Holy crap, it's Aidan! Later in the movie, Carrie calls big and tells him, "something's happened." Dun-dun-dunnn. {Image from Allmoviephoto.com}

I know my masculinity will have to suffer when I say this, but I’m an avid fan of “Sex and the City”. I know, I know—it’s a girl’s show, and I’m straight (jussayin). But the ideas of frantic life in New York, nights out, apartment walls lined with bookshelves, complicated relationships, and a barely working newspaper columnist just appeal to me.

My first SATC experience actually happened five years after the original series ended, when HBO ran the “Sex and the City” movie. Critics apparently didn’t think it was great, but I found it interesting, my taste in movies being relatively pedestrian. Later on HBO started replaying SATC the series starting from the very first episode, and so I began sleeping later than usual on Wednesday evenings. (Yes, SATC is the reason I started arriving later than usual for Physics class on Thursdays.)

On May 27, “Sex And The City 2″, the aptly named sequel to the SATC movie, opens in New York City, with an opening in the Philippines probably soon afterwards. In SATC2, Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte and Samantha fly to Morocco for a desert getaway. There Carrie—get this—meets Aidan, her erstwhile boyfriend whom she cheated with Big on. The trailer, which is available on the movie’s website, doesn’t give away much else, save the fact that this movie is bound to click with those who, like me, closely followed the series. (Yes, despite the fact that Miley Cyrus appears in the movie.)

“Sex And The City 2,” playing in a theater near you really soon.

* * *

I watch Entourage, too, so as we Filipinos like to say, quits lang. Haha. Entourage is to men what SATC probably is to women. SATC took place in New York; Entourage has Los Angeles. SATC is about a fashionista writer, her socialite friends, and the way they handle their lovelives with a “chicks before dicks” attitude; Entourage  is about an A-list movie star, his three friends who also make up his entourage, and their romantic exploits, which they pursue with the motto “Bros before hos.”

There’s no hint of an Entourage the Movie yet, but the seventh season of the HBO series is set to premiere on June 27! At the end of Season 6, Eric proposed to Sloan, Turtle went back to school and broke up with Jamie, Drama got a holding deal, and Vince was getting ready to shoot another film following his success in Gatsby. The boys look ready to go their own separate ways so it wouldn’t be wrong to assume we’ll be following more than one storyline come June. Exciting!

I’m happy to say that I have more or less regained my appetite for reading, prodded as I am by the rotating brownouts that give me five hours away from the computer everyday. I’ve been buying issues of TIME magazine regularly now, although I’m a bit embarrassed to admit the fact since I essentially kill trees with every issue I buy. (I would subscribe to the online version of the magazine, but apparently they don’t offer a Zinio-like e-mag service, which they really should.)

Speaking of TIME magazine, last Thursday I got hold of a copy of their April 26 issue, on the cover of which is Noynoy Aquino. The cover story sadly confirms my long-held view that while his campaign sits on the solid foundation of his parents’ legacy, the matter of whether it can be convincing on its own merits is another story entirely. (Yes, even though the piece sounded quite biased. Haha.)

* * *

I was in Cagayan de Oro last week. Of course I bought books. (Butuan is sadly devoid of good book shops. We have two relatively respectable bookstores, Newsies and Book Nook, but they sell only a handful of Picoults, Coelhos, and Sparkses, as well as weeklies and monthlies.)

I decided to finally grab a Twisted book. I’m a fan of Jessica Zafra’s blog, but I haven’t read any of her Twisted books yet, so I picked up “Twisted 5″, the only Twisted they had in stock at the SM CDO branch. Don’t judge the book by its hideous cover. (Voltes V? Really?) Ms Zafra’s wit and humor are easy to digest with her fantastic style. There are more movie reviews than I care to read, though.

My Twisted purchase must have pleased the universe, because a few days after buying “Twisted 5″, I won the weekly LitWit challenge on Ms Zafra’s blog! The two new additions to my already-insurmountable reading backlog are now sitting in a National Bookstore somewhere in Manila waiting for me.

***

Over the past week I’ve been killing time in a warm place (the warm place being my bedroom in the sweltering summer heat and with the absence of airconditioning, owing to the brownouts) by reading “Killing Time In A Warm Place”, a novel by Jose Dalisay Jr. about life during the Marcos years. I didn’t think I would be able to finish the novel—a few years ago when I tried to read a Nicholas Sparks I swore off writing in the first person—but Dalisay’s style is enjoyable to read. I’m afraid I have to say that the novel lacks something, though; I didn’t feel connected enough to the protagonists. Novels like “Killing Time…” are expected to paint a vivid picture of the event or struggle they deal with. This novel does so to my satisfaction. However, considering that the Marcos Years were a pivotal era for our country, I, a Filipino who was born almost a decade after the overthrow of the regime, was looking to much more than just see the picture in all its detail—I wanted to feel like I was in the picture itself. People like Dalisay who were in the heat of the action would have found it easy to feel what I wanted to feel. But there are people like me who never had to go through those turbulent times, and I’m sad to say “Killing Time…” didn’t make me feel what Dalisay’s contemporaries must have felt as they read this novel.

***

It’s back to reading Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. Every time I pick that book up (I have the 50th anniversary edition) I have to wish Rand would have given future readers more consideration and shortened it, or at least split it into two or more volumes. (She would have made more money that way, too.)

***

I say this with a certain amount of hesitation, but I will once again ask for your book recommendations. My quest to discover the classics, which you can read about in previous posts under the Opinion / Books category, is not yet over; my brother seems to have joined me on this quest, as he’s read Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and is now on “Adventures of Tom Sawyer”, another Twain. I want so badly to start on “Huck Finn”, but when I think about it I can feel my copy of “Atlas Shrugged” staring at me with a look of betrayal.

Oh hey, and Goodreads apparently has a Bookmooch-like feature now. Goodreads, by the way, is a website that allows you to share what books you’ve been reading and gives you suggestions on what to pick up next; Bookmooch lets you swap books for points—send a book to someone and you get points, which you can use to request for a book from someone else (so it’s both cost-effective and environmentally friendly!).

Another political post by me is ready for your derision:

While my family and I were eating at Kan-anan By The Sea in Talisayan, Misamis Oriental, on our way home from Cagayan de Oro, we found this flyer for the Noynoy Aquino campaign.

The flyer presents six reasons why Noynoy and Mar should be our next president and vice president. Let’s dissect it, just for fun! I will quote each talking point then offer commentary. (You can offer your own opinions, too—it’s called the Comments section for a reason.) I will quote everything verbatim, exactly as it is written on the flyer. If anyone’s interested the flyer says “Donated by: Andrew Tan and Carlos Pedrosa”.

The entire thing is here.

To break my long-standing silence on this year’s colorful elections, a post on my deserted politics blog:

I’ve heard Noynoy’s supporters say that he cannot do anything about his identity being attached to his parents’, that Cory and Ninoy’s shadow is just too big for Noynoy to step out of. I say that while that may be true, it is also true that Noynoy can and should make the case that he is a competent leader on his own, that he can make his own decisions and his own name, that he has the capacity to effect such massive change that his children will one day find his name worthy enough to use in their campaigns, too. Noy has to say, “I am Noynoy Aquino. My dad, Ninoy Aquino, died for this country. f it wasn’t for my mom, Cory, we wouldn’t have democracy. But that should not matter in your decision to vote for me. I am Noynoy Aquino. As a senator, I’ve done this and that, and as president I believe we will be able to do this and that, through these and those means. That is why you should vote for me.”

Read the whole thing here; my apologies in advance.

On today’s Inquirer: “Lakas belittles pundits’ view Teodoro out of race“:

MANILA, Philippines—The ruling Lakas-Kampi-CMD laughed off the observation of political analysts Ramon Casiple and Bobby Tuazon that its standard-bearer Gilbert “Gibo” Teodoro was virtually out of the presidential race.

“Did [Casiple] run for mayor? [He is] just a desk officer. He doesn’t know the situation on the ground,” Raymundo Roquero, the party’s new secretary general, said on the phone. “Gibo Teodoro is very much in the running.”

In Pulse Asia’s March 21-28 survey, Teodoro trailed Sen. Benigno Aquino III, Sen. Manuel Villar and Joseph Estrada with 7 percent.

But Teodoro scoffed at the results, and vowed to win the presidency by traditional campaigning.

“I don’t believe in surveys anymore,” he told reporters on Wednesday. “I’ll not comment on surveys. We’re going down to the barangay level, and we’re going to win this election.”

Let’s see: the campaign is in its final weeks, Gibo has stepped down as chairman of the party of which he is the standard bearer, his (now former) partymate Chavit is backing Villar (and taking the north with him), and he’s behind Erap—yes, Erap, as in the actor-turned-politico we forced from Malacañang nine years ago—in the polls.

Yep, the future looks bright.

Of course you’ve stopped believing in the surveys. Who would have thought that with the money and machinery of the freak Philippine politics lovechild PaLaKa behind you, you still can’t so much as make top three. That just makes all this even funnier—so funny, in fact, that it almost becomes just sad.

Better luck in 2016. Heck, if I were you, I wouldn’t try again until 2022. If we haven’t already turned into a monarchy by then.

Also, I have lengthy piece on the presidential race I’m trying to finish. Once it’s complete I’ll post it on my forlorn politics blog.

I was seated in the front seat of a jeepney today on my regular noontime commute. We were in the rightmost lane, waiting for the green light at an intersection. Suddenly a foreigner pulled up beside us and asked, “Hey, can you read?” He pointed at and read aloud a sign that said “Right lane must turn right”. “Next time, OK?” he warned before speeding off.

The foreigner was right, to be sure. We were in a must-turn-right-lane when we shouldn’t have been. This wasn’t the first time I rode in a jeepney that did the same thing; it was, however, the first time a fellow motorist reprimanded the driver. All the driver did was scoff at the rebuke. “He’s not from here and he goes around and does that,” the driver remarked (translated and paraphrased). “He better watch himself.”

I got around to thinking, perhaps this is part of the reason why the Philippines is in the mess we’re in.  We are quick to chastise immorality, lack of propriety, and selfishness in government, but we ourselves cannot be bothered to obey a simple traffic rule. We say we want an honest and trustworthy leader, while we ourselves remain selfish and indifferent. We swoon over the idea of positive change but meet even an inkling of actual reform with ridicule and defiance.

The way things are going, it would do us no good to have all the saints run our government. The common person needs to change just as much as our leaders do. To use a metaphor, replacing an engine, while necessary, is not enough to fix a ramshackle car. We want progress for our country and think honest officials are the be-all and end-all solution when in fact, the real change needs to be in ourselves.

I finally finished “To Kill A Mockingbird” today, nearly two weeks after I borrowed it from our school library. I’ll spare you the boredom of a lengthy review, but suffice to say, Harper Lee did a great job weaving a tight plot and portraying it with brilliant prose, in the process creating something precious: a story of an idyllic childhood during a tumultuous time in the distant past that has kept its sheen through the years, remaining relevant even today. Certainly a must-read.

I want to borrow another book in my continuing mission to discover the classics of literature, but there aren’t any more interesting titles available in the school library. Good news, in a way, because I still have two books here at home that I haven’t read yet: “Dreams From My Father” by Barack Obama (I bought it ages ago, but it sat neglected on my to-read shelf as I went through the classics) and the ridiculously thick “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand (in hindsight, I should have bought “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” by Milan Kundera instead of it). I think I’ll finish “Dreams” first because I’d already started reading it when I decided to do classics and because Caffeinesparks strongly advised me not to read Ayn Rand, because—and I quote—”objectivism sucks”.

Book suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!

[To Kill A Mockingbird book cover from Wikipedia]

Hello, friends. Just a quick update on my reading: I found a copy of “The Old Man and the Sea” by Ernest Hemingway in the school library last Monday. I mentioned in my last post that I recently finished reading the Barrons Book Notes on the book, but not the novella itself. I wanted to read the original work so I could properly appreciate Hemingway’s strong, strikingly simple language. I looked for a copy of the book in Bookmooch and in National Bookstore but found none, and in retrospect, I wonder why I didn’t think to look in a library first.

At any rate, after stumbling upon the book, I decided to get myself a library card just so I could take it out. Never mind that this is the first time I bothered to get a library card and that I’m graduating in four or five months. I finished it today, and, unsurprisingly, I must say I enjoyed it very much.

After I returned the novella (four days before it was due—huzzah!), I went back to reading “Dreams From My Father”, Barack Obama’s poignant memoir. However, upon coming across J.D. Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye” while going through the small collection of classic novels our library had, I decided to take it out. Hopefully I’ll be able to finish it before the weekend is over. “Dreams From My Father” will have to wait.

Actually, it might have to for a long time yet. “The Jane Austen Book Club“, which I was able to watch months ago on HBO, piqued my interest in Jane Austen, and the library has all her works (I think), so after “Catcher in the Rye”, I’m planning on going through as many Austens as I can.

You will notice that I’m just beginning to discover the classics, which is quite odd for a high school senior who labels himself a writer. I’m not sure I’ve talked about it so much yet, but I was introduced to leisure reading very abruptly. While many other bookworms of my generation entered the world of novels through Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew and their ilk, for me it was “The Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown, about three years ago. Since finishing TDVC, I’ve read four of his five novels (I haven’t gotten around to buying “The Lost Symbol” yet—I’m waiting for the paperback version). After that I moved to Steve Berry (a less recognizable name, but he writes the same genre as Brown), and then to Coelho (deep stuff), and then a little Sidney Sheldon. It was only when Sir Jay gave me his copy of The Old Man and the Sea’s Barron Book Notes to read that I realized, “Why haven’t I gone through the really important works yet?”

Better late than never, I guess. Now, considering the breadth of English literature, it will probably take me a long time to go through the more enduring works, so if you want to suggest certain novels or works for me to read, I’d appreciate it.

Oh, and if you would for some reason or other like to see what books I have/am/am planning to read, visit me on Goodreads.

***

My fearless forecast for Manny Pacquiao’s impending bout with Miguel Cotto: Manny will lose. Whether by knockout or by numbers, I can’t say, but my gut feeling (which I myself have learned to trust with caution) tells me he will come home defeated.

This prediction was made solely by observing how both Manny’s and his mother Dionisia’s heads have swelled up recently. Here’s hoping Cotto knocks some sense into them.

Consider it, then, an earnest, well-meaning wish instead of a forecast: I hope Manny loses, for his sake.

#

Book cover of “The Old Man and the Sea” obtained from Wikipedia. Not used for commercial purposes. No copyright infringement intended.

Slate Magazine‘s Dana Stevens doesn’t think much of Angels & Demons (2009, Ron Howard).  In her review, she says that “instead of having Hanks and his love interest stand around in a series of dusty churches,” Director Ron Howard “has them rush really fast through a series of dusty churches.” A.O. Scott, in his critique in the New York Times, thought the movie was “not particularly good” and pointed out that its “utter silliness” could be “either its fatal flaw or its saving grace”.

So the big-name film critics essentially dismissed the film adaptation of Robert Langdon’s first adventure as a so-so work, lacking luster when compared to other blockbusters. With that assessment in consideration, I walked into my local mall’s cinema yesterday, popcorn in one hand and Coke in the other, wary that I would be sorely disappointed.

As soon as the story began to unfold, however, I found myself disagreeing with the meager critiques the movie earned. I was only mildly excited about the plot itself largely because I’d already read the novel (although I was interested in how the book would translate into the big screen—would it be how I imagined it to be, or would I be treated to an entirely different interpretation of the novel?). What got me hooked were the subtle nuances to the enchanting and mysterious Vatican City (particularly  its well-observed rites of conclave), as well as the astute incorporation of the majesty and splendor of Rome—its Bernini sculptures, Raphael chapels and all. Ron Howard did a good job in making sure that the ancient rites of the conclave—the event around which the entire story revolves—were not neglected in the movie, at the same time keeping the overtones subtle to make way for Langdon and Vetra’s wild dash across Rome. With the sealing of the doors, the registering, canvassing and burning of the ballots, and even the new pope’s donning of his vestments, the film easily wins over those who, such as myself, were drawn to the novel for its sneaky incorporation of ancient Vatican tradition.

What can one make of the mad dashes through Rome’s ancient churches? They’re nothing to rave about, really—unless you’re into gory murders. Throughout most of the chase through the four altars of science, Langdon and Vetra are cruelly one step behind the preferiti‘s assassin, getting to the murder scenes just after the bells ring to mark the hour and just after another cardinal is murdered. After discovering a body, they oddly mill about the scene of the crime for a while before realizing, “Holy crap, we need to look for a clue that’ll lead us to the next altar! Now that we’ve killed some time—time we badly need—by making chitchat in this ancient church, we won’t be able to save the next cardinal from certain doom!” How conveniently to the detriment of the protagonists, one would think, but the discontinuous rush is heinously to the detriment of the moviegoer, too.

I must commend Tom Hanks’ performance in the film. Although I’ve had my qualms about him taking on the symbologist’s role, he portrayed the character quite well. The Robert Langdon of the movie was the Robert Langdon of the novel—a man enthralled in history (watch him bite his finger in excitement as they approach the Vatican archives) and whose eerie cleverness with obscure, well-hidden symbols makes you smirk.

Ayelet Zurer could’ve been more seductive, though. All she did throughout the movie was tail Robert in her conservative outfit (in the book, Vittoria wore skimpy shorts). She wasn’t so much a love interest as she was a sidekick sleuth who spit out facts Langdon already knew about.

Ewan McGregor’s performance as camerlengo was excellent, in my opinion. He was perfect for the role. His simple garments and somewhat diminutive stature made him stand out amidst the sea of flowing red robes. There was a certain resoluteness in his face and in his attitude that underscored the importance of his role, before and after his father’s death: as a faithful chamberlain who stood in the sidelines and as a man of power (if only temporary power) upon whom the Holy See was entrusted.

To sum it up: judging from the relative indifference of many a respected movie critic, Angels & Demons as a movie in itself is nothing more than unremarkable. On the other hand, I think many of those who’ve read the book will enjoy its silverscreen counterpart. Ron Howard did a commendable job at masterfully transferring Dan Brown’s gripping narrative to film, respecting the many clever, little devices that made the novel compelling while implementing his own cinematic wizardry to concoct a stomachable if not applaudable motion picture.

Ancient rituals, a mysterious scientific organization, and a mad dash through the Holy See and the Eternal City—Angels & Demons didn’t fail to please this Dan Brown fan. In spite of the fact that I still can’t quite wrap my head around Robert Langdon being played by Tom Hanks (whatever happened to Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed?), and that they sadly omitted the novel’s final scene from the movie, I nonetheless give Angels & Demons a deantastic A.

***

The MTRCB gave Angels & Demons an R-13 rating—the same rating they handed to The Da Vinci Code. While I believe that TDVC should’ve been marked PG-13, I understand why they decided to restrict A&D‘s audience. It certainly isn’t for the faint of heart, what with the gorish brandings and gruesome deaths that are as graphic on film as they are in words. Don’t take your kids to see this one, and if you or your companion are a queasy symbology buff or Tom Hanks fan, you might want to consider bringing a sickness bag.

That’s right, people. Hitler and Hussein are breaking out their snowgear and skating on the frozen River Styx. Kris Allen, the dark horse, the underdog, has become the new American Idol.

I’ll be honest: I completely wrote Kris Allen off after Danny Gokey was eliminated. After all, Simon, Paula, Kara and Randy clearly favored Adam Lambert, and not without good reason: Lambert reeks of rock and roll, what with his amazing voice and rocking style. Which is not to say that Kris Allen sucks donkey balls—he is no doubt a phenomenal artist, but between him and Lambert, there’s no question (to me, at least) who stands out.

But it was America, not the judges, who chose whom to award the title of American Idol, and with 100 million votes cast, the decision was made loud and clear. Hopefully, most of those who voted for Allen chose him because they thought he deserved the title. Undoubtedly, of course, there are some who voted for Allen for other reasons—perhaps human instinct, which moves us to root for the underdog.

Kris Allen has a great career in front of him.

But in my opinion, Adam Lambert has the potential to go beyond “great”. He has all the makings of a Rock and Roll legend, with or without the title of American Idol. His leathery get-up, dark eyeliner and freaking wicked hair remind me of My Chemical Romance‘s Gerard Way and—I will probably draw some flak for this—even Elvis Presley. (Yeah, Elvis didn’t wear eyeliner [did he?], but you get the point.)

So Kris Allen is this year’s American Idol. But you really have to stop and wonder: with all respect where it is due, who really won the title?

[Image taken from americanidol.com. Had to crop Gokey out of the picture—sorry, dude!]