymousnalangbullshit

      13/09/2013 at 12:59 PM

      Finally, someone who makes sense.

  85. journgal

    10/09/2013 at 9:26 PM

    guys kailangan pa ba talaga may grade level indicator sa lahat na binabasa? dapat lagyan ng “level: grade 6” sa bawat nakikita niyo sa internet? bakit kayo nagagalit na may nagsusulat na hindi para sa tamad magbasa

  86. Luig

    10/09/2013 at 9:28 PM

    I certainly didnt enjoy that!

  87. dearestyellowstar

    10/09/2013 at 9:40 PM

    Dapat nga siguro naglagay nalang kayo ng warning na para lang sa mga katulad ninyong art/movie critic ang inyong article. Para ayon, idiot-proof kumbaga. Hehe.

    Nakakalungkot kase not good enough pa din pala sa standards ninyo iyon film. Siguro nga, for the sake of art, never pa ding papasa sa standards ninyo.

    Pretentious nga ba un article? I think, slight. Pero may cynical, skeptic, just plain gagong hula ako bakit ganyan un tono ng article, minsan, nasa personality yan. Nare-reflect naman lagi sa labas ng sarili natin kung ano ba talaga tayong klase ng tao.

    Pero a lot of people enjoyed OTJ. I think for a lot of people, ok na un. It’s a start.

    • anonymousnalang

      10/09/2013 at 10:31 PM

      you know what, dearestyellowstar, I agree with you. Kasi hindi ko maintindihan kung saan nanggaling yung condescension na nase-sense ko sa review nya e. Tsaka, iniisip ko, pinanood ba nya talaga yung pelikula (o para sa mga “tamad magbasa”, hindi ko ibig sabihing literal na hindi nya pinanood) o may pre-conceived notion na sya na hindi ito papasa sa napakataas nyang standards?

      Not at any point in the film was Leo Martinez trying to be funny or had scenes that required his “comic timing.” Not at any point in the film was Vivian Velez trying to “resurrect the femme fatale image.” Di ba middleman sya? Michael de Mesa was not a Senator, he was a congressman. Maybe he was right about Piolo Pascual. I felt that was bad casting. He was not meant to play that role. 😛 Bad script? I disagree. But maybe that’s just because I don’t have multiple degrees, post-graduate degrees or awards and what-not on comparative lit or film studies or whatever. Too bad. i enjoyed the movie, though. Poor pedestrian me, to be satisfied with the “crumbs” that Prof. Jacobo is making out the film to be. 😛

      I still say that that review wasn’t a fair one. And delivered in that tone, using those words? tsk, tsk. Siguro nga pang-kapwa art critic lang ang review na ito. Not meant for the “masses.” Pasensya na.

      Pero para sa isang taong patuloy na umaasa na babalik pa ang ningning ng pinilakang tabing sa Pilipinas, malaking bagay ang nagawa ng pelikulang ito. The fact that people want to watch a local movie, na hindi romcom, hindi drama, walang palitan ng mga nawawalang anak, at hindi fantasy na may mga dance number at walang kapararakang paggamit ng CGI (tulad ng mga pelikula ni Bobong Revilla), is an achievement in itself. Pasensya na lang po, at hindi pumasa sa standards ni Prof. “Marami nang nakamit sa buhay” Jacobo.

      • rescueannie

        11/09/2013 at 11:18 AM

        eh kasi ano gagawin kung maraming nanonood tapos ganun lang? hanggang spectacle lang? walang analysis? eh ganyan bakit hindi umuunlad ang bansa, dahil sa katulad mo: mga taong pleasure lang ang hanap


    10/09/2013 at 9:42 PM

    wow dami na-frustrate na hindi nila ma-access ang insight ni jacobo. nasanay na siguro sa mga FB quotes and sa spoonfeeding.

    • goo goo ga joob

      10/09/2013 at 11:09 PM

      uhm, i’m a blogger too. you don’t need to be overly pretentious to convey your point to the reading public. imo, his use of highfalutin words was not needed.

    • Babushka baby

      12/09/2013 at 11:01 PM

      Brevity, sir? Have you heard it? Hemingway won a Nobel Prize for his simplicity and concise language. Sorry Dr Jacobo but you should re-evaluate your writings again, or perhaps you may want to read Strunk’s Element of Style.

  89. Edward Kho (@thewanderboy)

    10/09/2013 at 10:02 PM

    Hahaha! Di ko naintindihan ang critique mo. Bobo ba ako or gusto mo lang magtunog matalino pero di mo natamo. Hahahaha! Fail.

  90. richardiarrhea

    10/09/2013 at 10:05 PM

    perhaps the years spent in the school is not totally wasted. the plethora and detailed explanation of foreign words lend lengths to the article and authenticity far beyond terrestrial relevance. the over abundance of cliche is enough to enlarge the blind spots one earnestly wants to avoid while appreciating the movie.

  91. Maricel P Montero

    10/09/2013 at 10:13 PM

    who you powz?

    • jejejeajinomoto

      10/09/2013 at 10:21 PM

      jejeje e0wzzzh phowzz! xoxo

  92. Iskolar

    10/09/2013 at 10:43 PM

    I remember my Comm 3 prof in UP taught us that if you want to be an effective and successful communicator, one of the things you should consider when speaking / writing is the clarity of your message. Unless this is purely intrapersonal then you are free from everyone’s judgment.

  93. Mareng Judith Butler

    10/09/2013 at 10:45 PM

    Bahaha, para sa inyong mga nagsasabing hindi (sa inyong mababang-uring lenggwahe) “user-friendly” itong artikulong ito: may obligasyon ba ang manunulat na maging “intelligible” sa makikitid ninyong utak? May nakita ka na bang pintor na sa art show e sasabihing “Ah! eto pala ang gusto kong ipahayag sa painting ko.” WALA DIBA?

    Puwede siguro kung artikulo ito sa Rappler o kung anupamang ‘news’: malamang hindi ito tanggapin. Pero pano yan sarili nyang blog ‘to? KANYA ‘TO E: wala siyang obligasyong sumunod sa gusto niyo; magsusulat siya ayon sa gusto niya. MALAYA siyang magsulat sa kung paano niya gusto.

    Isa pang punto: sa wika naman. Ano ba ang wika? Means of communication lang? Kung oo ang sagot niyo, pwes manirahan nalang kayo sa mundo ni Orwell sa 1984 at magsalita kayong lahat ng Newspeak!! Doubleplusgood siguro iyan sa maliliit ninyong utak. Limitado ang wika: kahit anong effort mo, may hindi ka maihahayag gamit ang wika: kung gaano ba kasarap iyung kinain mo, kung ano pakiramdam mo nung kayo na ng syota mo. O tulad nitong artikulo: kung paanong ‘hindi pa rin sapat’ ang pelikula.

    Ngunit titigil na lamang ba tayo’t tatanggapin na ‘hanggang dito’ na lang ang wika? O gagawan ito ng paraan?? Ang problema sa inyo (at sa karamihan ng mga tao) e gusto niyo yung komportable lang, iyung komodipikado (‘commodified’ para sa inyong mga mangmang) na at ‘just add water’ nalang. Kaya wala, pa-bobo na nang pa-bobo ang bawat henerasyon; TINGIN-TINGIN DIN SA DIKSYUNARYO O KAYA MAGBASA NG MGA LIBRO PAG MAY TIME.

    • Alvin

      11/09/2013 at 12:27 AM

      Well the point here is that for all the highfalutin words he used, the actual message was meh. Just because hindi nagustuhan yung message nya, makitid na agad utak? hindi marunong gumamit ng dictionary?

      Try again Judith.

      • jejejeajinomoto

        11/09/2013 at 11:03 AM

        anong hindi nagustuhan yung message? hindi mo nga na gets bobo

    • Raffy

      11/09/2013 at 12:50 AM

      Understanding “thesaurus words” does not equate to intelligence. Reading should be fun and shouldn’t give you headaches. An article should be able to convey what it wants to convey without confounding its readers or else it fails its purpose as an article. Kung totoo man yung sinasabi mong walang obligasyon ang writer sa mga babasa sa kaniyang artikulo, ano pang silbi ng pagsulat nito? Mag-mimistulang pagsasalsal lang ng writer ang mangyayari.

      • Mareng Judith Butler

        11/09/2013 at 9:54 PM

        “Reading should be fun and shouldn’t give you headaches.”

        Kung gusto mong fun lang ang pagbabasa, pwes mag-nursery rhymes ka nalang. Ang pagbabasa (at pagsusulat din) ay unang una isang ehersisyo sa pag-katha gamit ang imahinasyon. Kayong mga pasistang (Fascist po ito, by the way) nagsasabing pangit na paggamit ng wika itong artikulo ay kalaban ng imahinasyon, ng mga intelektwal, at ng malikhaing pagsulat.

        “An article should be able to convey what it wants to convey without confounding its readers or else it fails its purpose as an article.”

        Naihayag naman ang gustong maihayag a: gets ko naman ang artikulo. Without confounding its readers? Anong gusto mo, ‘say aaah baby, very goooood!’ Matanda ka na para subuan ka pa ng nanay mo. Fails its purpose? Sino ka para magdikta kung ano ang purpose ng isang artikulo o sanaysay? Kasasabi ko nga lang: hindi ito artikulo sa Rappler o news, blog ito, kung di mo nagets, problema mo na ‘yun at hindi ng manunulat.

        “Kung totoo man yung sinasabi mong walang obligasyon ang writer sa mga babasa sa kaniyang artikulo, ano pang silbi ng pagsulat nito?”

        Aba malay ko, siguro para i-express ang sarili? Siguro para na rin itong ehersisyo sa pagbanat ng mga nalalanta ng neurons sa utak ng karamihan. Sabi ko nga, gusto niyo kasi pamilyar at komportable, ready-to-eat, aba e hindi naman maaari yan: anong gusto niyo maging complacent at hindi nag-iisip ang lahat ng tao? Imagine-in mo ang mga tao sa mundo ng Wall-E, matataba’t di marunong maglakad kasi lahat ng kailangan andyan na.

        “Mag-mimistulang pagsasalsal lang ng writer ang mangyayari.”

        Siguro nga, pero di yan ang issue dito e: ang issue e kayong mga sanggol na hindi lang nagets yung artikulo, ngumangawa na. Maging totoo nga kayo sa mga sarili ninyo at aminin ninyo ang sarili ninyong mga kahinaan.

    • Ijustwantapicasso

      11/09/2013 at 2:59 AM

      I completely understand your opinion…pero chill, mam 🙂


      11/09/2013 at 8:05 AM

      You’re right that he has the right to write and express, kaya nga in the same way, we also have the right to express and we chose to express ourselves through criticizing this article. Kaya wag kang mag maganda sa point mo, dahil non-starter yan sa diskurso. Pantangang argumento ang magsabi na karapatan niya to. May sinabi ba kaming hindi niya to karapatan? May karapatan siyang magsulat, pero may karapatan rin kaming mamuna at mas lalong may karapatan siyang maging mali. Bwahaha

      • Mareng Judith Butler

        11/09/2013 at 10:04 PM

        May sinabi ba akong wala kayong karapatan? Hindi ako pasistang katulad ninyo. Binasa mo ba talaga ang kabuuan ng komento ko??

        Non-starter raw sa diskurso o, wushuuuuu, e kayo nga ‘tong pumipigil sa diskurso dahil para sa inyo ‘pretentious’ ang artikulo at wala naman talagang ibig sabihin: asan na ang ‘freedom of speech’ na winawagayway niyo?

        Oo, may karapatan kang mamuna, pero at least ganda-gandahan mo naman yung puna mo (at kayo ring iba pang spoonfed na mga sanggol): walang kalatoy-latoy e. Non-starter sa diskurso e. Bahahahaha.

    • ilovetoread

      12/09/2013 at 2:54 AM

      Tatagalugin ko para maintindihan mo. Kaya pretentious yung review na ‘to dahil walang malalim na argument yung author, kahit big and unusual words pa yung ginamit nya. In short, wala syang laman. Pompous words lang pero walang strong at valid points kung bakit ayaw nya sa story.

      So next time na magda-drop ka ng insults like bobo and mababang uri, make sure na naiintindihan mo kung ano ang kakasulat sa article.

      Di dahil hindi common words ang ginamit, matalino na. Ang totoong matalino may comprehension.

      And please don’t talk about 1984 like it’s nothing. There’s a reason why orwell is a celebrated author and ______ is not.


      12/09/2013 at 7:28 AM

      Mareng Judith Butler, bago ka magmaganda intindihin mo ang konteksto ng comment ko. Ipapaliwanag ko sayo ng dahan dahan ikanga sa iyong wika ay “spoon feeding.” Ganito po kasi yun para naman makasagot ka para makabuluhan ang ating diskusyon.

      “On Rights”
      Ang sabi mo ay: “Pero pano yan sarili nyang blog ‘to? KANYA ‘TO E: wala siyang obligasyong sumunod sa gusto niyo; magsusulat siya ayon sa gusto niya. MALAYA siyang magsulat sa kung paano niya gusto.”

      Kaya ko sinasabing: “You’re right that he has the right to write and express, kaya nga in the same way, we also have the right to express and we chose to express ourselves through criticizing this article.” Dahil ang iyong puna na malaya siyang magsulat ng kung anong gusto niya ay nakabase sa kanyang karapatang ipahayag ang kanyang saloobin. O kaya wag kang tatanga-tanga na ang response mo sa akin ay: “May sinabi ba akong wala kayong karapatan? Hindi ako pasistang katulad ninyo. Binasa mo ba talaga ang kabuuan ng komento ko??” — which leads to me to my next comment

      “On Your Stupid Remark as a Non-Starter”
      Wala tayong mararating kakacomment mo na malaya siyang magsulat ng gusto niya dahil given yun. Hindi yun ang tanong. Kaya bago mo i-take out of context remark ko sayo, isipin mo muna kung anong ibig sabihin niya. Masyado kang highblood e kasing labnaw naman ng am ng bigas ang dugong dumadaloy sa utak mo.

      And wag tayong magtago sa depensang blog niya to e, kaya malaya siyang sabihin ang kahit anong nais niya sa alinmang paraan na kanyang nakikitang tama. Award-giving body to – they are doing a social function, hindi ito parang rant page o diary. At ang mga organisasyon na may social function nararapat lang na mag exercise ng prudence sa kanilang pagsusulat.

      Kaya pwede ba next time magreply sa comments, ayus-ayusin mo at nakakapagod kang i-spoonfeed. kayabang yabang mo hindi para sa makikitid ang utak yung article na ito, pero ikaw pala dyan ang hindi makaintindi. Hayaan mo next time I will always bear in mind to walk you through every step and every detail of the argument para di ka maligaw ng landas.

  94. Ursula

    10/09/2013 at 11:05 PM

    Ph.D. Comparative Literature
    State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA
    August 2011

    M. A. Comparative Literary and Cultural Studies
    State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA
    May 2010

    M. A. Filipino Literature
    Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines
    October 2003

    A. B. Filipino Literature
    Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines
    March 2002

    • Domon Kasuy

      11/09/2013 at 9:16 AM

      O, sige na. Marami na siyang na-accomplish sa buhay. Matalino na siya. That still doesn’t make this a good review. Strip away all the fancy words and get to the gist of what he’s saying and you will find that it’s not that deep. Ni wala nga siyang diniscuss tungkol sa plot. Isa-isa lang niyang hinamak ang lahat ng gumawa ng pelikula. I disagree with nearly all his assertions and dislike the arrogant manner in which he delivered it.

      • desdes

        11/09/2013 at 11:11 AM

        eh hindi legitimate ang sinasabi mo dahil hindi mo naman pala nasalungat ang mga argumento niya. naitindihan mo ba ang binasa mo? go away mag aral ka muna. freshie ka, no? tae mga manner 2x pa pinag-uusapan mo, iyan lang yata ang nakikita mo eh

      • Domon Kasuy

        12/09/2013 at 12:27 AM

        Sige, let’s go point by point on some of the things I disagree with:
        1) “hyper-realized metropolis”? I disagree. The film’s portrayal of Metro Manila is refershingly honest. Hindi glamorized, pero hindi rin highlighted ang kapangitan. It was presented as is. Hindi “hyper-realized”.
        2) Sabi ni Prof. Jacobo, mas maganda na lang daw sana kung nag-focus na lang ang kuwento sa pag-train ni Tatang kay Daniel imbes na nag-digress sa kuwento ni Coronel. Again, I disagree. Magandang counterpoint ang kuwento ng dalawang alagad ng batas sa kuwento ng dalawang inmate/assassin. Yun nga ang premise ng plot e. Otherwise, parang Karate Kid: Inmate version lang ang kuwento.
        3) The guy clearly has something against Piolo Pascual. While I agree that he was probably miscast here, and I would have preferred a lesser known actor for the role, his performance wasn’t as bad as Jacobo makes it out to be.
        4) On Leo Martinez: “None of that comic timing should have been transported into this film”. I disagree. At no point in the film was Leo Martinez trying to be funny. If anything, it was Joey Marquez as SPO1 Acosta who provided the comic relief here (not Leo Martinez).
        5) I couldn’t disagree more with Jacobo dismissing Marquez’s performance as “imbecilic”.

        re: “freshie ka, no?” Again, with the condescending tone? FYI, matagal na akong graduate. Hindi na ako “freshie” at lalong hindi mo ako kilala. Try harder.

      • dearestyellowstar

        13/09/2013 at 2:40 PM

        Domon Kasuy, i’d have to agree with desdes. here you are again; you didn’t refute the arguments by Jacobo. all you did was say that you disagreed. QUOTED FROM YOU: “5) I couldn’t disagree more with Jacobo dismissing Marquez’s performance as “imbecilic”

        “The guy clearly has something against Piolo Pascual. While I agree that he was probably miscast here, and I would have preferred a lesser known actor for the role, his performance wasn’t as bad as Jacobo makes it out to be.”

        sinasabi mo lang na hindi ka sang-ayon. stop deluding yourself into thinking that you made an argument.

        paano ka naka-graduate. baka high school lang

      • lalapopo

        14/09/2013 at 3:36 PM


  95. goo goo ga joob

    10/09/2013 at 11:05 PM

    your review reeks of pretentiousness. this is not your diary, where you and only you can understand what you’re writing.

  96. Chryst

    10/09/2013 at 11:07 PM

    I agree with half of the points of your critic, however the overuse of profound vocabulary just makes this critic incomprehensible for the general public to understand. It feels more of a personal rant on the film rather than stating and clarifying people of what is good or bad about the film. I watched the movie and yes there are exaggerated moments and inconsistency especially weak delivery by some of the actors mentioned but I was entertained because for once somebody in the local movie industry tried and did something different from the Dramadies we see everyday. I wouldn’t call it a masterpiece but it is better than Tik Tik.

  97. Erik Mana

    10/09/2013 at 11:09 PM

    Wow! I was rolling my eyes by the second paragraph and then I stopped reading. I’ve never seen such pompous writing ever! You need to get over yourself. And don’t you dare try to “look down” on these readers. They all have very valid points. Especially the “pretentious” bit. That was pretty accurate. Everyone pretty much said it here, so I’ll just be on my way. Have a nice day! 🙂

  98. Ursula

    10/09/2013 at 11:12 PM

    “orders a occasional” hindi ba “orders an occasional” dapat. educate me.

    • Domon Kasuy

      11/09/2013 at 9:18 AM

      Napansin ko rin yun, but I’d rather not nitpick on the minor grammatical errors. It’s the condescending tone of the “review” that irks me more.

      • Frustrated

        11/09/2013 at 11:48 PM

        What condescension?

        If anything, the author assumes that his reading public would be intelligent (or rigorous) enough to struggle with his piece. Criticism, both writing and reading, necessitates productive labor. After all, the pleasure one receives from something that comes easily is but transitory.

        If he were to be condescending, the author would treat his readers as idiots and would limit his evidently extensive vocabulary in an attempt to dumb things down for them. He would remove the poetry in his work and would resort to the plain uninspired language in which most people seem to take comfort.

        Perhaps his one failing, in this case, is his faith in an intelligent public. Such faith is clearly greater than his own critics who seem to believe that “effective” communication is pandering to an audience too lazy to actually think. Unfortunately, the comments in this page show that such faith may be unfounded.

      • Domon Kasuy

        12/09/2013 at 7:51 AM

        Condescending: acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority.
        Bildung! (that’s German for you non-German speaking people)
        Frisson! (French this time! I know at least 2 more languages than you do!)

      • Frustrated

        12/09/2013 at 11:21 AM

        Good job. Now look up “patronizing.”

  99. mike

    10/09/2013 at 11:15 PM

    This article was brought to you by YCC and Shift-F7.

  100. Ron Knight

    10/09/2013 at 11:23 PM

    Pasensiya na po, nalito talaga ako sa review mo hik! Para lang akong uminom ng isang case ng beer. 😛

  101. drew

    10/09/2013 at 11:49 PM

    just by reading the FIRST sentence.. do you really know what the hell you are talking about? you need to study that language before you say things like that, especially on a review for an awesome film. oh man.. just f*ckin speechless

  102. macho man

    10/09/2013 at 11:49 PM

    William Faulkner on Ernest Hemingway

    “He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.”

    Ernest Hemingway on William Faulkner

    “Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?”

    I rolled my eyes so hard that I saw my skull.

    Though I agree Vivian Velez could have done better, Romulo, Halili, Yamamoto and Matti did a bang-up job, unlike this pathetic,condescending, pretentious and selfish drivel of a review.

    • Ra Flores

      11/09/2013 at 4:13 PM

      Pwedeng entry ito sa The Best of Bad Faulkner ;0

  103. Liz Villegas (@grrrawliiix)

    10/09/2013 at 11:55 PM

    Just gently put the thesaurus down.

    It’s ok, you can do it.

    Just put it down.

  104. Jack

    10/09/2013 at 11:57 PM


  105. Domon Kasuy

    11/09/2013 at 12:00 AM

    Andaming mga pseudointellectual dito. Hehehe.
    Sige ilabas ang mga Ph.D at mga past achievements!

    Kakain lang ako ng popcorn.

  106. The Simple Man

    11/09/2013 at 12:13 AM

    It’s very simple. It’s very basic. You don’t need a PHD, Major in Communication Arts, Major in English, etc to get this.

    Communication is effective not when you use heavy or “high” words, but when the receiving end understood your point. Therefore, at a basic level, this post is already a HUGE failure.

    When the use of words gets flowery or a touch of art is needed, it means that the purpose of the communicator is to provide the recipient the best possible appreciation of the point. At an advance level, this post is again a HUGE failure. It has failed to let his readers appreciate the point.

    I know it depends on the target market, but does this website contain an explicit or even implicit disclaimer that this is only for heavy worded people? I think not.

    IMHO, this is clearly a show off by the writer that he is a supreme intellect. Well, good luck with that. How meaningful your objective is.

  107. rexyjolly

    11/09/2013 at 12:14 AM

    Ano ‘to? Screenplay ng Inception? Natuto lang gumamit ng Thesaurus at Shift + F7, inabuso naman.

  108. sook

    11/09/2013 at 12:18 AM

    How to write an “intellectual” film review: highlight word, click Tools, go to Thesaurus. Choose that bad ass-sounding synonym that nobody uses and hope for the best 🙂

  109. Raffy

    11/09/2013 at 12:30 AM

    What’s amazing is that he’s a faculty of one of the best schools in the Philippines, he’s a doctor (PhD) and he teaches Filipino subjects!!! Reading his other works, talagang ganyan style nya, di niyo maiintindihan gusto niyang sabihin unless may katabi kayong dictionary (or kung human dictionary ka).

  110. spindoctorken (@SpindoctorKen)

    11/09/2013 at 12:43 AM

    Haha! A critic-type-person just got served with a review on his work. That’s just awesome! But I bet you really didn’t want people to read this, right? That’s why you took out your book of big, artsy words and used it to write this review, right?. Well, you did an awfully good job. Cheers to you!

  111. Yula

    11/09/2013 at 12:52 AM

    Panalo yung mga nagdedefend kay Jacobo. Halatang mga liberalartsholes.

    Sarapan nyo pag gawa ng kape ha? Medyo malaki ang chance na magiging barrista marami sa inyo.

  112. Aaron Almadro

    11/09/2013 at 1:40 AM

    Too. Many. Big. Words…. Must. Read. Archie Comics….

    Anyway, did you guys try to check him online?

  113. Jojo Pasion Malig (@JojoMalig)

    11/09/2013 at 1:53 AM

    Praktika, isabay sa teorya. Or is he just trolling everyone with deliberately bad writing?

  114. Gregorio de tirad pass

    11/09/2013 at 2:14 AM

    That is the best!

  115. Taga-UP rin

    11/09/2013 at 2:26 AM

    Nawi weirdohan ako na base ang review na ito sa pelikulang base o MALAKI ANG PINAG-UGATAN SA REALIDAD NG KARANIWANG TAO. In the first place, hindi ba ang pelikulang ito ay pananalamin ng mga karaniwang tao?

    So kung hindi mo i-sasama ang opinyon ng karaniwang tao, na pinagugatan ng pelikulang ito- na siya namang naging dahilan para magawa ang review na ito, hindi ba parang DEFEATED ANG PURPOSE NITO?

    Alalahanin natin isa itong COMMERCIAL, na ang pangunahing audience ay ang GENERAL PUBLIC, secondary lang ang kung sino mang kritiko.

    Hindi ba’t ang review ay ginagawa para sa edukasyon ng di pa napapanood ang naturang palabas?

    Ito ay HINDI PERSONAL NA DIARY, ito ay nilathala sa isang public domain na maaring mabasa ng kung sino man, ngayon dapat hayaan rin ng nagsulat ng review ang mga comments dahil kasama sa parte ng kahit anong blog ang maglagay ng komento, gaya ng di pagpigil ng nagsulat, nag-produce at nag-direct ng pelikulang tinalakay doon sa nagsulat mismo ng review na ito.

    Sa nag-comment pa lang na “literature (and art in general) does not exist to please you”, – so, sa statement pa lang na ito admittedly PRETENTIOUS nga.

    Yung may mga napag-aralang minamaliit ang opinyon ng ordinaryong tao, so dahil marami kayong nabasa magaling na kayo? HINDI LANG ACADEMIC ANG PINAGMUMULAN NG TALINO.

    Saka kung minamaliit n’yo ang mga taong sinasabi n’yong “tamad mag-aral” o “walang natamong degree” sa pananalita n’yo, TAGA-UP BA TALAGA KAYO?

    • leahprincess

      11/09/2013 at 11:06 AM

      wag ka magmarunong. marami dito MBB at EEE. ikaw, ano kurso mo? eww

    • eveATadam

      11/09/2013 at 11:15 AM

      sino ka ba magsabi na hindi pwede maging personal ang nakalagay sa public domain? hindi ba personal sa iyo ang naisulat mong iyan na nasa public domain rin? eh ang facebook account mo o twitter amputa hindi ba yan personal? ugh halatang hindi ka taga-up. ano ba ID number mo, sigurado ako hindi ka pumasa ng UPCAT

      • Taga-UP rin

        11/09/2013 at 9:45 PM

        Did you really get the point? Sige na tirahin mo na grammar ko, akademiko ka naman diba? Pero sana kinwestyon mo muna argumento ko.

      • Taga-UP rin

        11/09/2013 at 10:11 PM

        “Ikaw, ano kurso mo?”
        “Sigurado ako hindi ka pumasa ng UPCAT”

        Condescending pricks.

        Thank you both for those statements. Hind ko alam kung ganito na pala ang angas ng Isko at Iska ngayon. Mapangmataas, wala na pala sa ideyalismo ng nag-aaral sa UP ang tingnan ang pinaninindigan at core values ng institusyon na ito.


      • macho man

        12/09/2013 at 1:57 PM

        You must be one of those assholes who bought an “Iskolar than you” shirt.

      • sinagpiptipayb (@Sinag55)

        12/09/2013 at 10:13 PM

        Wow. Taga-UP po ako, DOST scholar po. Science High School. EEE po ang una kong course pero nagshift po ako sa FA dahil mas type ko dun. Gusto ko lang po sabihin na kadiri kayong nagkocomment ng “Halatang hindi ka siguro taga-UP” Ganyan na ba kayo ngayon dyan? Kakahiya. Sa mga ibang universities po, hindi po kami lahat ganyan.

  116. wassup

    11/09/2013 at 2:37 AM

    did you use google translate for this? sorry but …….. this review is insane

  117. grilledbonito

    11/09/2013 at 3:11 AM

    Even the most respected & elite movie critics wouldn’t write a review like THIS.
    This isn’t a review. It’s more of a rant.

  118. Romeo G.

    11/09/2013 at 3:20 AM

    Those who can, do; Those who can’t, teach.

    • Domon Kasuy

      11/09/2013 at 9:28 AM

      Those who can make and enjoy good movies, do.
      Those who can’t, write reviews like this one. 🙂

  119. Quark Henares

    11/09/2013 at 4:08 AM

    while J is a friend from college (a very sweet guy and truly not pretentious at all), this piece seems more about the intelligence of the piece than the film itself. that, to me, is its greatest sin.the role of the critic is to educate and inspire discussion about cinema, not befuddle, alienate and out-academe its audience. must you really use “the bildung of mario maghari” instead of “the maturation of mario maghari”? i mean, even critiques by pauline kael, jonathan rosenbaum and andrew sarris (considered to be some of the most influential critics) try to avoid excessive use of academic jargon when there are simpler ways of communicating your message. i know people are tired of me bringing him up, but i can’t help but think of alexis tioseco and his dedication to creating a nationwide conversation about film.

    i feel bad that there’s so much namecalling in this thread. obviously j has put much thought to analyzing the movie, and that’s always a good thing. i’m really surprised this got so much attention because essays like this are released every day. a part of me feels sorry, but then another part is thinking “now you critics know what filmmakers have to go through.”

    aaaaand now i’m afraid of the wrath of the YCC (as if i haven’t gotten it already, haha).

  120. LodRose

    11/09/2013 at 4:19 AM

    Meh. Dear frenemies who lured me to watching that movie and head to this blog, shame on you.

    Not being an edgy contrarian when I say this movie is overrated. You should watch more Pinoy films to genuinely appreciate Pinoy cinema. The only difference is that this had more currently popular actors portray as main cast.

    Which means I only lasted a paragraph of this review. Too Long, Didn’t Read. Doesn’t mean I favor the bashing. I can always close the effin browser if not happy with the content I’m viewing.

    There exists the following: Freedom to make a film/choose to watch or skip it/write about it in a good or bad way

    Again, meh. Never again, frenemies.

    • bribe

      11/09/2013 at 12:00 PM

      “I can always close the effin browser if not happy with the content I’m viewing.” But you had to leave a comment first, right? 😉

  121. Tyre

    11/09/2013 at 5:04 AM

    A typical sample of exaggerated eloquence that defies the purpose of delivering plain cerebral sense.

  122. jerry

    11/09/2013 at 5:53 AM

    whew.. nose bleed much.. i’m not the intended audience.. lol..

  123. bongmendoza

    11/09/2013 at 7:09 AM

    Please reserve some of the passion for the fight against the (pork barrel) plunder of our people’s money! Maraming salamat.

  124. G | PinoyPodcast

    11/09/2013 at 7:19 AM

    As I was reading this review, I had to check Wikipedia. thesaurus and google search engine.

    Just saying….

    • bianca

      11/09/2013 at 9:55 AM

      I like reading movie reviews but this I. Just. Had. To. Skip. A. Paragraph. Or. Two. Or. All. Wa ko’y kaintindi, dong! You wanted to sound smart? Critical? High-end? Epic fail.

      Half of the time it is always best to keep things simple and considerate of your audience–why else would you post it on a site? Mas enjoy pa comments kesa sa gibberish na sinabi mo!

  125. Elf

    11/09/2013 at 7:26 AM

    Kasi naman! Pwede naman 1 star or 2 stars. Tapos!

  126. mr. Avid

    11/09/2013 at 9:53 AM

    Not here to diss how you wrote this, one is free to write in any style one wants.

    I just need to point this silly assumption of yours:

    “The gifts of Jay Halili as editor, Erwin Romulo as musical scorer, and Ricardo Buhay III are wasted here. Their sophisticated knowledge of the state of film art has been instrumentalized to conceal the deficiencies of Michiko Yamamoto’s writing, the imposture of Erik Matti’s direction, and the hallucinations of Piolo Pascual’s acting”

    Unless you actually read the script, attended the shoot days and sat in through all the editing sessions, you have no empirical basis for such a comment.

    Unless you have powers of omnicience, then that’s cool.

    • Miss C

      11/09/2013 at 11:13 AM

      Yes, that one is indeed a silly assumption. Thanks for pointing that out man.

  127. yccfilmdesk

    11/09/2013 at 10:02 AM

    Folks, comments are welcome but please be civil and rational. Direct your response at the content – not at the person making it. Sexist and other derogatory or offensive comments will be deleted.

    We hope to advance lively but civil discussions.

    Thank you.

    – Admin

  128. kapitan

    11/09/2013 at 10:10 AM

    Batay sa uri at kalidad ng edukasyon ng author neto, wala bang nakaisip na alam nya kung ano ginagawa nya? Na bihasa sya sa mga style ng pagsulat? Kase ang isang may Ph.D. sa Lit ay mas maraming alam sa Lit kesa mga mortal na commenters gaya naten?

    To be fair sa commenters, hardwired na kase sa utak ng tao na magkaroon ng magkaibang standards sa paghusga sa sariling actions laban sa actions ng iba.

    Fundamental attribution error. Correspondence bias. Kung ako yung nagsulat, panget lang sya kase may extant cirumstances. Pag ibang tao, wala silang talent.

    • jejejeajinomoto

      11/09/2013 at 11:05 AM

      malamang mas marami siya alam sa lit kasi phd siya sa lit eh. ayaw pa aminin amput@

  129. Korte Suprema

    11/09/2013 at 10:12 AM

    186 comments na, wala pa bang naglike nito?

  130. android pisses

    11/09/2013 at 10:46 AM

    English please!

  131. porn nada

    11/09/2013 at 10:53 AM

    is this the sort of movie review we can expect from supposedly educated experts? what free ten shoes crap!

    if you want to be understood, make sure any 10 year-old kid can comprehend your writing. if you want to come across like a credentialed pro, you’ll STILL need to make yourself understandable. otherwise all those fancy degrees and titles won’t amount to much, you’ll still end up getting comments like this for putting your head up your ass too deep. film criticism as art? nonsense!

    • porn nada

      11/09/2013 at 10:59 AM


  132. leahprincess

    11/09/2013 at 11:08 AM

    guys labas na kayo, this isn’t for you. para ito sa mga sanay na magbasa. sa mga “intellectual”

    huwag isipin na para sa inyong mga bobo ang mga lahat na nasa internet. balik na nga kayo sa 9gag. yun lang naman naiitindihan niyo

  133. eveATadam

    11/09/2013 at 11:13 AM

    daming bobo dito lol


    11/09/2013 at 12:11 PM

    ur tyring to be intelligent. fail.

  135. ellehc

    11/09/2013 at 12:19 PM


  136. Think

    11/09/2013 at 12:58 PM

    “Ph.D. Comparative Literature
    State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA
    August 2011

    M. A. Comparative Literary and Cultural Studies
    State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA
    May 2010

    M. A. Filipino Literature
    Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines
    October 2003

    A. B. Filipino Literature
    Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines
    March 2002 ”

    Don’t you guys think he has the credentials to know what he is talking about?
    Ffs this guy has a phd and you guys have what?

    • Raph Doval-Santos (@heaven_spawn)

      11/09/2013 at 3:08 PM

      That’s actually more disappointing. You’d think someone that educated would have remembered a simple writing tool as ‘show, not tell’, or even understanding the audience. A high school kid knows these rules.

      You don’t need a PhD from New York to write well.

      And being smart is only important in the real world to a very small number of people.

    • MeAkouTube

      11/09/2013 at 3:26 PM

      Something wrong with our culture of being so easily impressed by education credentials. So, parang he spent more time IN a classroom, ergo, he should be more intelligent than me, right? That is so Miriam-ization.

      Pahabaan na lang ng Bildung pare!

    • Mr. Avid

      11/09/2013 at 4:31 PM

      Yes, credentials make one immune from ever writing badly. Just like an award winning director can never make a bad film.

    • Leeteraytyur

      11/09/2013 at 4:59 PM

      Friends who tell us when we don’t make any sense?

    • nightskydrama

      11/09/2013 at 7:20 PM

      “Grown-ups love figures… When you tell them you’ve made a new friend they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you “What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies? ” Instead they demand “How old is he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make? ” Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him.”
      ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince

    • MJ

      12/09/2013 at 4:07 AM

      Para saan pa ang BA at MA in Filipino Literature? Sana nag-Tagalog na lang.

    • nargalzius

      13/09/2013 at 12:13 PM

      So maybe we should all shut up about politicians and the way they go about their stuff – as most of us have no experience in politics. Or perhaps the priests are always right with their moral preferences; they seem to be closer to God. Hell, I guess every IT dropout who made it big is still ultimately inferior to the “common” Computer Science teacher who just happened to have a master’s degree.

      While I do not discount the value of credentials and accolades, as with anything else – I’m certain that even you can agree that these mean nothing if you do something contrary to what they’re “supposed” to have stood for. It only makes it more disappointing. Because what keeps on entering my head is that this guy is supposed to be an EDUCATOR… of LITERATURE… who has a background on CULTURAL studies. He should very well know how this type of writing will come across as – and he, of all people, should know better.

      He should known better.

      If you want to argue the justification of WHY it’s a good idea to have an exposition written this way for a movie review, fine, let’s try to do just that.

      An overwhelming majority believes that clear communication of thought takes precedence over writing style. The “value” of this “stance”, subjective or not, is clear enough to grasp for anyone in this forum.

      Now, I would like to hear your argument that JUSTIFIES this writing style for a movie review. Because sure, let’s presuppose that it’s all subjective and there’s no real “right and wrong” way of doing things (in this case, writing/communicating) – you’ve heard the side of “clear communication” now let’s hear the side of those who prefer the “complex” way.

      I could understand if this guy was writing poetry/prose or if this site was focused on flair over content. But as it is, people came here for a MOVIE REVIEW.

      The YCC staff has argued that we should look at the CONTENT rather than the style in which the content was expressed – they conveniently skirt around the fact that not everyone CAN drill down to the content – even if they wanted to – because of the “impenetrability” of the language used.

      So going back, sure, his intelligence is not in question – he obviously knows his stuff. But I would still like an answer as to WHY he deemed it “appropriate” to a movie review this way.

      • sinagpiptipayb (@Sinag55)

        14/09/2013 at 1:31 PM

        Good job, ma’am/sir. I agree with you 100%. I’m actually curious din sa pagmention nila ng “…the decision of many reactors to refuse engagement on the level of argument…” Though some of the commenters did resort to name-calling [though those that defend their beloved professor/friend are worse], there are still many who took the time and have the ability to penetrate the language of this shallow piece of crap. I don’t see Mr. Jacobo engage them at all.

  137. Jiggs Basa

    11/09/2013 at 1:02 PM

    uh-oh… someone just discovered ‘right click – synonyms’ on Word.

  138. Rallee

    11/09/2013 at 1:42 PM

    Tengene. Wala ako naintindihan.


    11/09/2013 at 2:21 PM

    Whoa! This is a great example of how very poorly spun articles can become and it can be very blooooooddddddyyyyy. It’s enough to “communicate” using simple and basic terms in English, you don’t always have to use highfalutin words to get your message across.

  140. criz2bal

    11/09/2013 at 2:45 PM

    grabe sa tindi ng expression nabulol ako sa mga word…dialng nosebleed..napanganga pa me..hehehehe…

  141. Raph Doval-Santos (@heaven_spawn)

    11/09/2013 at 3:04 PM

    I’m sorry Mr. Jacobo. I want to like the review. I really do. But I read it. There’s just no meaningful information being communicated by it. I want to say I’m just ignorant and alone, but the comments say I’m not.

    The world is full of people in a hurry, and we need you to convey your points clearly and quickly. Like this.

    I wish you’d remember that next time.

    • Jing Panganiban-Mendoza

      12/09/2013 at 9:34 PM

      Raph, I don’t think Mr. Jacobo, or anyone, is forcing you to like the review. There are so many reviews to read, so many articles to choose from. If this does not pass your standards, so be it.

  142. Araceli

    11/09/2013 at 3:18 PM

    I so love the comments portion. Masipag naman ako magbasa. Nabasa ko from top to bottom.

  143. I AM IN AWE

    11/09/2013 at 3:40 PM

    “Bildung (that’s German).” “Frisson (that’s French).” Ta…la…ga? Yudiputa, thank you po, Master, for including asides like that – we really are in awe of your desire to make us in awe of you. Not only do you have Shift + F7, you have several language dictionaries too! Ito ba ang mga propesor sa Ateneo? Thank you for making me decide to bring my son to other schools. Bill La Tibay ya! ha h ha ha! And please don’t let people like Kryp Yuson read your article; they may die laughing.

    • Jonar Sabilano (@sikatunaave)

      11/09/2013 at 7:44 PM

      Huwag lahatin ang mga propesor at mga tao galing sa amin. I myself cringed when I read it. Good thing I had enough of a vocabulary to at least make out what he was trying to say. Nevertheless, it was honestly a clumsy attempt at being clever/snarky. Whether he was trying to port over his academic background to the art of cinema or vice versa, the whole thing really reeks of Homi K. Bhabha.

      I knew the guy from college. He did have a tendency to use those same words. He was, however, more known as a poet in Filipino — and a very good one at that. I just wish he had worded it better. Not really use simpler words, but at least apply those big words well. There is such a thing as too much herbs and spices.

  144. dan santos

    11/09/2013 at 4:24 PM

    I have a superior iq, i am not humble to admit it. putanginang review yan! Nag iintay ako ng punchline sa dulo eh wala, halatang nag papaka henyo ang sumulat neto!

  145. idp

    11/09/2013 at 4:45 PM

    In Journalism school I was taught to write in a manner that would make my reader understand. To reduce the pile of information that I often handle into something the public can digest. So that they can give the public information that they can use to form a sound opinion.

    This kind of writing goes against that.

    This feels like the author, armed with a thesaurus and a dictionary, sat in front of computer and waged war against everything that embodies good writing.

    This is pompous. This is pretentious. This is simply unreadable.


  146. Roxanne Romero

    11/09/2013 at 5:00 PM


  147. xyz

    11/09/2013 at 6:06 PM

    wala akong naintindihan! haha. film review ba talaga itechuwa? poem ba itung binasa ko or monologue ng isang lunatic?

  148. Leeteraytyur

    11/09/2013 at 6:22 PM

    I think the problem of this piece is that the author is guessing the meaning of words. “Enervated?” “Defiles of the domestic lumpen?”

    He also mixes casual expressions (“to the pits”; “ineffectual policeman type”) with his mostly academic/pseudo-intellectual writing style, which makes reading the piece a bit jarring as he switches from career academic to pinabili-ng-suka showbiz columnist. He obviously follows local showbiz news, but I don’t think his comment on Shaina Magdayao’s sister’s career decisions needed to be mentioned, given how he set out to sound profound. He didn’t even elaborate on the matter so why bring it up in the first place? Galit ba siya kay Vina Morales?

    Add to that the run-on sentences and sloppy punctuation, and you got yourself a winner. Someone please send this piece to that contest that gives out awards for bad writing.

  149. Thesaurusitis Epitaxis

    11/09/2013 at 6:29 PM

    Ipit taxi este Epitaxis due to thesaurusitis 🙂

  150. eponymous

    11/09/2013 at 7:21 PM

    To the author:

    1) I want to ask you sir, what was your purpose in writing this critique? Seriously. Because I can’t understand it, hence I can’t appreciate it. And that’s not fair to you. And even if you’re not asking for my appreciation, you still deserve it for a work well made. But, since I can’t understand your work, that appreciation is wasted standing in limbo.

    2) What you wrote, sir, sounds very smart. Maybe you are smarter than me, and most everybody, but it doesn’t mean that I’m stupid. This work, sir, makes me feel very stupid (and others, too). I don’t know if that’s what you intended, but as your comments section plainly reveal, people don’t like feeling stupid.

    Someone said this is truly how you write, therefore you cannot be as pretentious as some people claim. Good for you then.

  151. Ria DV (@riadibera)

    11/09/2013 at 7:23 PM

    As someone who studies language theories, I find your humbug mostly insulting and purely self-serving. Not only did you overdecorate what are otherwise simple syntaxes with pretentious vocabulary, but you also, in many ways, failed to deliver anything with substance.

    What’s sad, ultimately, is the fact that you had to mistake the word “critique” for “criticize”.

    • rescueannie

      12/09/2013 at 1:34 AM

      ulol sino ka para magsabi niyan. langgam ka lang sa harap niya. fulbright yan. hahaha ikaw san ka nag aral

      • macho man

        12/09/2013 at 2:00 PM


  152. sumguy

    11/09/2013 at 7:36 PM

    Wow. Someone bought a brand new Thesaurus!

    This is the most pretentious piece I’ve ever read. I bet you don;t even understand half of what you wrote.

  153. Chris

    11/09/2013 at 7:43 PM

    Who cares about the body of the review? The TITLE of this review is worse than anything he says in it.

  154. Jonar Sabilano (@sikatunaave)

    11/09/2013 at 7:55 PM

    That being said, this review is overly formalistic, in an “author-is-dead”, “take-the-thing-as-it-is” kind of way. There are really good points, particularly that of the technical side of the film masking the deficiencies of the script writer, but it fails to mention that there have been only a few good action movies coming out of the local film industry since God-knows-when. Asiong Salonga, for all of the hype, had some moments of unintentional comedy (I mean, c’mon, why use the Gary Jules cover of “Mad World” during a shoot-out scene shot in slo-mo?), but it was generally a better movie than most others that clung to the cliche.

    This one? I myself am excited to see it, not because it’s being hyped up by a lot of my friends, who also happen to be writers of note, but because it’s a welcome break from John Lloyd Cruz rom-coms and a lot of indie movies (that didn’t pass through polishing before hitting the screen). But I guess that’s the formalistic obsession with taking things as they are: they never take the thing as it is — which is really taking it where, when, and how it is.

    Sorry kung nag-ramble ako nang kaunti. I appreciate the attempt at intellectualizing popular culture, but in trying to do so, it ended up neither intellectual nor popular (in a “populist” sort of way).

  155. Matatag DiMalupil

    11/09/2013 at 7:57 PM

    jackpot! first paragraph parang nakatulog na ako, pero mas interesting ang mga comments!

  156. rudeandrowdy

    11/09/2013 at 8:02 PM

    TL;DR. Thesaurus abuse.

  157. jegscerteza

    11/09/2013 at 8:07 PM

    Challenge : try translating to Filipino

  158. Laughing Cow

    11/09/2013 at 8:13 PM

    It’s very entertaining watching people parade their insecurities and helplessly resort to name calling just because they cannot relate to esoteric matters!

    • boo

      12/09/2013 at 7:35 PM

      hear hear :))

  159. John T

    11/09/2013 at 8:33 PM

    Oh my. I was not too keen on his Ekstra review, either, but I agreed with his review of Kalayaan and its use of silence. This one just reeks of this “I know two foreign words, and thesauruses are awesome hahaha” attitude.

    as for the points made by the review:

    Was the script “bad writing?” I disagree. It gets its message across in simple terms, unlike this review, ironically.

    Was the film’s impact watered down by Coronel’s story arc? I don’t think so, but Piolo Pascual in the role does seem a bit jarring to me, at least at first. The arc serves as a counterpoint to the story arc of Tatang and his apprentice, as people within the law fighting corruption, as opposed to people outside the law, immersed in corruption. It’s a sort of symmetry for me.

    No, Leo Martinez was not comical at all in this film. (He even seemed a bit sinister.) Shaina could have had a bit more screen time, and I guess her role could have been fleshed out a bit more, but I felt her role in the story was adequate. The sex scenes were superfluous. Vivian Velez felt enigmatic and mysterious. If her appearance looked noirish, I don’t think it really matters as I don’t think it was her intent to “bring the film into noir terrain.” Gerald Anderson as a believable inmate? At least an A for effort. Joey Marquez as a bumbling cop? Comical, yes, but not, in my humble opinion, to the point of imbecility.

    I guess there is a bit of irony in the last statement of this review on how technicality (big words, foreign words, literary opacity) negates the content (a few probably valid points) of a film, or in this case, a hoity toity review.

    Despite its flaws, I liked the film.

    • melmq

      12/09/2013 at 2:42 AM

      now this is a review!

      I prefer what you just wrote over the actual article…. it sends the message… plain and simple

  160. Anonymous

    11/09/2013 at 11:00 PM

    It’s funny how majority of the comments go straight to insulting the author and even calling him pretentious for using complex words in his critique. If only you guys actually knew this author personally (which I do)… These words are normal for him. He doesn’t need a thesaurus. The fact that he wrote it in this manner doesn’t mean he’s pretentious and that he’s insulting his readers. It probably even means the opposite – by writing in this manner, he assumes people to understand him.

    YOU are only calling him pretentious because YOU aren’t on the same level as him. If YOU wrote this article, then you would be pretentious and that’s why you guys automatically assume he’s just another average joe who’s trying to sound witty.

    • Raffy

      12/09/2013 at 12:20 AM


    • john dough

      12/09/2013 at 1:48 AM

      i feel sorry for him if he really speaks and writes this way. another thing, despite his diction, one cannot deny those running sentences. huwag nyong iwagayway ang mga degree at academic accomplishments niya. hindi kami mangmang. this is not the first film review we’ve read, and it won’t be the last. but it is perhaps the worst, for reasons stated above, and below.

    • Mr. Avid

      12/09/2013 at 10:34 AM

      What really irked me though was the silly behind the scenes pa-insider insight on who was deficient in the production team, only people closely involved in the project can ever pick out who did what. Unless nga andoon siya sa bawat araw ng shoot at bawat gabi ng edit.

    • macho man

      12/09/2013 at 5:31 PM

      He referred to Leo Martinez’s character in the film as “comical”. On the contrary, On the Job isn’t an attempt at bad writing, Jacobo’s review is.

      He doesn’t sound like an average joe trying to sound witty, he sounds like an elitist pseudo-intellectual who feels his genius insight is a gift to the reader.

    • boo

      12/09/2013 at 8:10 PM

      man you gotta love people eh? The problem here is that EVERYONE feels they are smart. Everyone feels this way without acknowledging that there are a f*ck ton of ways how people think and communicate.

  161. Odin, Son of Tutin

    12/09/2013 at 12:07 AM

    noong nag.aaral pa ako sa kolehiyo, lagi naming sinusulat ang aming sagot sa pinakasimpleng form. Express your answer in its simplest form. Ganun sa math. Bat dito hindi? 1st few sentences and im done. i went to reading the comments. They are better and more fun to read

  162. fuzzybunny

    12/09/2013 at 12:23 AM

    highlight word > right click > synonyms x1000000000 times?

  163. Heidi

    12/09/2013 at 12:28 AM

    Just how “young”, exactly, are members of the Young Critics Circle? As a former professional writer myself, I can tell that Ms. (or Mr.) Jacobo is quite green. She or he should work under the guidance of an editor first.


    12/09/2013 at 1:21 AM

    Pwedeng title ng isang marubdob na film essay ang “The Building Blocks of the BILDUNG of Filipino Audience.” Makagawa nga. Choz.

  165. Anddy

    12/09/2013 at 1:43 AM

    For the people who feel insecure and are intimidated by this academically stylized review, here’s the introduction of YCC, if you know what it means by “academe,” “analysis,” and “interdisciplinary”:

    Young Critics Circle Film Desk
    established in 1990, the young critics circle is composed of members of philippine academe who, through the years, have become attentive observers of philippine cinema. coming from various disciplines, we bring into the analysis of film an interdisciplinary approach.

    Gets nyo ba sa wakas? Pag di nyo naiintindihan ang purpose ng ycc at ang review ni J. Jacobo, since it’s an “interdisciplinary analysis,” please move on. Hindi ito para sa inyo.

  166. Adropinthebucketsucker

    12/09/2013 at 2:16 AM

    Wow everyone, get over yourselves! I think the disgruntled bulk here are merely defensive bitches who decry what they feel is a need for an allusion of positive feedback to a cultural achievement (aka The Movie), rather than an attempt to create debate in public fora, which by the way, can be seen to elevate not just linguistic discourses, but also to a certain extent, ironic decapitation of an unflinching archaic perspective narrowed by too many years of isolated promiscuity stemming from a geographical and historically reserved mass.

    If you didn’t understand why he said what he said the way he said it, then just ease off on the personal attacks (that includes chiding Ateneans…I’m from UP btw), and attempt your best at critiquing his review instead of the formal aspects of his rhetoric.

    On the other hand, I appreciate that Sir Jacobo attempted to present his opinions in the most comprehensive manner in the way he only understands, and I appreciate the fact that his opinions are only that of one person, but do not reflect the actual reality that our tastes in movie rhetorics and philosophies differ one from the other.

    The movie was definitely an attempt at retranslating modicums of action/neo-realistic conventions to suit a unique narrative within a familiar milieu whilst professing a Filipino need for more production value and lack of technical facilities.

    Yeah, there was more to be desired and when all’s said and done, the movie is a step closer to a self-awareness of Philippine Cinema’s rebirth into the cultural genre of movie-making.

    Technique was impressive but I do say that the thinness of the sonic environment could well be due to the fact that sound practitioners in the country still lack the respect due to them because of a plethora of reasons owing to a mode of production that lacks EVERYTHING except talent.

    I would have preferred a much less recognizable cast to the much-to-be-desired acting. Pascual may carry the air of a middle-class NBI officer on his way up, but he seems too content and smug and lacks the cautious demeanor of someone who knows too much. Magdayao’s own characterization and lack of screen time is appropriate as the only arc that matters is the fact that she has Pascual’s emotional investment and that her family ties are the only reason her character is in the movie.

    Kudos to Joey Enriquez and Joel Torre. I think by far the most impressive acting of characters who embody binary opposites of each other’s characteristics and attitudes within the same film and diegetic context. Clearly the basis for their characters might be a tad fictionalized but what is good acting if not the ability to convince the audience that who really are who you’re playing? I’d say that the ticket entrance to watch both of them was worth it on its own and while most would disagree, I’ll stick to my own tastes of acting and character interpretation.

    Now, that was rather personal wasn’t it? Yeah, I was writing to troll you all an for my own pleasure. Now as I watch from the background and see you all chatter and chide one another, please feel free to know that the more you say, the less you mean. 🙂

    From a friendly ironic troller too

    • u lost me at hello

      16/09/2013 at 9:38 PM

      i almost believed you, but then who the eff is joey enriquez. tsk tsk

      • Adropinthebucketsucker

        19/09/2013 at 9:32 AM

        Oh snap… Joey Marquez pala… my bad po… (RSS: Sir Joey Marquez)

        In response to this post:

        u lost me at hello
        16/09/2013 at 9:38 PM
        i almost believed you, but then who the eff is joey enriquez. tsk tsk

        thank you, who ever you are 🙂

  167. melmq

    12/09/2013 at 2:24 AM

    The objective of this writing is to review the movie….

    The intended audience?
    – Those who want to watch the film (To have an idea if they should really watch it )
    – Those who watched the film (Probably to compare views, insights on the said film)

    I am not familiar with the words used… but as someone who just wants to have an idea on how the film performed… this writing gave me a headache.. just the fact that the writer had to explain why he used the terms that he used makes him aware that what he just wrote wouldn’t be understandable to many….

    And the fact that this section is bombarded with comments about the writing and didn’t even raise a single discussion about the movie… then I guess the writer failed to meet the objective… Which is to raise awareness on how good or bad the movie was…

    just my two cents….

    • boo

      12/09/2013 at 7:58 PM

      The author’s profile is that of a College Professor and educator. It is then logical to assume that his definition of a “film review” is in the academic perspective, in which the main purpose is to show ways how the craft of film making could be improved, and in this case, by showing it’s flaws. Film Reviews were never meant to simply tell the reader how good or bad a movie is. Pretty much like anything that has become more accessible to more people, film reviews today has been redefined to be more streamlined, shorter, and ultimately to lose it’s back-then-necessary academic jargon.

      The way I see it, the author’s flaw is his attempt to adapt to the internet’s definition of a film review, which you have already defined in yourself. It seems that in the author’s belief that writing for the internet should be more compact, he seems to have compressing his academic thoughts into small pockets of incomplete information, thus the vagueness and incoherence.

      another two cents here.

  168. John

    12/09/2013 at 3:19 AM

    Call red cross, I need a blood transfusion.

  169. manangbok

    12/09/2013 at 4:01 AM

    Mas maganda yung comments kaysa sa review. Nag-nosebleed din ako pagbasa ng review. Pero siguro dahil isa akong tamad na dating estudyante at hindi graduate ng Comparative English ek ek. Peace, tao lang 🙂 Wala rin akong PhD or MA o MS man lang.

    Incidentally, nagustuhan ko ang OTJ at isa ito sa pinakapaborito kong pelikulang Pilipino. Sige na nga, masyadong gwapo si papa Piolo para sa role — pero love ko pa rin sya 🙂

  170. ganda jones

    12/09/2013 at 5:18 AM

    awards talaga ang basehan ng talino. your academic background certainly adds to your credibility BUT IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU INFALLIBLE. dahil matino eskwelahan ba nag-aral, di na pwede sumulat ng di-kagandahang movie review? kakaloka. some comments are totally beside the point. the review was just too much. self-indulgent. kakaloka tong mga taga critics circle ha in fairness. at MGA ATE, hindi vocabulary ang basehan ng sipag o intellectual capacity ng mga tao ha!


    • Jing Panganiban-Mendoza

      12/09/2013 at 9:56 PM

      Sino ba ang nagsabing nagiging infallible ang author dahil sa academic background? Paki-highlight nga po sa main article at paki-quote for info. Salamat.

    • lalapopo

      15/09/2013 at 10:37 PM

      ay hala sino ka hindi ka naman kilala. feeling critic?

  171. ateneoalum

    12/09/2013 at 9:28 AM

    It’s sad that he’s an Ateneo professor. This kind of writing wouldn’t fly on the freshman English writing class. The English class professors could probably use it as an example of how to not write a review.

  172. Cyrus Ileto Iscala

    12/09/2013 at 10:43 AM

    I pity his students haha

  173. Red Cajucom

    12/09/2013 at 12:00 PM

    I wonder how much time the writer spent in thesaurus. Pretentious much.

  174. theo

    12/09/2013 at 12:58 PM

    someone needs to get rid of his thesaurus…

  175. macho man

    12/09/2013 at 2:09 PM

    You need to take notes from Richard Bolisay on how to write a proper review:

  176. Louella

    12/09/2013 at 2:33 PM


  177. Miguel Castro

    12/09/2013 at 5:57 PM

    if Doreen Fernandez were alive today…

  178. boo

    12/09/2013 at 7:31 PM

    Holy Sh*t. I don’t know whether I should be more frustrated by the author’s miscalculated choice of not fully filtering his thoughts into a language appropriate for its medium, or by the culture of intellectual depravity apparent in the comments.

    I really don’t understand why people are calling him/his review pretentious. The way I see it, the author’s objectivity and faithfulness to his own thoughts merely confounded what he wants to say about the film. If the author’s internal thought process is filled with terminologies unfamiliar to most, then it is given that without filtering it out, what he writes would also be filled with such terminologies. Or the author’s “fault” here maybe lying on the difference of his personal definition of a film review, and the majority’s accepted standard of what a film review on the internet should be. From what I gather in the author’s style, he may just be attempting to write a critique on an academic perspective, compressed in order to accommodate the format of an “internet review” (which would explain the why the review’s ambiguity regardless of its intended audience).
    Either way, without personally knowing someone, it really is illogical to brand someone as “pretentious”, unless you define pretentiousness as anything that is outside your usual linggo and norms.

    The author can fix his style in the future if he wants to. Retrospectively, I doubt it would be easier to fix the way homogenized people think, who either hates or demonizes the things they don’t understand.

  179. Educated Netizen of the Philippines

    12/09/2013 at 8:35 PM

    “If I don’t understand this sh*t, then that sh*t is probably pretentious, cause I am smart and I know things! Lots of things like movies and art, and traditional grammatical protocols I often check the interwebz to homogenize my works, thereby alleviating myself of the burden of original and personalized thought, mostly because I am not an individual, but is just a homogenized number.”

  180. Gina

    12/09/2013 at 9:58 PM

    Problema daw kamo nung movie, masyadong focused sa technique. Gusto nito maging “matalino” pero hindi maganda yung writing. Character ni Joel Torre ay mayroong two things na nag-signify ng kanyang freedom: photo of his next target; at ang nalalapit na parole. Thrilling daw na makalaya siya.

    Dapat daw ginawa nila, nag-concentrate kay Mario at ang pag-train kay Daniel (Gerald Anderson) sa pagiging assasin. Parang Training Day ba.

    Pero yung thrill na makakalaya siya ay naging cheap, dahil sa character ni Piolo na parang “redeemer” na naging fulfilled lang pagkatapos paikot-ikot doon sa scandal ng mga politiko. Si Piolo masyadong trying hard, itsura lang siya. Fake yung role niya.

    Sayang daw.

  181. xander

    12/09/2013 at 10:03 PM

    a simple parallelism…
    1) Professor 1 – invented a super high tech weapon never before seen, gets an award for the invention and used it to kill a rat.
    2) Professor 2 – used a rat killer to kill a rat.
    How do you describe what Professor 2 did? Good!
    How do you describe what Professor 1 did? STUPID!

  182. Lola Puring

    12/09/2013 at 10:12 PM

    Ang dami namang galit na galit. Relak lang, masiyado kayong seryoso’t pabigat. Kung ayaw ninyo, eh ‘di huwag. Kung nagustuhan naman ninyo, congrats. Wala namang murahan at siraan. Pinoy na pinoy ang comment section na ito 🙂 Kay Janet Napoles niyo nalang i-channel ang angst ninyo, mga hijo’t hija 🙂

  183. KJ

    13/09/2013 at 12:14 AM

    This reminded me of a comment on my recitation in Law School by my oh so old-fashioned professor who was and still is bloody brilliant in his calling if i may add. He stressed my recitation as an “AVALANCHE OF WORDS”. I guess this is another example of it. AVALANCHE OF WORDS: A never-ending usage of extraordinary words apparently pointing to nothing.

  184. Me

    13/09/2013 at 12:40 AM

    sleep deprivation effect…hehe

  185. Noel

    13/09/2013 at 1:55 PM

    Don’t think na kaya sobrang napangitan ang mga tao sa review na ito ay dahil nagustuhan ng mga tao ang OTJ at butthurt sila dahil hindi ka nag-rave tungkol sa favorite movie nila. Ako nga hindi ko rin masyadong nagustuhan ang OTJ, medyo oks lang sa akin. Pero ang totoong dahilan kung bakit masyadong marami ang nabobohan sa review na ito ay dahil:

    A) Pangit ang style ng pagkakasulat. As in. Parang 17-year-old na bagong diskubre pa lang ng thesaurus. At totoo, may mga tao sa academe na ganito naman talaga magsulat. Pero kahit sa academe, yung mga ganito ang style pag nagsusulat, nag-i-snicker pa rin naman yung mga colleagues nila behind their back.

    Kaya lang, marami ring points dito na parang gumagamit lang ng mga terms katulad ng bildung at frisson hindi para ma-narrow down ang meaning ng sinasabi into what is the most exact and nuanced values. Instead, kapag gumagamit ng highfalutin words dito, opposite ang nangyayari. Dumadami ang possible meanings kaya the reader is left with questions like, “hindi ba niya alam na itong sentence na ito can be interpreted in multiple, conflicting ways dahil imbis na simpleng salita ang ginamit niya ay yung mga maraming possible connotations na term?” Okay lang sana kahit anong salita ang gamitin basta may idea siya na concrete ang meaning ng mga ito.

    Isa pa, ugggh, frisson? Ano ito, na-impress ka doon sa lumang frisson article ni Ebert dati at gustong i-singit dito kahit wala naman talagang deeper meaning ang frisson na salita when it comes to OTJ? (Aside from pun at the fact na)

    B) Pero ang (lack of) style naman ay forgivable kung may sense ang article, pero wala eh. I mean, once you read through the piece: WALANG INSIGHT, WALANG CONTENT, WALANG SENSE itong article.

    Like, mag-uumpisa ng assertion pero hindi naman ifa-follow through. Buti sana kung parang theory ang dahilan kung bakit niya sasabihin ang isang bagay tapos hindi na ie-explain. We, the readers, can say, ahhh, no need to further elaborate on it kasi he’s speaking about certain film truths that are treated as self-evident. Eh wala eh. Puro mga personal na assertions na hindi naman self-evident.

    Parang: “oh, dapat nag-concentrate na lang sa istorya ng mga assassins imbis na pinalalim ang istorya ng character ni Piolo.” Bakit? Eh, melodrama eh. Ganun na kababaw ang explanation? It’s true na may melodrama dahil doon sa scenes na iyon, pero Mali yung assertion na dahil lamang sa nag-focus rin sa character ni Piolo yung story ay nagka-melodrama.

    Wala iyon sa mga noob understanding na ah, kung mag-focus sa ganitong parte magiging melodrama kaagad. Nasa content ng writing yon scene-by-scene. Kahit sa macro magkaroon ng push towards showing more Piolo character scenes, hindi ibig sabihin na magiging melodrama kaagad.

    Anyways, sample lang:

    “Lito Pimentel’s vignette on fear is instructive, a counterpoint to Joel Torre’s opera on the menace that devours all manner of hope in a man who discovers that freedom taken away can never be taken back once one commits to the occupations of violence.”

    A) Instructive paano? Ano iyung tinuturo sa iyo? Kung paano umarte ang takot? Kung ano ang epekto ng takot sa buhay? Kung ano ang epekto ng takot sa buhay ng ibang tao na nakapaligid sa kanya? INSTRUCTIVE PAANO?!?!?!?

    B) Counterpoint bakit? Bakit naging counterpoint yung situations ng Lito Pimentel character sa Joel Torre character kung hindi naman sila nagkasama masyado sa eksena at wala namang mga scenes na may juxtaposition sa dalawa? Ano ito, basta may any two characters sa isang pelikula pwede nang mag-comment tungkol sa counterpoint ng dalawang ito kahit wala namang special significance ang dalawa nilang character?

    C) “freedom taken away can never be taken back once one commits to the occupations of violence.” Saan nakuha itong lesson na ito? Wala namang masyadong aspect sa pelikula talking about freedom taken away ha? Ang pelikula mga nakakulong sa preso na nakakalabas sa kulungan. Ang pelikula tungkol sa mga hitman na kayang gawin kahit anong gusto nila kasi hitman sila at hindi under the constraints of society. Ang only freedom taken away dito ay yung hindi nakakauwi si Joel Torre sa pamilya (as much as he wants). And even then, nakakalabas siya 1000x more than normal prisoners. Nakakaganti siya without repercussions. So saan napupulot itong “opera” ni Joel Torre na ito? Ano ito, imbento na lang basta may mai-criticize sa pelikula?

    In short: Hindi maganda ang pagkakasulat. Once binasa mo at inintindi, walang sense rin pala.

    • sinagpiptipayb (@Sinag55)

      14/09/2013 at 1:44 PM

      Excellent job, sir. I’d like to see Mr. Jacobo “engage this on the level of argument.”

  186. nog

    13/09/2013 at 2:44 PM

    My bad!!! I fuckin read the whole crap, I lost my sanity now- I’d rather go out for fishing but the moon is blue so I listen to the chirping of birds under water but my nails were cut too short, hmnnnn I should have eaten them while still crispy and set the belfry on fire while watching the sun goes down. I am now walking along the gutter chasing the butterflies in my stomach but wait!!!! Have I got my pants on?

  187. rampage

    13/09/2013 at 2:47 PM

    used up a few hours to grapple with this article. at first i thought it was just intellectual masturbation, but it turns out that this is a wonderfully-written article. the attempt to wrestle with it was surely fulfilling. maraming insights na hindi nakukuha sa spoonfeeding, kung saan nasasanay na ang iba.

  188. kin| Boardinggate101 (@kintoy)

    13/09/2013 at 3:00 PM

    “this attempt is bad writing.” spot on, if we’re talking about your pretense-filled review.

  189. Sarcastic Bitchesa

    13/09/2013 at 11:37 PM

    You’re all too stupid to understand, right Jacobo? This is a great article and highfalutin words exhibit the intellectual persona of the writer!

  190. wed7

    14/09/2013 at 12:42 AM

    Superfluous use of…

  191. Jessie

    14/09/2013 at 1:03 AM

    Wow. I can’t believe na mas binasa ko pa ng buo lahat ng mga comments kesa sa “review” mismo. In fairness, mas madami akong natutunan sa mga comments nyo. 🙂

  192. liaochiling

    14/09/2013 at 2:12 AM

    Is this a joke? I didn’t understand what was he talking about? LOL

  193. lalapopo

    14/09/2013 at 3:37 PM

    this is alright. nothing terrible naman 🙂

  194. Imraijnus

    16/09/2013 at 3:20 PM

    Maybe this review was intended to mirror the movie. Meant to impress (hey, look, I’m writing/hey, look I’m making a movie) with big words/movie-making tricks, but ultimately flawed. Parang the form is content.

    I haven’t seen the movie so I may be wrong. And I don’t like the way this review was written, too.

  195. u lost me at hello

    16/09/2013 at 9:15 PM

    what an atrocious mess. writer trying to impress with words that dont make sense. sounded stupid instead of sounding pretentious which may be the main motive. read amy taubin film reviews and learn

  196. Anthony Scalia

    16/09/2013 at 11:11 PM

    ano daw?

  197. fatmanwalkin

    21/09/2013 at 12:26 PM

    Mr. Author, if you think writing with such big words make you sound more credible and creative, think twice.. I think it does more of the opposite.

    Sa totoo lang, natawa ako because after reading your review, i was trying to figure out if you actually liked the movie, or not. Lol.

    Anyway, that’s… a mon avis. Pahingi ngang bulak. 🙂

  198. John Q Taxpayer

    21/09/2013 at 11:28 PM

    A pedantic, pontificating, pretentious litany of doggerel and steaming piles of Bildung… figuratively speaking.

  199. lestatt

    19/12/2013 at 1:54 AM

    Grabe ang arte sumulat! fake fake fake fake fake reviewer. Armond White of the Philippines. Nagpapaka contrarian.

  200. Jose Mari Lee

    13/03/2014 at 10:28 PM

    James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake is an easier read than this one. Sigh.

  201. The Background Story

    02/06/2014 at 12:22 PM

    Congratulations on your discovery of the thesaurus. *slow clap*

  202. mkee

    18/07/2014 at 10:16 AM

    It is not a coincidence, like the other commenters, I just stopped reading after few sentences and skipped to the comment section.

    • Shunie Pearl Dela Cruz

      25/12/2014 at 12:36 PM

      I’m sorry but the way this review was written is so ungrammatical. I’m not an English major myself but the words being used were over do. Some were unnecesary. Just get straight to the point. We are Filipinos anyway. *face palm*


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: