Ten Thumbs UP!

Up is probably my most anticipated Pixar movie since The Incredibles (and yes, it's because I prefer animated movies featuring people instead of animals or inanimate objects because I'm unimaginative like that, LOL). And it finally hit Manila this week (again, why the delay?) so I (kinda) lined up to go watch cute Russell and the colorful balloons up in the sky (how can I resist balloons and clouds and blue skies?). :)

We all know the Pixar genius is in its appeal to kids of all ages, and Up delivers in true Pixar form. It is a touching movie interspersed with witty lines and humor and severe cuteness (Russell is just too adorable), and one that will manage to make you realize a thing or two about life.

If you wanna know what I gathered from it,

1. Sometimes, life gets in the way of our dreams. But sometimes it can give us much more happiness than any adventure can.
2. Material possessions should never be something to be attached to. Sometimes that in itself gets you stuck. And maybe the less attached to them you are, the higher up you can go.
   
3. Most people are deliberately annoying for a reason. And it's usually because they lack attention. Some deserve to be indulged (like Russell), but some should also just be ignored (like that former movie star). Moral of the story: if you have to be annoying, at least be sure you're doing it cutely. :)
   
4. In the same manner, some people are grouchy for a reason, and it's because life might have kept them on a perpetual bad mood. The bravest of us will dare tear that grouchiness facade down and provide a reason to be in a good mood again.
   
5. Leadership based on fear will never last. Leadership based on earned respect, on the other hand, does. Atta boy, Doug!
   
6. Sometimes, the villains in our lives are the ones we least expect them to be.
7. Sometimes all we really want to do is think only of ourselves. But where's the fun and adventure in that?
8. Age is just a number.
   
9. When you meet a talking dog and a colorful chocolate-eating bird, you can't not keep them. But sometimes those that we want and care about are happiest in situations when we have to let go of them.
   
10. South America is America!!! Only South!!!

If you have to watch just one animated movie this year, you should definitely make it Up! :)

...Read more

Time is Nothing. And The Time Traveler's Wife?

When I finally read Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveler's Wife, I wasn't exactly blown away the way fans of the book were. It wasn't necessarily a bad book, and the central plot can never make the book average or ordinary. But while it won't make it to my list of favorite books, I still recognized the very unique, very original love story, and as a hopeless romantic, how can you tear yourself away from a story that narrates how to make an incredibly difficult love situation work?

For my thoughts on the book, and the movie,

In TTTW, I was most marveled not by the fact that Henry can time travel, but that there was a girl who has loved him, and only him, all of her life (reminds me of one girl in particular, no, not me :P). There is something incredibly romantic, albeit idealistic, about having thought of yourself in relation to only one partner in your entire life but Clare did so, even if it entailed lots of waiting, and lots and lots of patience. While some cynics may argue that this was forced to her as a six-year old, I'd like to believe she had a choice each and every time, to meet that time traveler at the meadow, and she could have easily opted not to. Henry too, after meeting Clare for the first time chronologically, had the choice not to believe her, but he did, and while their story is largely fatalistic, it never seemed forced on either Henry or Clare.

In an attempt to establish that amidst the couple's extraordinary situation, they still struggled to live normal lives, TTTW often seemed like it was bogged down with day-to-day details that I sometimes wish some things were made a little more grandstanded. Which is why I had such high hopes that the movie adaptation could come out much better than the book, given its inherent license for histrionics. Unfortunately, the movie chooses to be somewhat downplayed, when it could have shown the audience one powerful scene, after the other. I could go on and on about which particular scenes could have packed more punch but I might be killed for excessive spoilers (LOL).

Furthermore, the movie could have opted to deviate a little from the book and could have made that work (a happier ending would have been nice), and yet it chose to be quite faithful to it. While there were some cuts and tweaks, they were incredibly minor to be anything effective. Even that slight tweak to the finale seemed too faithful, and unfortunately less powerful, that maybe they should have just stuck to the book on that one. Or still added the book's finale as the final, final scene (which I secretly hoped was gonna be shown after the credits since it was my favorite part of the book). And why oh why did they even forget to use the "time is nothing" line (or did they, and I just didn't hear it?)?

And lastly, the effects could have used a little more work. While the vanishing effect for Henry is as good as it can get (at least for me), I wished they brought in the Benjamin Button crew for prosthetics because it is incredibly distracting to observe that a 20-something Henry had the same deep wrinkles as the 30-something and 40-something Henry. It was as if the movie capitalized on Eric Bana's boyish looks and then crossed its fingers the audience would be convinced enough with mere hair changes. And to think Brad Pitt was actually an executive producer in the movie so it was not difficult or far-fetched to have the movie tap into the Benjamin Button magic.

For all my complaints, it is still an Eric Bana movie (and I love Rachel McAdams too), and one I would have watched even if everyone had told me not to. Maybe the movie just thought of compensating for its shortcomings through Eric's multiple clothes-less vanishing scenes. So watch if you're an Eric Bana and/or Rachel McAdams fan or if you're too lazy to read the book (though the movie might confuse you if you haven't read the book) or if you really absolutely must see how the movie adaptation of the book is. Otherwise, maybe you are better off watching some other movie showing in town at the same time, like say, Up. :)

P. S. I agree with Buzzsugar, a TV series based on TTTW after the movie? Definitely overkill.

...Read more

My Very Literary Take on My Sister's Keeper

There are times in my life when I'm the mood to make myself cry (or try to), and for two years now, it always happens around July (because I always wanna check that I still have a heart before my birthday? :P). As if on cue, My Sister's Keeper comes to the big screen. I've heard good reviews on the book, knew a little about the story and thought I'd pull what I'd like to call a Kite Runner (i. e., watch the movie first, then have the movie convince me to read the book, the way The Kite Runner worked for me). Also, because I was of the impression it is a movie about sisters (something I can relate to because I heart my sister and would be willing to give her my kidney if she needs it, even if I'm scared sh*t of surgery), I really had high hopes it is the movie that finally makes me cry (unfortunately/fortunately, noone was willing to bet that I would).

So what happened? If you wanna know...

Imagine my disappointment when the movie did not even make a dent. I think part of it was the awareness that the movie had tearjerker strewn all over it, and me just being, well, me (totally empathy-challenged). After reading about the differences between the movie and the book (thank you, wikipedia), I realized it was because the movie played out quite expectedly. And while I usually prefer that movies are not that faithful to the books they were spun from, I actually wished this particular one stayed faithful to the ending.

This post does not purport to justify one sister's death over the other (and now, I read like a risk disclosure statement? :D). After all, it is particularly difficult to think of death as justified, especially that of a young girl. However, from a completely literary perspective, there is an element of surprise in the book's ending, and it is it that could have brought out more emotions, mine in particular.

I'm not a fan of Jodi Picoult, but after reading the book, I can now see how a fan can be enraged with how the movie adaptation completely ripped off the book. In fairness to the movie though, to capture what makes the book a good read is incredibly tough. Because the central conflict is such a morally, ethically and emotionally gray matter, the devil is truly in the details, in the introspective look into the characters, which is not something easy to capture visibly, except in the form of memories (which the movie had a loooot of). The good thing about the movie though is that it attempted to eject humor and playfulness amidst such sad circumstances better than the book did.

As with most adaptations, the movie also had to sacrifice some subplots for conciseness and so the movie won't run 4 hours long (duh!). The most notable of these left out subplots is the Campbell-Julia love story (the lawyer and the guardian ad litem who is not even in the movie). While I like their story, I appreciate its exclusion from the movie because it focused the spotlight on the Taylor-Kate love story (that the book rushed), which is just simply sweet and cute, however short-lived. :(

Armed with a hindsight of 20/20, would I have watched the movie after having read the book? Probably out of curiosity, but not with as much eagerness. I'm hoping the next movie I see based on a book turns out to be much better than the book.

Now go ahead and make my wish come true, The Time Traveler's Wife. ;)

...Read more

Well Hello, Angels & Demons

Anyone who has ever read Dan Brown's two most popular novels will agree that Angels & Demons is more movie material that The Da Vinci Code. Which is why I was looking forward to this movie more than I did Da Vinci (that and the fact that back then I still haven't accepted that Nicholas Cage wasn't Robert Langdon, haha). I also expected that the movie would be better than its precedent, which shouldn't be much of a challenge. To me at least, the only redeeming value of Da Vinci was that breathtaking view of the Louvre in its closing scene.

The reviews for Angels & Demons weren't very good though, and I thought I'd be incredibly disappointed. In fairness to the movie, I think it delivered better than Da Vinci (again, not such a difficult task), and as far as adaptations go, it did a pretty good job plotwise (see, this is the reason why you shouldn't be reading reviews prior to watching a movie), complete with hi-tech tweaks (cool password key and anti-matter thingie!). Bottom line, I liked it but I didn't love it (and maybe the low expectation setting was a factor), and for more of my rants, raves and spoilers...

• Tom Hanks was still lousy (and no, I'm not holding a grudge because of Nicholas Cage, seriously). It is a sad thing to note because I think he is a great actor (he was amazing in The Terminal), but as Robert Langdon this time around, there were a lot of times when he was even more irritating than the head of the Swiss Guard (whose job was supposed to be the pest of the movie). I totally agree with Buzzsugar, he did talk a hell of a lot. It might have been okay if it's truly educational but by golly, everyone who was watching the movie probably already read the book (or if they haven't, I doubt they're much of a trivia or history buff). P. S. Did they really have to show him swimming in those trunks?! Could he have been approached by the Vatican police at a coffee shop or something?
• Thanks for not exploring the love story angle between Robert and Vittoria, or I would have rolled my eyes a full 360. P. S. Vittoria was pretty and intelligent and all, but no, she didn't stand out as a character the way Sophie Neveu did. But then again, Audrey Tautou is Audrey Tautou. Maybe they should have gotten Monica Bellucci? Never mind, waste of talent on such a forgettable role.
• Ewan McGregor as the Camerlengo proved to be a gem, and he played the good-yet-not-so-good boy part extremely well, that I think the movie was as much his as Tom Hanks'. And it seemed apt that he was the only one who rode that helicopter high up in the sky (kudos on that plot tweak).
  
• Is it just me or was the assassin (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) hot? I loved the way he shot at people, all swift and skilled (whaaat?!) and his gun was so nifty! Also loved how he had a (kinda) redeeming factor about him in the end when he didn't kill the unarmed duo signifying how the job was just a job. Awww, so sad to see you explode. P. S. Thank you for not bothering to explore the grudge-because-of-the-Crusades angle. It was okay in the book but would've been too much on the movie on top of everything else.
• But hey Mr. Hot Assassin, disgusting first murder! Ugh! Rats! *cringe* And many more disgusting scenes of dead people. Nightmares, nightmares.
  
• Some humor was injected, mostly by Tom Hanks, and two in particular made me laugh in the single bout way (as in heh vs. hahahaha): Vittoria tearing that page off Galileo's book, and Vatican cop not being able to breathe inside the Vatican Archives. Oh and Robert jumping through hoops to crash a glass wall inside the Vatican Archives so as not to die of suffocation, only for the electricity to come back up again after he has successful done so. Poor gigantic cabinet full of ancient historical documents.
  
• Half the movie was shot in the dark, and while I understand that it might have been necessary plotwise, did it really have to be that dark on sooo many scenes? Jeez!
  
• But hey, when it was bright, the cinematography was beautiful. Not night-shot-of-the -Louvre beautiful but still beautiful (as in I-so-wanna-go-to-Rome beautiful). I especially like the last scene where the new pope makes his first ever appearance to the people. It felt, well, heavenly. And of course, fantastic antimatter explosion up in the sky. Soooo, well, heavenly still (ummm, what's wrong with me?).
• I like the subtlety of the message in new Camerlengo's teeny-tiny side story (Cardinal Strauss, Conclave presider) whose own desire for power almost rendered him powerless to have Patrick disqualified for election as Pope. And tsk, that would have been extremely unfortunate. Hence the speech on how religion is flawed because men are flawed, including himself (or something like that).
• Finally, loved that they spared the life of one of the four Preferiti because it's just more bright and shiny that way (the least they could have done after showing us all those dead people, LOL).

All in all, I think the movie also took a friendlier view of the Church than Da Vinci did. They even passed on the pope-as-a-dad angle. But maybe the movie would have been much better if Nicholas Cage played Robert Langdon (and here I go again). Hehehe. And also, if it had more lighting.

Ummm, next stop, Digital Fortress? Deception Point? Ha! Never mind.

Ultimate P. S. Also grateful the movie did not go on forever. Expected it to be looooong. To me at least it didn't feel long. So very grateful. ;D

...Read more

The Silver Lining

I finally finished my first Cecelia Ahern novel! No, it's not P. S. I Love You (which is still sitting in my shelf waiting to be read after a gazillion months, oopsie). Since I already kinda knew how P. S. I Love You is gonna go (depending on how faithful the movie was to the book, hehe), I opted to read her third novel first, the one entitled If You Could See Me Now, mainly because of the mysterious plot summary.

The book is about this guy named Ivan who is only visible to a little boy named Luke and his mothering aunt Elizabeth. He is what our world would call an invisible friend, who by convention should only be seen by kids but incidentally is seen by Elizabeth as well. What follows is a love story of the childlike, fairy tale kind, but with a reasonable amount of realism blended in that it doesn't seem too incredulous.

The novel felt long that it took me more than a month and a half to finally finish it (no, I wasn't reading the whole time :P), and it only seemed to pick up steam towards the middle of the book. Nonetheless, I was very much curious about how Elizabeth and Ivan will handle their growing affection (read: L-O-V-E) for each other despite their impossible situation. Would it be like City of Angels, with Ivan choosing to embrace humanity over his immortal, invisible friend status? Or was he merely preparing Elizabeth for eventually ending up like him, an invisible friend too? Of course, these are the two most typical possibilities, and Cecelia Ahern is more than typical. Or rather, she was typical in more ways than one.

If you really wanna know...

She eventually wrapped up the story by bringing things back in perspective, and back to reality, with Ivan turning invisible again, leaving Elizabeth by herself. Which is in fact the most realistic progression of things. Nevertheless, losing someone is always a sad, seemingly unacceptable thing especially when things feel right, perfect and meant to be, only to be riddled with the impossible. While the book dedicated two paragraphs on the nature of heartbreak (that I'd rather not quote because while it's nice, it cannot rival Stephenie Meyer's New Moon heartbreak quote anyway), there was not that much focus on sadness but the silver lining of things. Because indeed, sometimes people come into our lives to serve a purpose, and it could be as simple as making us realize a thing or two about ourselves, or pinpoint a much needed change like a breath of fresh air or a splash of color. And we also need to appreciate that amidst the struggle to come to terms with our sadness.

Unfortunately, in some cases, the why does not often come as quickly or as clearly as it did with Elizabeth and Ivan. Sometimes, the best thing to hope for is that one day our dark cloud's silver lining becomes apparent. Or sometimes, as Ivan so simplistically put it, the silver lining are the people themselves.

...Read more

Vicky Cristina Barcelona: Unsettlingly Beautiful

I never really knew what to expect from the movie Vicky Cristina Barcelona, except that it had an art film vibe to it. I expected to doze off a little the way I usually do with drama movies, but surprisingly, the film was able to hold its own in the interest sustenance department (says the narcoleptic). If I were to describe Vicky Cristina Barcelona in one word, I would say it was PASSIONATE. In fact, I don't think I've ever watched a film with that much passion in a really long time.

In a nutshell, the movie is about two close friends named Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) who spend a summer in Barcelona (hence the *gasp* title). They both get involved with a Spanish painter named Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem, who is a dead ringer for Jeffrey Dean Morgan, a. k. a. Denny Duquette in Grey's Anatomy) in different ways - Vicky in a confuse-me-before-and-after-my-wedding sort of way, and Cristina in an, err, slightly more tangled love web with Juan Antonio and his ex-wife Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz).

Curious?

Anything that involves psychotic, suicidal/murderous exes would probably be too much to handle in a movie (fortunately/unfortunately though, the only "crime" of passion was an accidental bullet to the hand), but for some reason the neurotic undertone in this movie struck me as appealing. I never really liked Penelope Cruz, but in this movie, she was particularly noteworthy as the beautifully eccentric Maria Elena. Ironically, it was also only in this movie that I've actually found her beautiful, in the divinely gorgeous sense. I also liked the character and beauty of Rebecca Hall (whom I never really knew before this movie) as the serious, level-headed Vicky, who wanted nothing in her life but stability. Even Scarlett, whom I never really appreciated as an actress seemed perfect for the role of the carefree and spontaneous Cristina.


In conclusion, the movie starred very beautiful people and this is actually the only point of my post. Hahaha. :P Kidding aside, I liked Vicky Cristina Barcelona not only because of its physical beauty with its beautiful actresses and picturesque backdrop, but also because of its beautiful, open-ended, thought-inducing story. It attempted to explore the various intricacies of love and relationships (love as a commitment, love as passion, love as a feeling, love as a choice, love with no bounderies, etc., etc.) which is a lot to handle in less than two hours, but this unsettlement is what makes the film different... in a stunningly good way. And why not? As the movie puts it, only unfulfilled love can be romantic.

And finally, what makes the movie particularly memorable for me is how Vicky and Cristina were basically the same people as they were before that summer in Barcelona. Most vacation movies are all about transformations and self-reinventions, which, while not necessarily bad, are typical. When sometimes, a radically different experience does not teach you something groundbreaking about yourself but merely affirms who you are and want you want (or not want) out of life and love.

All in all, Vicky Cristina Barcelona is not a light movie to watch but if you're looking for a passionate, raw take on love and humanity, it will give you just that.

...Read more

Baby Proof: Proving It

True to being an Emily Giffin fan (says my Facebook account :P), I eventually picked up and read Baby Proof. Honestly, judging from the title and synopsis alone, it was the least interesting of her books to me, so much so that if I were to forgo reading one of her books, this would have been it. Luckily, there is no limit as to how many books I can read because Baby Proof was definitely a good read, and I can truly say it can give Something Borrowed a run for its money (and we all know the first book, which popularizes the author, is usually hard to beat).

Baby Proof tells the story of Claudia who is married to Ben. The couple, perfect for each other in every way, have come to the agreement that they do not want children in their lives. Ben, however, has a change of heart, which puts Claudia in the terrible predicament of choosing between Ben and what she wants (or doesn't want), in a matter as serious and important as having a baby. Women in general are expected to want to be mothers, and it is very rare for a woman to insist with absolute certainty that she does not want to be one. This is where Baby Proof takes off from, and what follows is a very mature tale that still has all the adorable trademarks of an Emily Giffin novel - great writing, interesting retorts and anecdotes here and there, and an overall appeal that women can easily relate to. It is without a doubt, Giffin's most serious novel but it was intelligently written (not in an brain-draining way).

I give out my usual spoiler warning, but if you wish...

I thought I would be reading about the disintegration of a marriage throughout the course of the book. Instead, three chapters into the book, we read about Ben and Claudia deciding to part ways. The story proceeds to show how Claudia copes with the divorce in all its different stages - missing Ben (where the all too familiar everything-reminds-her-of-him was detailed affectionately), the wallowing, the struggle to hang on, seeing Ben moving on, finally deciding to move on herself (where it goes to prove yet again that the rebound, no matter how ideal, will not get the girl), a sense of acceptance, and finally, the decision on how to take everything from there. While Claudia eventually regretted the haste in the divorce, it seemed much better to have decided to end things before they both started resenting each other. After all, the time off proved to be good for the both of them.

My favorite part of Claudia's time apart with Ben was that time during her 35th birthday, after she arrived from that dreamy vacation at Lake Como with Richard (a. k. a. the Rebound Guy) and received a call from Ben. Despite the great vacation, it was that greeting from Ben that actually made everything feel right. Because in reality, it can be something as simplistic as that from the right person that will make you happier than any beautiful or outlandish gesture from the wrong person.

Of all of Emily Giffin's main characters, Claudia is the most ideal - successful, mature, and so put together (even in the stages of wallowing and cyberstalking the new girl). All throughout the book, Claudia demonstrated how strong-willed (but not stubborn) she was with the fact that she really did not want to be a mother. It was pretty much established that it was not because of her unfortunate experience with her mother or how it would interfere with her career (because she did decide to pass off on a career opportunity to be there for a pregnant friend) or her own fears of whether she would be a good mother or her own capacity to be one. She simply did not want children. Plain and simple. Despite everything from peer pressure to an ultimatum from the love of her life (maybe she was a bit stubborn too, huh?). To me it demonstrated strength of character to insist on this despite the contrarian forces from everywhere. Because sometimes, you really just don't want what everyone seems to want. Which is why I was quite disappointed when she finally caved and became willing to have a baby if that meant she could have Ben back.

Of course, the main point of this is not lost to me (since it was very much stressed via a cameo from Ethan because agreebly, it is easier to accept reality from an objective stranger than from your family and friends). True love really does conquer all. True love would really will you to do whatever it takes for the person you love, even if it means sacrificing what you want (or do not want) in return. After all, with regard to the matter of having a baby, there are no compromises (you either do or you don't). In a sense, Ben and Claudia were lucky that their impediment is based on wants and non-wants, and not some other totally complicated or inflexible circumstance like religion or distance or other people (all of which others have been willing to overcome as well). It was a good thing Ben caved too though, and was also willing to give up his desire for a baby in order to have Claudia back. After all, true love is nothing but unconditional. I also like how it ended not really resolving whether Claudia and Ben really do have a baby. Because either way is fine. The important thing was that they were together again.

And finally, there were other stories too. The story of the pep-talking and tip-laden Jess (Claudia's best friend), her one-sided affair and eventually her getting the relationship she deserved. The story of Daphne and her plight to have a child. The story of Maura and her struggle to stay in an unhappy marriage for the children. All stories tied up well with Claudia's storyline, and effectively enhanced it (especially on the motherhood angle). Which all in all makes Baby Proof a truly great read, with great quotes to boot as well (more on that later).

I can't wait for Miss Giffin's next book! :D

...Read more

On Heroes (The Show, Not the General Idea)

The latest run of Heroes is on its fifth chapter, and while I don't dislike it as much as after watching the second chapter, it's still not exactly the Heroes I've known and loved.

If you've been following Heroes or would want to know what's been going on (and don't mind spoilers)...

Sure, I'm curious about who this person is who calls himself or herself Rebel, but I don't think it's enough to keep people tuned in on the show. Especially when the other major thing happening is another *gasp* explosion, this time with an involuntary suicide bomber in the form of Matt Parkman, and the ever enthusiastic savior Hiro and his (now) supercharger friend Ando. It's just too how-many-seasons-ago-with-some-tweaks, don't you think?

In other news, while Peter was way cooler when he had a wide array of powers to use at his disposal, the whole one-power-at-a-time limitation does bring out an adorable vulnerability in him that enhances his character. He is still the compassionate and idealistic Peter from day one of Heroes, but his courage (albeit naive) is now more evident. And let's face it, there really is room for only one invincible hero even in a show full of heroes. Unfortunately, that "hero" is Sylar.

Speaking of, while the rest of the heroes are trying to elude Nathan and Co. (and Noah too), Sylar (a. k. a. the most lovable heartless villain ever) is more preoccupied with his quest for answers by finding his birth father. Sure, he is being hunted down like the others but are they really a match against him? For a little while there, he drives with Luke, a very willing teenage sidekick, who does not believe Sylar is that dangerous. Taking off from last season's Elle-Sylar love story, the first few chapters of the show has lead us to hope that maybe Sylar has a redeeming quality after all. And if it's not romance that could extract the best in him, maybe a little brotherly friendship would (sure, sure, whatever). In a sense, we did see him not kill Luke (because it's a little too on the nose, apparently), and yet he still continues alone on his quest to find and kill his father who deserves all the credit for demonstrating to him how to do his signature killer move (pun intended) and scarring his soul for life (and why is it only now that he remembers all these again?). Sylar as a kid was too darn cute though, and I actually felt a wave of sadness knowing what he will end up to be.

So what's next aside from Sylar's soul-searching and another explosion and that Claire encounter with the puppet master (which I am so not looking forward to)? Is Moira Kelly really just a Homeland Security person? And the biggest question of all: Is there something more original in store for this season of Heroes? I guess we all have to stay tuned to find out. Or not.

P. S. Apparently, if you kiss someone with fish abilities (i. e., can breathe forever under water), you are able to sort of do that too. Oh really now...

...Read more

Rediscovering OTH

I used to love, love, love One Tree Hill. But a few months ago, I decided to boycott the show under the rationale of ridiculous plotlines. However, a little birdie told me that the show's not so bad. In fact, it's pretty much the same OTH we used to watch out for week after week. Which is why I opted to do a full on OTH Season 6 marathon recently (Jeez Yms, where is all the free time coming from? Hahaha).

Six seasons since the time I first discovered OTH, some things haven't changed for me. For one, I still loooove Nathan. Sure, he no longer is a jerk (and I don't like jerks anymore anyway, haha), but he still is adorable to me in the I'm-so-proud-of-how-you've-changed sort of way. Equally important, Brooke is still my favorite person in Tree Hill. Generally speaking, given any TV show, I would most likely favor the bitchy (yet not-so-heartless) female character, and before Sage of Privileged and Blair of Gossip Girl, there was Brooke Davis. Yes she was a bit on the sl*tty side, but she has always been a great friend and a strong, fiesty woman and the sixth season demonstrated just how much she's grown from that girl who sat naked at the backseat of Luke's car. BTW, is Sophia Bush and James Lafferty still dating? I am so rooting for them. Hahaha. :)

But some things also have changed. Like I don't hate Haley anymore. I have already accepted that she is the love of Nathan's life (awww...). Maybe because she totally upgraded the wardrobe. Hahaha. I have also conceded that Luke and Peyton are the ones who are right for each other. I think the whole Lindsey thing from the previous season helped, though I won't be devasted if all those rumors about Chad Michael Murray and Hilarie Burton leaving the show were true (although I know of one person who will be heartbroken).

Wanna know what's gone on in the latest run of OTH?


There's a lot that went on in Tree Hill after I decided to turn my back on them (I'm so sorry for giving up after two episodes... I'm just really so impatient. Hahaha.). Nathan plays basketball again. Brooke decides to channel her mothering desires towards a teenager. Lucas and Peyton get engaged and have a baby on the way. And (drumroll please), Lucas' first novel is gonna be turned into a movie. Enter two new noteworthy characters: the charming (to further qualify: charming-not-handsome-except-maybe-a-little-up-close, haha) indie producer Julian (who is also Peyton's ex and Brooke's new romantic object - yes, they're sharing boys again :P) and eccentric director Dixon (played by James Van Der Beek, a. k. a. Dawson Leery, who I never really cared for in Dawson's Creek but I somehow enjoy watching in OTH because he is pretty funny). All in all, pretty great material, save for that eyerolling encounter similar to the psycho nanny Carrie storyline (quit it, you guys... it's soooo B movie-ish!). And while the latest episode didn't really leave any significant cliffhangers, I felt a tinge of yearning five minutes into that last episode. I want more OTH! :) The marathon just reminded me of how much I love the show.

March 16 (when the next episode is set to air) seems like such a long wait. Especially because there's a one day lag from here. Hahaha. :)

...Read more

The 18th Privilege

I don’t regularly do dedicated single episode rundowns, but because I love Privileged so much I can’t help but talk about their season finale.

Let me start by saying that it was a proper season finale. A cliffhanger was there and some burgeoning storylines were set up, and while I can’t wait to watch Season 2, I also really didn’t feel like I had to watch the next episode tomorrow or I will implode. Hahaha. Furthermore, there were subtle wrap-ups of the storylines in the season. My favorite scene in this episode will have to be the one of the girls dancing (I liiike being a giiirl...) - Laurel, Megan, Sage and Rose. I really couldn’t help but smile at this scene, and in a sense, it provides a wordless statement: that this show is, above anything else, all about these ladies.

Photo courtesy of Buzzsugar.

I love the central occasion at which this episode is set - Marco’s wedding. Because we all know Marco is my favorite (I’ve said it a number of times already). His marriage to Keith gets me worried that they might boot him out of the show. I really hope not. Because then I’d be really sad. Awww… (wait a minute, para akong sirang plaka). Anyhow, what follows from the opening discussion about doves vs. fireworks (Marco naman, doves over fireworks? Seriously?! Haha.), and a stream of quirky dialogue (which forms part of the Privi trademark) is a couple of *gasp* breakups and mishaps I just totally did not see coming.

I really thought this episode would set the foundation for a Will-Megan-David (Robert Buckley, who will always be Kirby to me) love triangle. But noooo it doesn’t. It does hit us with a Will-Megan breakup which still surprised me when I saw it happen even if I already knew (I slept through my first viewing of Privi and only woke up to watch them broken up already and to “attend” Marco’s wedding for 2 minutes then slept again. Har-har.). I felt a wee-bit apologetic for siding with Will when Megan actually was right on her position on Will and his work ethic, and then boom! Megan does the most careless thing ever. Poor Will. I officially hate Megan now. Drunk or not, you just don’t do that to Will. Or any guy for that matter.

Photo courtesy of Buzzsugar.

Of course the Will-Megan breakup is enough heartbreak for one episode (even if it’s a season finale). And then comes the curve ball Sage-Luis breakup. Which is sad (because I loved them together), but totally understandable. I happen to think Sage made the right call on this one. Oh Sage, how well you’ve grown. :D

The resonating theme in this episode was that of change vs. being yourself. They couldn’t have picked a better theme for the season finale.

I’m gonna miss you, Privi! Come back, okay?

...Read more

Oh, I'm Into You

Ah, the wonders of lowered expectations. The movie reviews for He's Just Not That Into You (HJNTIY) was just not very good. Enough for me to not expect much from it. And part of me really just wanted to watch out of sheer loyalty and support for the book (I'm a Leo, hear me roar! Haha). Another part wanted to conjure an epiphany. Just kidding. Although incidentally, if you wanted one you could probably have gotten it fifteen minutes into the movie with half your attention focused on something else entirely unrelated and much more pressing. Because by its nature, the movie is just epiphany-laden.

The Bad. It is pretty long. But not in an I-wanna-walk-out-already-and-go-home-sorta-way. Just longer than the usual talkies and romantic comedies about relationships. But then again, there are a number of storylines, people! Furthermore, the presentation is pretty kalat if I do say so myself. Which is rather unfortunate coming off from a pretty great introduction. I felt like the dividers (i.e. phrases giving instances of when he is just not that into you) were confusing, if not misplaced. The movie also did a psuedo-cross between an actual movie and a documentary and while the subjects were pretty funny and enlightening, it just felt like the film was trying too hard to be so many things at the same time. I also have to say that the movie was a star-studded waste, in the sense that they could have utilized less popular actors and still provide essentially the same finished product. I get that this would affect the commercial viability of the movie, but where's the confidence in that? The book was a freakin' bestseller. They should have sold the idea, not the actors. Jeez. In all honesty, the only two actors I strongly believe should be in the movie (i. e. not to be replaced by less popular ones) would be Ginnifer Goodwin and that Alex guy (Alex in the movie, not IRL, haha). Who are incidentally not the bigger stars in the cast. Jennifer Aniston, Jennifer Connelly, Drew Barrymore? Totally underutilized (Drew especially) and most probably overpaid. Scarlet Johanson and Ben Affleck? 50-50. Or scratch that, maybe 75-25 for Ben Affleck (because of the cargo pants scene, which is just so romantically cute). Hahaha. But then again, maybe I just missed Ben. :P

The Meh. The Jennifer Connelly and Scarlet storylines. Maybe it's a personal non-inclination but regardless... m-e-h. And to reiterate, they could have made this movie cheaper. Wait a minute, is this why the movie is in the premiere theatres?! Hmp! :)

The Good. As a general rule, I don't like it when movies are too faithful to the book. Because really, what's the point? And in my opinion, it is this particular movie's strongest point. Others may argue that given that the book is technically self-help in nature (i. e., no actual storylines), the movie really won't be faithful to it. Touche. But sentiment-wise, the movie really shifted course from the book by being much more optimistic. And I suspect this was opted for commercial purposes too, because who really wants to watch a movie telling you to kill all hope (I do, I do, I do! Hahaha!)? The optimism is most evident in the closing narration which I quote below.

Girls are taught a lot of stuff growing up: if a boy punches you he likes you, never try to trim your own bangs, and someday you will meet a wonderful guy and get your very own happy ending. Every movie we see, every story we're told implores us to wait for it: the third act twist, the unexpected declaration of love, the exception to the rule. But sometimes we're so focused on finding our happy ending we don't learn how to read the signs. How to tell the ones who want us from the ones who don't, the ones who will stay and the ones who will leave. And maybe a happy ending doesn't include a guy, maybe it's you, on your own, picking up the pieces and starting over, freeing yourself up for something better in the future. Maybe the happy ending is just moving on. Or maybe the happy ending is this: knowing after all the unreturned phone calls and broken-hearts, through the blunders and misread signals, through all the pain and embarrassment... you never gave up hope.

In a sense, the movie was also fairer than the book. In fact, there was even a plotline referring to a she (i. e., she's not just that into you if she's not sleeping with you - which Renil points out is really much more realistic than the he version). Which was a good move because in reality, there are heartless bitches in the world too (maybe a 1:3 ratio with the jerks, haha). So guys, it's really okay to watch the movie too. It will only bash you 85% of the time. Haha. Plus, if and when your significant other pressures you to get married, you can quote Ben Affleck's character like it's the best anti-marriage position ever. Just make sure you both stop watching the movie after that boat scene or all hell will break loose. Hahaha.

The Particularly Noteworthy. Ginnifer Goodwin's character Gigi, may seem to be the most pathetic of them all, but she also is the most endearing. And her plotline, especially the Alex twist, was too darn funny and heartwarming. In fact, they could have made a shorter movie out of this plotline and it might just work. Yes, it's quite exaggerated but throw in the Alex angle and it really becomes cute. :P Whatever anyone's take is, the Gigi-Alex plotline really just drives home this sweet truth: no matter how much of a turn-off, and how majorly pathetic/dramatic/ridiculous/borderline psychotic you are, if he's smitten, he's smitten. You still won't be able to drive him away. A caution to the severely optimistic: Gigi may have been Alex's exception, but you aren't necessarily his. Kill all hope, kill all hope! Hahaha. :) As the book and movie echoes consistently, assume to be the rule, never the exception. You're upside is that you'll be pleasantly surprised if he ever does decide to brave things for you (but then don't expect to be surprised, duh). Because the downside to the contrary is just too much wasted time and energy on your part.

All in All. Despite the fact that I have my personal complaints over the movie, I actually liked it enough that I'd watch it again on DVD (c'mon buzzsugar, you really won't call it back?). I'd recommend it especially to the people who haven't read the book. :)

P. S. Yes, one storyline deliberately not discussed. :) It just doesn't fall under any of the subcategories, okay? Hahaha. =))

P. P. S. Seriously, Myspace?! When was this movie made, 2004? :P

...Read more

Darcy's Turn (Spoiler Alert!)

Hot on the heels of Something Borrowed, I flipped the pages to read about Darcy's story this time. I actually expected full-on redemption by Chapter One only to find myself halfway through the book still thinking Darcy is being her shallow, selfish and unapologetic self. Not deserving any sympathy whatsoever. She is even more annoying than Becky Bloomwood in her most annoying times.

When she finally does decide to turn things around, her transformation takes a backseat to her crystallizing moment - the realization that she has more than friendly feelings for Ethan (I knew it! I knew it!). While the friends-turned-lovers tale had never been a personal preference (ahem!), for some reason, I couldn't help but root for them. Sigh! Love and friendship. They are what make us who we are, and what can change us if we let them.

I was expecting a reconciliation between Rachel and Darcy in this book, but I must admit the phone call and subtle patching up (even if Rachel was the second person Darcy called after giving birth) was less than expected but just right. I guess to me it drove home the point that no matter what happened, it is enough for a simple note or phone call for things to be okay again between two very close people.

Other than these though, I have nothing much to say. While the book is a good time-killer/momentary diversion, it lacks the depth of substance that Something Borrowed had. Or perhaps the story was simply more typical, and unfortunately, devoid of any hearty twists (Really, twins? Is that all you've got? Hahaha.). Maybe the Ethan thing was supposed to be the book's main surprise but for some reason I really just saw it coming. It would have been cuter if there were more love-hate moments but Ethan simply caved too soon. Hahaha.

Next stop? Baby Proof. :)

P. S. In retrospect, I can't believe it was only toward the end of the book that I realized why Something Blue was entitled so. I assumed blue = sad, not blue the color. ROFL. =))

...Read more

A Must Borrow (Or Buy)

I finally finished reading one of my books! While this book is not new, it is new for me! Hahaha. Emily Giffin's first book, Something Borrowed may not have the snappy writing that Love the One You're With had, but it had a pretty good story.

I had a vague idea of what the plot of the book was prior to reading, and it made the book an attractive read to me. After all, how can you sympathize with a main character (Rachel) who sleeps with her best friend's (Darcy) fiance (Dex)? It is one of the ultimates of friendship violation and I expected myself to actually dislike Rachel and yet, she is actually totally understandable. Because in a sense, the book summary is right. True love comes at a very high price. And in this case, it can cost you a friendship, even a best friendship (hahaha).

Spoilers abound, but if you wish...

I imagine this book is particularly satisfying for anyone who has ever played the role of the Other Woman (not necessarily in the context of marriage) because it represents a vindication of being in that particular situation. After all, as the book goes, not everything is black and white and sometimes the end justifies the means. And in a sense, I do agree that true love will always triumph over even the most unusual or frowned upon of circumstances.

Surprisingly, even as a quick decision-maker/ultimatum/now-or-never kinda girl, I liked that decision to pick an arbitrary (yet not-so-arbitrary) date for when The Talk between Rachel and Dex will happen. It was refreshing for me to be made to realize that when dealing with something complicated that you don't wanna give up just yet, sometimes it's important to first allow yourself to feel before letting your thoughts (especially when they're severely judgmental and pessimistic) to get in the way. Yes, the outcome could prove disastrous but maybe the happiness (albeit momentary) would make it worthwhile. :)

And while I get why Darcy had to be portrayed in that characterization (anything less will make her boring), I wonder if the sympathy vote would have tilted heavily toward her direction had she been less, errr, bitchy. After all, the point is not that she was being a bitch, hence she had it coming. The point was that no matter how great a girl is, if she's wrong for a guy then that's just how it is. They have no business getting married. And she really shouldn't be forcing herself or the guy to get married.

I also particularly loved the statement about how it was a good thing that it was Dex who made the decision to break it off. Before Darcy could say anything. Because indeed, if Darcy was the one who initiated things then Rachel would always be wondering if Dex ended up with her only because things can no longer work out with Darcy. She would have always wondered whether she was really first choice or was merely chosen by default because the other option fell short. And while some situations can be netiher black nor white, choices always have to be so. Otherwise they aren't really choices, are they?

Giffin's second book is about Darcy this time. And while the teaser isn't as appealing as this particular book, I'm still interested to read it (if only I could find it), in order to see Darcy's side of the story and give her some sort of redemption (See, I am so fair! Why are other people not fair? Hahaha). I'm hoping Darcy ends up with Ethan. ;)

P. S. A movie for Something Borrowed might be on its way?! Except it stars Hilary Swank as Rachel. Ugh! >.<

...Read more

Not Bad, Australia

It seems as if I have too much time in my hands, because I can now afford to watch movies of epic lengths. In fairness to Australia, it was much better than I expected it to be. I expected to sleep through parts of the movie (or leave early if necessary, haha), and yet I didn't. Which just goes to prove that my subconscious thinks Hugh Jackman is sexier than Brad Pitt (Yes, I'm pinning this one on my subconscious. So when is that Wolverine movie showing again? :D).

Now back to Australia... I must say I'm glad I watched it. Even if the trailer wasn't that appealing and I really watched it only because it's a Hugh Jackman film (my heart literally stopped when he showed up at that ball all clean-shaven and every bit gorgeous). However, I must say Nicole is perfect for the part of an English aristocrat and she proves yet again that she is regality personified. I especially loved the funny kangaroo scene.

I was also in awe of that black horse Capricornia (or at least that's what I thought I heard it was called). I never knew I'd find a horse so beautiful, and yet I saw it and was utterly amazed at how perfect it looked. The droving scenes are also pretty exciting, even when my initial reaction was that it would be tiring to watch herds of cattle being moved to a faaaar location for days.

While the plot is nothing extraordinary, the themes of love and solidarity are nothing new, after all, the historical and cultural circumstances did provide a fresh, educational take. It was also easy to pinpoint when the movie can be cut to shorten it. The return to Far Away Downs could have been a perfect happy ending. And yet, the movie continued on, in a spectacle of this-and-that-being-dead-and-alive-after-all-only-to-be-(probably)-killed-again. But then again, had they nipped it at a typical happy ending, the movie wouldn't be anything special. Because much of the emotional beauty in this movie were in those scenes when the happy backdrop started to fade.

All in all, it's a good movie that was worth the 2 hours and 35 minutes of my time. Sure I kept on telling myself that I was gonna hurl if I hear one more instrumental tune of Somewhere Over the Rainbow. But it was Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman at their romantic best. In a scenic, scenic tale. I'd be willing to take a little cheese with that. :)

...Read more

Bride Wars (Spoiler Alert!)

Sometimes all I need to be convinced to watch a movie is the title and the lead actress. And when you throw in Anne Hathaway and Kate Hudson in a movie entitled Bride Wars, I'm in. I don't remember having watched either of them as brides before, and it seems like it might be a great chick flick.

Interested?

The storyline, as might be gleaned from the title, is about BFFs who ultimately become archenemies because their weddings are set at the exact same place and date. Anne is stunning as usual, and while her beauty is not exactly conventional for most, she is still one of my favorite faces in Hollywood. Unfortunately, while it was nice to see Kate Hudson sport a stronger character than her usual roles, I can't help but think that her fiercened-up look didn't quite suit her. After all, her charm has always been girl-next-door-ish, and so the bangs, dark eyeliner and contacts combination just didn't sit well.


And while I didn't exactly expect an earth-shattering plot, I also can't help but wish the antics the girls pulled were more outrageous. Even the catfight was nothing worth mentioning. The only thing probably worth mentioning is seeing Anne sport that bright orange tan (yes, she's still beautiful). They're grown women for crying out loud! Why did it seem like they can't even give Regina George and Cady Haren a run for their money? It might be bad enough if it were to happen in real life, but nothing great to watch in a movie. One scene worth mentioning though was seeing Anne dance that dance when she crashed Kate's bachelorette party. Atta girl! Who knew she had that talent?

The surprising twist for me was seeing Bryan Greenberg (a.k.a. Jake of OTH). From scene one, I was kinda hoping he'd end up with Anne in the movie, and true enough, he did! Yey!

Sadly though, Bride Wars is nothing but a DVD movie. A DVD movie you watch when you have time to kill and nothing better to do. Oh well, let's just hope the other chick flicks to come are better. Next stop? He's Just Not That into You. This one better not be another star-studded waste.

...Read more