Seven Days is the worst local film of 2024

 (... so far)

In December of last year, actor-director Mike Magat held a press conference for his new film Seven Days. Magat's IMDB filmography is spotty, but as far as I can tell Magat started out in several action movies as a goon or extra, including 1990's Robin Padilla actioners like Anak ni Baby Ama and Bad Boy. In that press conference, Magat talked about wanting to work with other actors, which in itself sounds like a cool thing.

After seeing this film, I would like to say to all those actors... run. RUN. RUN FOR YOUR LIFE GET SOME HELP

Seven Days is the heartwarming tale of a man who stalks a beauty queen, intrudes into her house and kidnaps her, then tells her that if she doesn't fall in love with him in seven days, he will let her go. Guess what fucking happens.

Seven Days is, in terms of technical ability, one of the worst made films I've seen this year. This film has credits: there's an editor, a sound designer, an assistant director, the usual stuff. But unlike other movies, the names listed in those credits function differently. They are less credits and more like vague probabilities. Like, did Someguy Whatshisface in the credits edit Seven Days? I GUESS. More like some dude fiddled around in Windows Movie Maker until it looked like something resembling a film. Certain shots inexplicably turn up before the scenes that they are supposed to appear. Did the sound guy do the sound in Seven Days? Kinda. There are sounds in this film, but to imply that they were edited in any way would simply be a lie. Sounds in Seven Days exist in a spectrum, ranging in between "commentary during a golf match" and "2 foot long hot pokers being inserted into my ear canal." The sound guy's personal philosophy seems to be laissez-faire. Or maybe he is not a sound engineer, but merely the suggestion of one.

The film begins in medias res, on the fourth of the seven days, with Kate (Catherine Yogi) running for her life from her captor, Marco (Mike Magat). He creeps up on her like a serial killer and catches her. The funny thing about this is, there's tense music while he's chasing her that CUTS OUT whenever it cuts to Kate, as if they rendered his chase scene first with the music and inserted her reaction shots in between.

Kate wakes up chained to the wall of a bamboo house. Marco walks up to her but he's shot in a very weird way, as if it's a surprise as to who it really is. WE JUST SAW WHO IT WAS FIVE MINUTES AGO. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOI-

hilariously, the film repeatedly cuts to his pants and shoes lol

The film then cuts to the time when Marco kidnapped Kate, and there is no question that he's a creeper. There's a part during this scene that's shot like it's from the point of view of inside the car, and it's very silly because the car's headlights are on and it's going like 1 kph following this girl and she doesn't even notice. She gets incapacitated with chloroform, he puts her in his van and races off to a remote island near Taal Volcano. The soundtrack post kidnapping is really inappropriate, but as we will see inappropriateness is par for the course for this movie. Set to a sun at around 8am (the kidnapping takes place at night, so that's some pretty powerful chloroform), the scene is set to music that doesn't sound like some poor lady's been taken against her will, but instead sounds like if Marco rescued Kate from a rebel stronghold in Mogadishu with Josh Hartnett in tow.  

Back to the present. now we see who Marco is, like that matters now. Kate is understandably distressed about the whole thing, because, as we all know, SHE HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED. Marco plays it off and offers the girl coffee and bread, but she doesn't reciprocate his "kindness", because, and I can't stress this enough, SHE HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED. During this scene, the "editor" (as I've said, this is a very gracious description of what he actually does in this film) cuts to and from shots of Marco and Kate. Not different shots, just the same ones. Did they run out of footage?

We're not even fifteen minutes into this film, and God has already abandoned us. From now on, we will only stray further from His light.

The film goes from day to day, documenting Marco's advances towards Kate. On day 2, he takes her out to pee and there are shots of her legs as she squats on the grass. Mercifully, we don't actually see any pee actually come out, which is a positive for this film, but it's not much of a consolation. Oh, and I forgot, she does this WHILE SHE IS HANDCUFFED TO MARCO. Kate hasn't changed clothes, but Marco assures her that he will buy her seven dresses, seven bras and seven panties. We will soon see that the number of clothes Marco will ultimately buy will vary. I don't know exactly why this inconsistency exists, though it does paint Marco as a serial liar, or at least, someone who exaggerates the truth.

Day 3. Marco leaves to buy groceries. He leaves Kate with a charger for her cellphone. Not so that she can call for help (there's no signal in the island), but because, in his words. "para makapagselfie ka."

AO:DFJBGAE:LGBAEOIGDBADLKGJBE:ODILHNGE"SDLGHNS:ODGN

Sorry, my mind broke for a second there. While shopping for groceries, Marco finds a wanted poster of himself. It is printed via inkjet that seems to be running out of colored ink or is printing on draft mode. I get it, printer ink is expensive. Where is the wanted poster posted? On a wall somewhere? On a telephone pole? On the side of a building? Nope, the poster (more like a piece of bond paper) is nailed to a tree. Not just any tree, a tree in THE MIDDLE OF A SMALL FOREST. Marco tears up the paper.

Day 4. Marco is jogging somewhere nearby to the tune of light, jaunty music while Kate tries to escape from the "island". Like in a previous scene, the nincompoops who made this film rendered the jogging scene with the audio before editing it with Kate's escape. What results is Marco jogging, then the music abruptly cutting while Kate runs in silence. Amazing. Even high school students edit better than this.

The police talk about Marco. They don't actually try to catch him or hold a manhunt or anything, they just kinda call each other on the phone while looking at the poster they printed. You know, the one printed by a dying inkjet printer on bond paper. It might even be the same poster prop that was torn earlier and they shot these scenes out of sequence. While they are talking, the film cuts to a 2 second shot of a bonfire. The bonfire has nothing to do with the current scene, but it does show up in a latter scene. It was probably left there by mistake by the "editor."

The bonfire actually comes from the night of Day 4, where Marco holds a romantic dinner for Kate. Kate understandably still wants to escape but she plays along for now in the hopes that he'll slip up. During the dinner date, Marco explains in detail how he stalked her for months, found out she's a beauty queen and captured her to make her fall in love with him. "Sorry for kidnapping you," he says, as if that makes everything better. She runs away but he catches her (this is, if I recall correctly, the scene from the beginning of the film).

Day 5. Kate has a dream that she's dating Marco in some sort of garden. At this time my stomach sinks. Oh no. OH NO. OH NO.

Day 6. Nothing much happens. Marco sleeps near Kate and tells her good night.

Day 7. Marco tells Kate that he knew that from day 1 that Kate wouldn't like him SO WHY THE FUCK DID YOU HOLD HER CAPTIVE FOR SEVEN DAYS YOU FUCKING - 

these were my notes during that period. The chaotic scribbles to the lower right are a graphical sign of me losing my fucking mind.

The couple look at Taal in the distance and it seems to be erupting (!) I don't think these people had much of a budget so this was one hell of a lucky shot. It goes incredibly hard and is the best thing I like about this "film".

The euphoria from that shot soon vanishes when it is confirmed that yes, Kate has somehow fallen in love with Marco. I know Stockholm Syndrome is a thing and any movies have been made about that particular condition, but the film has so far given me no signs that these two are gonna fall in love. They have ZERO chemistry. It's made even more worse by the fact that they get married two weeks later, and what's even more hilarious, during what I assume is their wedding day, Marco STILL has handcuffs on his person! Does he plan on cuffing her during the honeymoon!? Who knows!

I suppose that the handcuffs are Magat's symbol for a relationship or something, but cuffing someone connotes the lack of agency or free will. To cuff is to imprison, to deprive someone of liberty. Is he applying that metaphor to marriage as well? What the fuck is going on in this man's brain? Have parasitic worms eaten Mike Magat's frontal lobe or something?

Two months later, Marco goes all the way to Manila to buy Kate some flowers, as if there isn't a florist anywhere near Taal. The Manileño florist identifies Marco immediately because he has a picture of Marco on his phone for some reason, and he calls the cops. Right in front of Marco. Who hears everything this bald dumbass is telling the cops. Genius storytelling right here.

The cops chase Marco in one of the slowest bike chases in cinema. The informant calls a cop, who calls another cop. As the second cop talks to the first cop, the phone's ringtone keeps on ringing, even if the second cop has already answered the goddamn phone.

Eventually a random car hits Marco's bike. He is killed on the spot. Kate mourns him; his tombstone is inexplicably located not in a cemetery but in some random forest (probably the same forest where the police nailed a bond paper to a tree). This cuts to a scene seven months later, where Kate is STILL mourning Marco. Couldn't they have combined the two scenes together? Why expect something rational from this trainwreck? During Kate's mourning scene, I kid you not, the film cuts around a dozen times to Kate's crying face and Marco's tombstone. They ran out of footage. AGAIN.

There's an epilogue to this film that I will not spoil (it's in the trailer, but it's out of context so it's easy to miss) that ultimately doesn't matter. This is a baffling film, a pure failure of filmmaking craft that demands 275 pesos from its audience. Did I say audience, I meant victims. Or maybe the correct word is patsies. Who is more foolish, the fool who makes the film or the fool who watches it?

What really put me in for a loop is the ridiculousness of this film's plot, but there is, weirdly, historical precedence to this. When I was a kid, I wondered why one of my uncles on my father's side looked different from my other uncles. Eventually, one of my other relatives answered the question: hundreds of years ago, apparently one of my ancestors decided to kidnap a Dutch woman (probably part of a crew of traders) and basically did a "Seven Days" on her. I cannot corroborate whether that's true or not but needless to say I was horrified, and I have since heard similar tales from other people.

Surely, you might say, this doesn't happen today, but a culture that doesn't respect a woman's agency and one that somehow justifies kidnapping to sate the desires of a man is a way of thinking that's still ingrained in many men today. Take for example Magat's co-star in his earliest films: Robin Padilla. A few weeks ago Padilla, the 1990's symbol for toxic machismo, made statements regarding the consent of women when that woman's partner has the urge to have sex. "Wala ka sa mood, paano ako?" he said to the horror of many. But that's the thing: a lot of people think that way, people like Padilla and people like Magat. Some make regressive statements that way because they do not respect the personhood of women; they do not recognize that they should be free to make decisions for themselves, that any kindness given by their captors is not kindness but a means to get what they want. Some make regressive (and technically inept) movies because of the same reasons.

These are the kinds of people who should be shot in front of Taal Volcano. I mean it in the other sense.