Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

charliekoon Ambiguous but precise Well versed on the law of motion And the masters of myriad of imagesGuerilla is like a Poet by Jose Ma. SisonThis just might be a film that you're anxious to see. But first, you must be aware that this is a film. Second, the film you will see is trying to make a film. Just like God's Commandments: it's basic, simple, and as easy as ABC.Years When I Was a Child Outside is a film by John Torres. For me, it's a fascinating film to see as it tries to make a documentary regarding the filmmakers own father, Rodolfo Torres. It's a humble film. As the film thoroughly progresses, the voice of a tormented soul is heard. "The voices seem to explode". Sison's poem might be enough to explain it. And the voice - is the filmmaker itself. He communicates his personal thoughts, childhood memories, but most importantly, the disaster in his life: when his father admitted that he has another family.While Torres was making a documentary during the typhoon Milenyo, he shifted his camera outside their house. The imagery of the film is a great deal of moving poetry. Subconsciously, you're indulged. Then he tries to capture his sleeping father. The camera zooms. It shows the body of his father in close-up: head, feet, palm, chest, and belly. During his isolation, he decides to make a film. He uses his father's body as an inspiration for themes: family, love, truth, and life.Then small vignettes of chronicling stories unfold. First, there is a long sequence of a Moro Dance. It's a rite of passage. The father insists his timorous son to dance. Then we get to see a love story, shot conceivably in black and white. It tracks a couple walking in the park while hearing love sonatas and poems of devotion. In reality, the conversation was more diverse. Then he also interviews Jose Ma. Sison. He sings Guerilla is like a Poet. Towards the end, he talks about how Manang Betty, their maid, taught him ABC. "B is for Bicycle. The one riding the bicycle is your father's child outside", as she pointed to the child in the street.Years When I Was a Child Outside expands mind. It precisely captured countless images with relevance to its subject matter. It is distinct in its observation. The film might seem artificial and even a waste of time as it always shifts the subject of discussion. However, it was able to give a better insight into valuable issues – well perhaps not for us, but for the director. We are aware that he's attempting to make a film. He even makes a film about Jesus. Although the film has its own shortcomings: there is a tendency to imagine its own significance. The filmmaker's insistence of him being different and difficult to understand is preposterous. It's a contradiction to the film's precision and sensitivity.I bet the film was heavily inspired by the French New Wave Movement. It's a personal stance, rebellion perhaps as the film rejects the traditional cinema structure. The style – voice in particular - has a depth of character. Its courage to speak words of love, hatred, and utmost devotion to his Catholic Faith is seamless. It has its moments of vividness, but for how long will it be sustained?Years When I was a child Outside is about making a film. It has already elicited in its myriad of lush scenarios, blossoming images and poetry. The film's appeal is not selective. As the film is hoping that in time, people will say, oh this film is also about us.Rating: 3/5

sushilord Saw this one yesterday at the 58. Berlinale and after watching it my Filipino friends and I asked ourselves why the Berlinale committee got this movie into the program. The version of this film I saw was actually three movies. In the middle you had a large projection and on both sides of this picture there were two smaller projections. So there were running actually three "movies" at the same time. And there was live music which was quite nice and maybe better than the movie itself. For me it seemed that the director just had some footage, cut it randomly together and put it out to the audience to ponder about it. After the screening a short Q&A took place which I did not attend entirely. On the question why he opened the movie with this or that picture Mr. Torres said that he has no money and just thought it is nice to open with it, since he had it. The guy questioning tried to analyze the movie with help of the director, but there didn't really come anything meaningful from the director's direction. In the movie there was an interview with the leader of the Filipino communist party, who lives in exile in Utrecht, Netherlands, which was funny, because the leader, Mister Sison, kept making funny remarks and even sang a song. But why was the camera canted 45 degrees so everything was on it's side? Maybe I am just to stupid to understand the deeper abstract meanings of this film. But since the Filipinos I was with also said that it was not really worth watching, maybe my western look isn't misjudging. Speaking of abstract: I think this movie belongs in a gallery, because it's a multimedia thing and not representative for the Filipino cinema, of course Mister Torres had a very nice opportunity to show his work at the Berlinale, but for me it doesn't fit here at all. By the way, I never witnessed so many people leaving the cinema. It started already ten minutes after the movie began and it didn't stop. At the end half of the people were gone.All I know is that I rather watched "Mulholland Drive" again, which I had planed in the first place.