My Review of Suddenly It's Magic aka Suddenly It's More Fun in the Philippines with Mario Maurer

Eeeeeeeeee si Mario Maurer, ang pogiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!

Hahaha--- nagpapatawa din pala etong si Joross.

Ambongga naman mag-bake nitong si Erich, sangkatutak na cupcake sya lang mag-isa gumawa.  O-C much? Parang magic.

Baka kaya It's Suddenly Magic pamagat.

Ay, Suddenly It's Magic pala.

Ampogi!

Wow! Laoag! ang gandaaaaaaaaa! 

Naalala ko tuloy si Bongbong.

Saka Department of Tourism.

Saka si Ricky Reyes. 

Marunong din pala umarte si Mario Maurer, awwww.

At sumayaw din. ermmm mejo.

Parang sina Donna Cruz at Jason Everly lang. Sila ba ang peg much?

Isang Tanong Isang Sagot:

ba't parang mas maganda si Mario Maurer kesa kay Erich Gonzales?

O mata ko lang ba yun?

Hahaha! Nakakatawa si Joy Viado.

Grabempogi.

Ka-touch naman umiyak ni Erich.  Mas bagay siyang makabagbag damdaming Dramatic Actress kesa nagpa-pa-cute. Philippines' Sweetheart? Akala ko si Kim Chiu yun?

Bat kaya kamukha ni Kim Chiu si Angeline Quinto dito sa music video ng movie?

Same make-up artist much?

Ampogi talaga, keri pa umarte.

Bat parang mas mature itsura ni Erich kesa kay Mario?

Ang sarap nila tingnan.

Hihihihihihihi.

Hikab.

D End.

Rage Against the Cashier and MMDA too

If you have to manage your anger, it's probably rage.

Anger is an outburst of emotion that shows itself in response to a specific situation.

An outburst doesn't last long.

It's there and then it isn't.

It doesn't stay too long.

If it does; if it lasts; if you're still festering, you're not angry at the situation anymore, you're angry at something else.

And the situation in front of you is there to remind you of it;  it's not necessarily the cause of it.

If your anger doesn't dissipate at the instance / moment you expressed it, and you still attack / get violent, if you can't cut the chain reaction of attack - either verbal, physical, etc. - it's rage.

The father of the customer below was interviewed on TV explaining the reason for his son's "outburst."

"Kung aso nga matapakan mo nangangalmot, tao pa kaya."

Which makes sense.

But look, if you step on a dog - it's true its initial reaction is to attack - for sure. But it doesn't continually do so unless the dog feels it is still being threatened or under threat.

The dog may bite or claw or bark, or growl, show its teeth or attack as its initial reaction. But the dog stops right there.

A dog has a good sense - unless it is rabid or crazy - to check if it is threatened, if it is in danger.

If the dog knows he is not, he retreats probably still grumbling or growling - as a show of force or that he is ready to pounce if in case you make a move. But it doesn't continually attack unless it feels it should.

The human below attacks the female cashier, not once, not twice, not three times but four. But wait, there's more! He attacks the fifth time as outlined by the @gmanews reporter. And the cashier doesn't fight back after the first attack, the second, or the third or the fourth or the fifth.

That is not anger.

That is rage.

Also, notice that the human claims he is "willing to apologize" on live national TV but doesn't.

That he admits he "MAYBE" made a mistake, that he could have reacted less violently BUT he still puts the blame on the cashier by saying "..kaso yung sobrang dating nya lang po kasi sobrang taas."




Similar to the below situation, rage is there even in the absence of threat.

What is present is the pervasive feeling from the raging individual that he has been slighted, that what was done to him is WRONG and it is now his god-given right to demand that the situation be right (according to his version of rightness) from the people he is raging at.



These raging dudes do not need anger management. They need to get what they deserve.

Trik or Trit? or Undas?

When did trick or treating start in Manila?

Do we even know what it means to trick?  or what "treat" means?

Do we even know when and where it originally started?

In the US it was during the 1950s.

It was seen in Ireland and Scotland a century before.

In the Philippines, it was seen only a few years ago -  maybe it began after a group of people or parents watched a lot of Full House when they were growing.

Or maybe a group of people or parents watched a lot of Hannah Montana when their kids were growing up and so they thought it would be kool to acclimate themselves to a culture that's not their own.

Or maybe they wanted to belong to a culture that isn't even theirs and they are doing so by rote, by image; by the image they see of kids trick or treating somewhere in another country out there. And they think it would be hip to do the same thing too. 

So they do.

It's not practiced everywhere in the country right? Or is it? I hope not.

If it is, why?

We're not Americans. 

We have Undas. 

We dont trick people to give us treats. We visit our dead. Sometimes the dead trick us to visit them, maybe through guilt or a ghostly apparition. That's the nearest we could get to trick or treating.  There's no treat, just tricks.

I don't get it.

Though I think I know why little kids are being hauled by their parents to dress up and ask for candies from their bosses / employers / from house to house -- it's cute.

Parents could dress their kids up like devils / carrots / dwarves  and the kids wouldn't mind.

The kids don't even know what's going on. They don't even care. The kids think their parents are doing it for their own good.

Kids are clueless. They think this is tradition, this is something they should do.  And their equally clueless parents think the same way. Thus the trick or treating. 

But who's tricking who?

What's up with high heels?

Besides the heels, what's up with high heels?

Maybe the leg muscles, maybe one's height too.

How grounded or ungrounded are you, literally and figuratively, if you're wearing high heels?

Are you grounded in your self, your thoughts, your feelings?


Or do you feel you're way up there and all the rest are down here?

Do you walk with the sense that you're unreachable?



Do you relate with others in their own level or do you look at them from yours?

When you're wearing high heels, do you ask yourself why?


What are you willing to put up with to give the temporary illusion of your 'highness'?

Are you wearing high heels for you? or is it for others to see you the way you want them to?

Who are you wearing high heels for?

Are you doing this for you?

If so, why? Do you need heels to feel better about yourself?

If not, why not do this for you? That's the least you could do for you.

But absent of other people's thoughts and opinions, do you really care if you wear high heels or not?

Just ask yourself.

Then ask, why do you care (or not) for other people's opinions.

Should you? Should you not?

Does it even matter?

The ground is your friend, you need not work against it. But if you do, it would also be for your interest to understand why.

My Review of A Secret Affair

A Secret Affair correctly began on the wrong foot because it showed how a bad relationship - no matter how picture-perfect it seems to be - is already doomed from the very start.

Look at it. A guy proposes to his girlfriend a mere 2 months after they meet and does so on stage, in front of complete strangers and - for effect (also to serve as a distraction from his crazy, stalker-like intent) - does so after a romantic song has been sung by a Soul siren.

Who wouldn't say yes to this set-up?

And Anne Curtis' character did say yes.

 But she expresses doubt the next day when she asks Anton:

'Why did you think I'd say yes?' or "Why did you think I won't say NO?"

to which Anton replies something like 'I know you wouldn't. When did you ever say NO to me?' --
this line reveals how Anton has carefully studied Anne's motivations. He knows her enough to get her to do what he wants. And her saying Yes is one of them.

That is why Anne's character says she has been "swept off (her) feet...wala ka talagang maiisip."  

Girl, that is his point. That is his goal. And that is exactly what happened until Anne realized something isn't right.

Fortunately, him studying what makes her tick was not enough for him to know what she will do next.

Naturally, & appropriately so, Anne leaves. It's not just cold feet. It's confusion - and it is completely logical for her to feel so. She says she feels overwhelmed - and with good reason.

Her unconscious knows she has been expertly manipulated, pressured even, to say YES. But she doesn't know this, she only feels this. Specifically, she feels weirded out (which on its own is a good sign)

so to make sense of her uncertainty, she decides to clear not just her head or heart but her space. That is why she left him.

Anton didn't see this coming so he feels devastated, but it's not because he loves his girlfriend. It's because his "plan" didn't work.

What the fuck is your hurry dude?

What are you in a hurry for? 

Afraid that she'd change her mind and see through you?

Because his Plan A didn't work, enter Plan B.

When Plan B presents itself, through Andi Eigenmann's character Sam, he takes it, even has sex with his Plan B.

Did he do so out of loneliness?

Is he sad?

Who cares?

He can only care about what he's feeling right now and he feels like hell because someone had the good sense to know something was up.

He didn't even ask himself if he is the reason or if he did something to make Anne's character leave abruptly.

All he could think of was what was done to him, not on what he did or could have possibly done to elicit such a reaction from his gf.

And because all he could think of was what was done to him, he is only concerned with what he's going to do now.

But wait. Anne comes back!

So Anton ditches his jailbait fling (the younger they are, the easier they are to manipulate - he thinks) and returns back to the apologetic, guilty arms of his gf.

What is annoying is that the movie panders to the sensibility of dudes who pretend to feel guilty while fornicating extra-maritally.

Like he doesn't like what's happening. Weh.

Take note, you don't have to have sex in order to have sex.

According to experts - by experts I mean the author and creator of a book called SEX and a man who admitted he had sex with a woman outside his marriage - Madonna and David Letterman:

"Just thinking about sex is sex."



Take note again, when guilt comes after an illicit fornication, that illicit fornication will happen again.

Compare the post-coital guilt to guilt that comes at the thought of an illicit fornication and the minute before an illicit fornication ---  and you will see that there is a huge universe of difference between all three.

When there is no guilt felt at all by the fornicator, you have a case of a chronic philanderer.





Is it possible for a dude to be emotionally faithful yet physically philander?


NO,

unless you're living in a Mormon state, in a Mormon relationship(s), or in a tribe where sexual orgy is a rite/ritual where unfaithfulness or philandering isn't even an issue much less a word.

But if you're in a society where dichotomy is the norm and self-dichotomy is encouraged and promoted by institutions society looks up to - e.g. Love God, deny your self; Cut your hand if it sins, etc. - then the question:

"Is it possible for a dude to be emotionally faithful yet physically philander?"


makes sense.

If you philander, you're automatically not emotionally faithful at all. You never were.

Faithfulness is not the issue.

Philandering is not the sin, it's only a symptom of a disease.

It's the disease of feeling not having enough; the disease of feeling empty; it's the bottomless-pit-disease.

Bottomless pit is where someone feels perpetually dissatisfied, empty and no amount of anything could make that someone feel full.

When a philanderer feels nothing he does or could ever do will fill that bottomless pit inside, he surrenders to the idea that philandering is something he has to do for life. He organizes his life around his philanderings and allow the philandering to get a hold of him - not the other way around.

As a result, the philanderer doesn't take his philandering personally. In his perspective, it's just something he does normally and naturally like breathing, eating. He thinks this is what he needs to do in order to live.

Anton has shades of this. Fortunately, Anne's character values her self enough to make the life-saving decision to finally say "NO" to Anton.

That is why the movie is not just smart, it is self-aware.

It even contextualized the situation Anne's and Andi's characters were in and why their lovelives are chaotic - they grew up with their parents' lovelives similarly in disarray.


Minus the absent men to whom the women in this movie were fighting for, A Secret Affair could have been better. Is it because the movie decided it's  more fun to see women fighting women compared to  men fighting women or women fighting men?

Also, take note of how the men's philandering were referred to as: "Nambababae."

As if a woman is an evil vice like smoking or drinking. Why are we - and if you're a woman, ask yourself this too - contributing to the idea of placing women alongside these objects? Why is the object of  `derision" put on "Women" a.k.a. the "other woman" and not the activity of the man?

Is it the woman's fault? or is the fault due to man's poor self-control?

Womanizing is an activity, a hobby? Philandering, betrayal, infidelity is not?

Using "Nambababae" or "Womanizing" in this context puts the women as the object when the subject should actually be the man's activity and penchant for deceit, cheating, hanky-panky.

Women, please do not allow yourself to refer to your Self this way. Plleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease.

Minus the absent acting skills of Derek Ramsey (whose muscles, good looks and sexy tattoos compensated for his lack of talent), this movie is entertainingly watchable.

Minus Star Cinema's magic wand and thanks to Viva's respect for the craft of story-telling, this movie allowed Mel Mendoza del Rosario to create a logical and relatably believable story.

Minus Nuel C Naval's beautifully rendered shots, scenes, images, camera angles and overall handiwork, this movie would not have been fun to watch. Nuel C Naval is good!

This movie is visually entertaining. It's like watching a glossy magazine come alive right before your eyes.

It also makes good sense.

Yey!

Why Tiktik is a hit - (Not) A (Movie) Review

This is not a review of the movie. This is a review of why we heart the movie.

Boy Bawang, Lipps candy, Gran Matador Brandy.

These took center stage the same way the "Aswang" and "Tiktik" ghouls did in Erik Matti's written and directed movie Tiktik: The Aswang Chronicles.

The unabashed product placements were just as entertaining as the movie.

Wait a minute, was the movie entertaining?

If you like to see a Filipino film version of the popular video game Left for Dead and the US TV series Walking Dead, yes it was.

We could literally give Hollywood a run for its money.

But is the movie trying to be too Hollywood? And because we have been conditioned to like hamburgers, milk shakes, popcorn; do we like the movie because it is like a Hollywood movie? Not because it is a good movie?

What does a "good movie" mean anyway?

When I was working as a Training staff at an accounting firm (no I am not an accountant) eons ago, Erik Matti delivered a talk to the CPAs - because sometimes CPAs need to be exposed to stuff other than numbers and ledgers too. He asked everyone in the room: "What kind of movie do you want to see?"

To which everyone's answer was hushed silence.

No one knew what or how to answer Matti's question - which Matti asked after hearing complaints from the CPA audience that Filipino movies are easier to dislike than like.

But the fact was, no one knew what they wanted to see.

You do not even know what you want to see, how could we know what kind of movies you would want to see?, Matti  asked.

But it seems Matti now knows what Pinoys want and he fulfills everyone's expectations to a T -- at least everyone who has been exposed to the loud shebang of Hollywood products.

Content-wise, Tiktik the movie is juvenile.
It even gives out a comic book vibe with its multiple panels and grittily as-if-drawn backgrounds. The story-telling was similarly forced thanks to the contrived dialogue and action.

But that is what the audience wants. They're all lining up to see it. Literally because no one has seen a Filipino-made-special effects-film like this before.

Matti has given us cake. And us the Pinoy audience is eating it all up.

If the movie was Lipps Candy, it was yummy - albeit too fruity.
If the movie was Boy Bawang, it was crunchily good but too unhealthily salty.
If the movie was Gran Matador Brandy, it will make you tipsy but not enough to make you want to get deliciously drunk.

Tiktik the movie is flashy. But the looong lines to the movie indicate we like flash; we like pomp; we like pageantry. And Erik Matti & Co. knows this. That is why the movie is a hit.

Is it Charice vs Jessica or Courtney Blooding vs Philippine Media?

Charice - with her thick Filipino-accented English - is being Filipino in America.

Jessica - with her American accent - is trying to be Filipino by loving Chickenjoy in the Philippines.

Go figure.

If you ask any aspiring Filipino singer aged 10 years old and below who their idol is,  2 out of 5 kids will highly likely say Charice. 

If you ask any aspiring Filipino singer who's career they want to emulate, most of them would probably answer Charice. 

So why isn't Charice getting the product endorsements and media mileage Jessica Sanchez got / is getting?

Sure Charice is pronouncing her name as "Sherees" and not "Charis" as we Pinoys usually do.

Sure Charice is speaking more English than Tagalog during her interviews in Philippine TV. 

Sure Charice has more blonde hair now than Selena Gomez,

does that mean she isn't Filipino anymore?

Is the issue really with Charice? or the fact that all transactions to/about her should be now coursed through her American manager?

Philippine media's opinion of Charice's manager could be summed up by @RickyLo's article:

Where's Charice's manager coming from?

 I, too, to borrow her words, feel “insulted” by and “indignant” about a foreigner who is not just “tweeting” but already twitting the taste and attitude of her so far generous and kind host (yes, the Philippines). She’s the same woman who once dismissed the Philippine media as “irresponsible” for not knowing what her nationality is. How would we know when nobody even knows her?
Isn’t she going too far and abusing Philippine hospitality by scolding Filipinos and dictating to them what to do and what to think? The nerve! How would you feel if your houseguest took you to task for not serving meals on a silver platter and covering your windows with curtains and not with Venetian Blinds?
Tell us, madam, who would we rather be proud of, a girl who even if born and raised in America and holding an American passport is proud of her Filipino heritage and has remained Filipino in looks even if she admitted not knowing how to speak Tagalog? Or a girl who was born and raised in the Philippines but who, after she made a name on a foreign land, brazenly forgot her origins, changed not only her looks (hair and all) but also her accent (phony!)? A girl who embraces her “Filipino-ness” even if she was raised American or a girl who has virtually renounced her “Filipino-ness” and obviously assumed a glaringly fake American identity?

Ricky Lo's article stems from Courtney Blooding's tweets re: how she finds it weird that Philippine media embraced Jessica Sanchez when Sanchez is actually American and not Filipino.

It's Philippine media who welcomed Sanchez and who fawned over her while the Pinoy audience gamely went on for the ride.

To be fair, Courtney Blooding's questions are legitimate and I answer them on my previous post on why we claim Jessica Sanchez as our own.

What is weird is the few news reports we hear about Charice as well as how she is not as visible on TV - via commercials, etc.

Who is blocking Charice's local exposure?

Philippine media or Charice's own American manager?

Us being an outsider could only guess DA WHO?

Update -- A Tweet I received from
 @christinamama claims that Charice Talent fee is $100,000.00 - $150,000.00 It is hard for local company there to afford her. http://CelebrityTalent.Net 

If this is true. I want to be Charice.

Why we always claim Jessica Sanchez and other Fil-Whateverians as our own

Why did we make Jessica Sanchez eat Chicken Joy? 

So we can believe she is one of us, because we know she isn't.

Even before Jessica Sanchez arrived in the Philippines, before she won or joined American Idol, we have always claimed Fil-Americans/Fil-Australians/Fil-Brits/Fil-Europeans/Fil-Whateverians as our own -- as long as they make us Filipinos living in the Philippines look good.

That is why we are sensitive to Fil-Whateverian celebrities as they are more easy to spot compared to a Fil-Whateverian engineer perhaps, a scientist, a university professor or a store keeper. Plus, it is easier to see how Fil-Whateverian celebrities make us look good.

Naturally, we disown Fil-Americans/Fil-Australians/Fil-Brits/Fil-Europeans/Fil-Whateverians who are murderers/thieves or who have shamed us by exposing the dark side of being human. e.g.  Sef Gonzales, Andrew Cunanan.

Other than us seeing Fil-Whateverian celebrities as extensions of ourselves, they are the closest thing we can come up with to avenge what Magellan did to us. Now we're doing a Magellan on the world.

But unlike Magellan - because we are Filipinos - we are not out for gold, guns or land.

Gold?! We're not greedy.

Guns?! We're not violent.

Land?! We wish. If we had tons of gold and guns, we could easily claim any land as our own. But see, we are not born to yearn for gold or blood-thirsty enough to want to shoot people. That is not in our nature. We're not born that way.

The least we could do is claim people as our own. That is our land. 

Our gold is prestige.

Our guns is our talent, our skill, our inherent prowess.

All we're after is glory.

Claiming Jessica Sanchez as our own - despite her being an American citizen with Filipino-Mexican blood - is akin to us claiming a part of that land where she is from.

Claiming any Fil-Whateverian as our own is us claiming a part of that land where she/he is from. We're transporting ourselves there while planting that Fil-Whateverian here with us.

The fact that there's a Filipino inside an American, a Norweigan, a European is us conquering that part of the world by being inside a citizen of that world.

Our blood runs inside a citizen of THAT world. That is what we are proud of.

We have conquered that country not by force but through intercourse.

There's a Magellan inside all of us in a good way.

We are the new conquerors of the world. And we do not need land to do so, only intercourse a.k.a. making-love.


That is why we do not need to claim Charice as our own, we know she already is. Charice is doing her own conquering.

Why did Jollibee make Jessica Sanchez eat Chicken Joy? It is akin to Jollibee doing a Magellan on the US fastfood market - or at least they wish.

Urban Life: It's a Mystery aka Smart + Globe = Weird

Bat ganun?


Meron akong Smart Bro Prepaid Broadband Plug-It



Pero nagagamit ko lang siya sa Globe Tattoo dashboard.

Kapag sa Smart Broadband ko siya in-open, wala - nganga aketch - di ako maka surf, swim or play in the sand.


Bat ganun?

In fairness, ambilis ng Smart - as in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ako humahabol sa bilis nya, not the other way around. winner.