(please read previous post first)
This is a personal opinion, but the UP house style of writing that these "critics" like to use tends to be too jargon-heavy. Clarity and simplicity are more effective means of delivering an idea.
(Joel David I respect tho--he was once asked by Sight and Sound to do a list of the ten best films ever made, and he included a porn film. I liked that; I especially liked the fact that he recognized that porn can be political, which it can)
And being rabidly politically oriented can blind one; I know of the high reputation of Sister Stella L.; I also think Sister Stella L. , while decently and intelligently made, is rather dull in its earnestness, and is more a political debate than a work of cinematic art (Pete Lacaba has heard this complaint, and god bless his gentle soul, still talks to me. But he's better off doing agitprop--which the films really are--with a real agitator, like Brocka. Or doing excellent noir with subtler social commentary with Tikoy Aguiluz).
What's more, Mike de Leon agrees with me--he dislikes the film, thinks it's his least personal project, and wonders what he was thinking of doing that sort of thing in the first place.
There's a lot of films like that--elevated because their maker's heart and passion but not skill and imagination were in the right place. That's one kind of crap I speak out against, with every opportunity.
Well; I've pontificated--sounded more like a "critic" than I have in years. Feh.