Wednesday is my new Saturday?

In all the years I have stayed in UP (nearly four) I had only three semesters when I had Wednesday classes. First was the LRC classes I took for Math and Physics and Chem. Second was NSTP 2 under Sir Ong--which rarely met so parang wala rin. And last was History 116 under Prof. M. D. Jose. Oh. I also had my Badminton and Advance Badminton classes on Wednesdays, different semesters.

Well, anyway, last semester I rarely spent my Wednesdays here in Laguna because I was working kuno as a Student Assistant at the CAS Library. But this semester (hopefully my second to the last) since I quit my SA gig for the OrgASM presidency (HAHA, akala sosyal) I spend all my Wednesdays (or at least I try to) at Laguna. No, not because walang gagawin for OrgASM but because AS 132 (Seminar on Philippine Urban Issues) is so demanding in terms of requirements that I had to go to Binyan weekly.

Anyway. I was supposed to go to the Municipal Hall today but the bum in me prevailed (as it always does whenever I'm in Laguna) and I just called the offices.:) Talk about working the phones. Instead of going, I watched DVDs, as always.

Well, The Hangover starring Justin Bartha and Bradley Cooper of Failure to Launch, and some other unknown dudes (Haha, ang sama ko) was uneventful except for the witty ending. With Roofies you end up on the ground, not on the roof, right? HAHAHAHA


So. I watched Gray Matters today. Again. For the nth time. Why? Well because I saw Heather Graham in The Hangover and kinda miss her. HAHA, close pala? Haha. I watched it because I missed watching the movie. Although, I admit, I know its every twists and turns, every scene and almost every line. But still, every time I watch it, Heather Graham, Tom Cavanaugh and Alan Cumming never fail to amaze, amuse and touch my little cold heart (haha) with their good acting.

At syempre, I feel like....

Sana I have a Tom Cavanaugh for a brother and Alan Cumming for a friend. Promise talaga, if the Lord gives me that it would easier to do a Kathleen Espejo. Hahaha, gets? :D (You, dear reader, probably won't)

"Don't expect to end up with your first crush. It's like marrying at age 12."

-Sam (Tom Cavanaugh) to Gray (Heather Graham)

I don't mind marrying at age 12. Hehe. But as I've read once, "We all have feelings. But we need not act on them."

"Like"

One of the many reasons that I think makes Facebook click (like Friendster did) is its "like" option. Yes that simple, unassuming and common-looking option beside the "comment." This "like" option gives Facebook users the right to..uh, react without being obliged to leave a verbal aka readable comment like "Hahaha" or an emoticon "=)" "O_o" and others. It's like showing appreciation yet being not-so pa-close.


When to use the "like" option?

1) When you completely agree or, uh, like a friend's post to a level higher than just by merely showing a nonsensical comment like "HAHA" (Aside from liking his/her post you also leave a comment)
2) When you agree but don't feel like commenting.
3) When you agree but don't have something worth saying/typing
4) When you're feeling tamad
5) When you just feel like liking
6) When you want your crush/someone you like (even non-romantically speaking) to notice that you liked their post
7) Kapag feel mo magparamdam
and...
8) When you just... like it. For some reason you cannot point out to.


My fearless (maybe hopeful) forecast is that Facebook will soon be adding the "like" option under one's profile picture. It's, I guess, for showing one's liking of another. This means, you not only like that person's posts but himself or herself :P And I guess, this will become a hit with couples, MUs or It's-Complicateds. Hahaha

So, do you "like" this post? Haha. It's okay if you don't, just don't "unlike" it HAHA

Getting shorter

I realized my attention span is getting shorter as I grow older. I think, according to the very minimal knowledge I have of psychology, it should be other way around. Older = longer attention span.

How did I came to this realization of a reverse "growth" of my attention span?

1. I only view the first page of my Multiply Inbox page. Beyond that, I'm oblivious.

2. I don't even view all those posts on that page.

3. I only view the first ten or so update in my Facebook Home page. (I used to click "Older Posts" until I was able to see every new thing.)

4. I only view selected friends Profile pages to, err, save time(?). I used to check all my friends Profile pages when I feel like it (which, then, was almost always).

5. I'm taking less Facebook quizzes. Before I used to take at least three a day.

5. I stalk selected people. (I use/d Facebook because it has no "Who viewed me?" um, feature, for stalking purposes. I used to stalk every person I feel like stalking. But now, I stalk only a couple of friends. Haha)

6. My entries are getting shorter, less dramatic, less adjective-ish and is frequently bordering on the concise (meaning: they are well-thought of, and the points are numbered--such as this one--or highlighted.).

7. I rarely watch Audrey Hepburn movies, which I used to review religiously.

8. I rarely watch and review any movie/TV series.

9. I easily get tired of a song. (I used to listen to one song the whole day. But these days, I
readily click the "Next" button on my iPod--and the song hasn't even reached the 2-minute mark.)

10. I don't watch any reality show--which I used to love. (ie, Survivor, Amazing Race, etc.)

11. I don't watch TV.
12. I've stopped downloading new music. (I used to download 20-30 tracks a day--suggestions from friends and some from OSTs. Now, I haven't downloaded a thing despite having a "new" list of songs to listen to.

13. When listening to someone who's delivering a class report, it's either I doodle or have a chat with my seatmate after five minutes or so of listening (or trying to).

14. I don't get excited with the thought of Internet. (Before, my eyes used to sparkle--parang Aha! moment--at the sound of the word "Internet" now they just glimmer with wishful thinking.)

15. I don't bother to watch the Hayden Kho+Katrina Halili sex video/scandal (kahit na napanood na ng buong pamilya at kapitbahay ko) even if everyone around me is talking about it or raring (haha) to watch it.

So, I think, I'm bored and... basta. I miss Batanes. Simpleng buhay, simpleng problema.

Pacquiao-Hatton Game Sidelights

Because of the brevity of the Manny Pacquiao-Ricky Hatton East vs. West match (May 3, 2009), my relatively short attention span focused on other things. I noticed:



1) Brits are not the most talented people. Pinoys are! I have never blogged about a Manny Pacquiao fight because despite being a big fan of sports, I don't like boxing. It's too..violent. Ha ha. When Hatton went down in a breathtaking fashion, I thought he fainted--or worse, dead. My previous assumption that being a Brit, being English, is like being part of the best race in the entire world--actors, singers. Name it, they are the best at it. (And I say this with pride) Not anymore. Ha ha



2) EAST won! Goes to show you that Orientalism sucks. :) And so do Occidentalism ;-)


3) The ads. Since the Manny-Ricky (Hahaha, close?) fight was just two rounds, GMA Network had to cramp in all the paid advertisements in less than ten minutes of boxing action. And they did that well, I think. Bulldog Super Glue, Alaxan FR, Revicon Forte, WaterStop sealant, that Pioneer ElastoPaint sealant (see number 4), Solmux..name it, that game got it all. Even election-wannabees' ads were present--yet no one is charged with early campaigning/electioneering. I bet that Kuya Efren guy will run for something next elections. As with that akomismo thing, party-list 'yan, promise!!! And of course Gilbert Teodoro of Department of National Defense has declared that he will run for the Presidency--add to that, he is the cover story of today's (May 3 2009) issue of StarWeek. I fearlessly forecast him to be just another Raul Roco: There will be people voting for him because he looks credible but these votes are not enough to make him win.

4) That ElastoPaint sealant ad is a perfect example of the phrase "commodification of women." I am not a feminist nor am I part of Gabriela (Reminder: Gabriela is not a feminist org sabi ni Elaine.) but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that TV ad. I couldn't express my sentiments toward this in English. So to use Tagalog: Grabe lang ha, hindi mo na alam kung ano ang tinitinda niya, sealant o sarili niya!! Aakyat ka ba ng bubong para mag-ayos ng butas nang naka-ganu'ng damit?!?! Kamon. (Rough translation: The ad was so "sensual" that the viewer wouldn't know what the girl/lady was endorsing the sealant or herself. Come on, will you go up on the roof to fix a leaking roof wearing a flimsy shirt?")

Unlikely Celeb Sightings 1

If this is what unemployed aka bum people feel, I already feel it. Well, I'm technically not employable since I haven't got a sedula or residence certificate, or NBI clearance--though I could easily get one--and I'm still 19--as if age can prevent me from joining the working force. Kids as young as five work.

Anyway, while waiting for summer practicum to commence--to that glorious place at the northernmost part of the Philippines--YES! BATANES!--I'm spending my days between alternating with my youngest brother in washing the dishes and doing chores like frying cooking stuff--and either watching the TV screen or the laptop screen. I alternate to avoid dying of boredom.

Well, now that I have yet to buy the ultimate remedy to boredom--a supersampler!--I've found another past time. I think I'm done, for the mean time, with my Audrey Hepburn movie marathons. What past time, you ask?

Watching movies and spotting who's-that-not-so-famous-actor-in-that-movie-pero-who-is-very-famous-now. It's like what Seth Rogen and his buddies in Knocked Up did--without the nudity and bong, of course.

So far, my movie watchful eye has spotted--with the aid of Google/Wikipedia articles--5 famous stars in not-so famous or even recognizable roles. Some don't even have a name or lines to go with their "character." Well, I guess everybody has a low point in movies--except for Sean Penn and Edward Norton, who as always starred in politically/socially/culturally-relevant, award-winning or at least avant-garde movies.

These five sightings are:

1) Jennifer Morrison in Mr. and Mrs. Smith as "Jade." Jade who? Morrison seemed to have traded her white Plainsboro Teaching Hospital-resident-doctor coat and stethoscope for black, leather duds and laptops--playing one of the plain-looking I-Temp girls of Angelina Jolie. She had a few scenes with Ange the Great but only one wherein she actually spoke. Ange asked her, "What're you guys doing in this room?" and she answered, "(blah blah blah) . . . research, background on the target." Then, Ange aka Jane tells her, "You may go. This room is wrapped up." And that ends Morrison's dialogue. In the whole movie. (Had to watch it more than thrice--and paused it around a few more times--just to see where was this "Jade." Her beauty and stunningness seemed to fade, or disappear, sans the doctor's coat. Now I know why doctors look hot. Or maybe  I do.

Add caption

2) Zooey Deschanel in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Yes, she was there and I only found out when the credits started rolling. Her name came out of nowhere. I had to watch the film over and over again trying to spot her. But, no. I had to check Google who she was in the movie exactly. And even then--when I had the name--I wasn't sure if it was really her. Come on, that Robert Ford's girlfriend does not look like Zooey. In fact--and I say this with confidence--she's very un-Zooey-ish in that movie.

Add caption

3) John Cho (as Harold in Harold and Kumar 1 & 2) in American Beauty. No, not American Pie but American Beauty. And his "character's" name: Sale House Guy #1. Goes to show how unimportant the role is. Anybody could be that guy. He just walks in this house--with his supposed girlfriend--which Annette Bening was desperately trying to sell, looks around and stares at Annette. He didn't even had a line.

Add caption

4) Scarlett Johansson in Home Alone 3. I first thought McCaulay Culkin was in this one--like the other Home Alone movies that I purposely skipped on--but I was pleasantly surprised, after watching the film, that it starred Alex D. Linz as the chickenpox infected Alex. Anyway, back to Miss Johansson. Well, I expected--since it was Home Alone Three already--a grown lady (maybe as policewoman or agent) to walk in and look a lot like Scarlett now. But, no. I was half into the movie when I remembered what the Wikipedia article said her name was in the movie. Molly Pruitt. Shit, she's the older sister of Alex. But not old as I expected. For all I know she's around fifteen--or younger. In fairness to her, she had actual lines. One of which was, "Excuse me, the 'it' you're referring to is my little brother." Yea! Attagirl.

Add caption

5) Olivia Wilde in Girl Next Door. Girl Next what? I know, it's one of those predictable and sleazy American highschool/teen flicks. But a much younger Dr. Thirteen was very much unrecognizable in this movie for the simple fact that she was blond. (Or was she a real blonde?) Few shots of her passed unnoticed then I saw her smile directly at the camera. And that's when I had to freeze frame a certain shot of her--smiling, with her friends (in the first part of the movie)--just to convince myself she was in that movie. Well, according to Wikipedia, her character's name's Kellie but I have watched the movie and don't remember her having any lines at all. I don't even remember a scene of hers with any of the lead characters.

Add caption

See? This is a fun time-consuming pasttime, the result/s of which only adds up to the immensely nonsensical trivia I have, stuck in my brain, waiting to be put to good use--like bragging? Ha ha.

Stay tuned.

Social Networking Sites ANALYZED!

NOTE: A mirror entry is posted in my Multiply account.

Friendster. The social networking site that started it all. I can't say much for this uh, site, because I've "discovered" (used, actually) it relatively recently--third year college, to be exact--and my best friend Irish even made my account. I was that . . . uninterested. :)

Maybe because I had Multiply first. And now, I rarely open my Friendster account--once a week can be considered a rare occurrence. My indifference towards my Friendster account is manifested by the simple 5-character password I have for it. Even you can guess it under 10 tries. (Wanna try? Ha ha)

The verdict: If you have many technologically-challenged friends--or just want to have 400+ people to call "friends"--and stay connected with them but not uh, committed, Friendster is the one for you.

Multiply. I came upon this social network site--my very first--because I wanted an avenue for my blogs--some are nonsensical while some are, well, relevant. I had them on Blogger--under sariefa.blogspot.com--but I figured no one was reading them, and I think I need people's feedbacks to get better at blogging. (You be the judge if I got better :D) And also my blockmates (those who remained after a bunch left. hehe) had Multiply accounts since birth--Ha ha--and I figured if we had to bridge the gap--kasi nga the ones who remained in Area Studies weren't that close--Multiply was one way of doing it. And I guess I was right. :)

The verdict: If you're one thought-ful (meaning: marami kang thoughts Hahaha) individual and you want to (and don't mind to) share it to the world, and you have gazillions of pictures and want to people to comment on them, Multiply is your thang. Ha ha

Facebook. If I remember correctly, it was Teppie who invited me to create a Facebook account--whose layout was hideous then. (Anyone remember the Facebook Wall before? Ang pangit sobraaaa.) Well, between the current layout and the one that came before it, I liked the previous one. But I guess Facebook was looking to develop their "create-a-quiz" application/s.

Anyway, I used my Facebook mostly for stalking purposes, at first. Multiply has this "viewed by" option--just like Friendster (but even that can be turned off)--which makes it non-stalker friendly. But tada! Facebook has no "viewed by" option whatsoever. And what I like about it more is that whenever a friend--the one you're stalking, for example--gets "tagged" anywhere within Facebook you're allowed to see it. See, stalker-friendly?

The verdict: If you don't mind--and actually like--killing time answering "which (whatever TVshow/TV show character/cartoon character/singer/band/band member/president/era/douche-bag/film/film character here) are you?" quizzes, and playing "role-playing games" for pets, poker, mafias and even farmers, and commenting on other people's results, this is it! Ha ha

Tagged. I can't remember how in the world did I make a Tagged account. All I can remember is that I had three friends--Raizel, Harold and uh, I forgot the last one. Hehe. I am indiferrent to this account to the point that I don't even have a profile picture. Even a fake one of some artist I like--wala. I also forgot which password I used. I have found no use/no sense in continuing to open--have I opened it more than once?--this account. I don't even care that it exists. I can waste no time in deleting it. Ha ha

The verdict: It's old and badly needs reformatting. Hey, did Tagged developers forgot that even the most successful account-making sites re-layout, re-format to keep Netizens clicking. (Ex: Yahoo Mail to Yahoo Mail Beta, Friendster increased the number of allowable albums and pictures, Multiply now has the AutoUploader feature, Facebook constantly changes its layout for more user-friendly viewing/using, and so on.)

Plurk. Like with Facebook, it is Teppie who constantly--before--sends me email invitations to join yet another social networking site. This time it involves karma points, "says" "shares" and other verb that can replace the linking verb "is" in the sentence: Jo Ann is... The more frequent one posts a "plurk" or a status, the higher the karma points. Right?

I have found no urge to create a Plurk account because:

1) I think it's too much stalker-ish;

2) It's tedious--I have to go online everyday (which I actually do, but I'd rather spend it Googling whatever and whoever or downloading music);

3) I think I'd have less "contacts" who would follow and reply to my plurks; and

4) I think I have no--or low, at best--creativity to think of reply-able, interesting-enough plurks.

The verdict: This is for people who are always online and does not mind sharing their stuff--thoughts, actions and feelings--to the world every second something comes up! :)

Twitter. I remember Ma'am Doti Jose saying something in class about the high-end and poor side of things. (Kung mayaman ka, you call it allergies. Kapag mahirap, galis--or worse. Kapag mayaman liberated--or maybe, promiscuous. Kapag mahirap, pokpok. And so on..) And I say this with no intent to offend whatsoever, pero I think Plurk is for the masang Pinoy--or "common tao"--while Twitter is for the more sosyal beings, the high-ups in the Filipino social ladder.

I first heard of Twitter just this March lang yata. I read Paolo Lorenzana's article on Supreme in The Philippine Star about Georgina Wilson being addicted to Twitter. From then on, I Google-d. Ha ha. I learned that Wilson is like our toned-down, more intelligent Lindsay Lohan--I only use her as a point of reference because of her Twittering habits. Some well-known Twitters are Twiterring couple Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, whose tweets on Susan Boyle jumpstarted her popularity online, John Mayer--who, by the way, Twitters everything daw, and even Catt Sadler from E! Daily Ten.

The verdict: You have to be famous or interesting to deliriously creative (tweets are like, Facebook status-es on Exra Joss Haha) for people to constantly "follow" your tweets.

This Blog is 63% Woman!

According to GenderAnalyzer:


Results

We think http://joannlovessaturdays.blogspot.com/ is written by a woman (63%).

Reality is stranger than fiction

Ted Failon's wife is in the ICU for a bullet wound on her temple, after purportedly committing "suicide" but some evidence suggest otherwise. Yes, TV Patrol's forever-anchorman best known for his crime-spotter program Hoy! Gising!--it was this show that started it all before Imbestigador and uh, XXX came along--is a suspect, along with his maids.

My friends (and co-practicumers) and I discussed the implications, possiblities and beneath-the-surface-analysis of the whole thing. All of us agreed it was unlikely suicide, and financial difficulties is definetely not the reason for it. Because, Ken pointed out, Ted himself said, "Kung pera lang 'yan, kikitain ko 'yan." We are all sure, based on haka-haka, of course, since we're not part of any investigating team whatsover and that what we know are based on what is shown on the TV--controlled information, maybe?

It is, for Vic and me, highly-likely that Ted may have tried to kill his wife, and failed. Or tried to shoot her and succeeded. Why? 1) He was the one who found her, after he came from his DZMM radio show; 2) They (Ted and his wife) had a fight that morning when she arrived from somewhere giving him motive; 3) The gun used was his; 4) The maids inadvertently daw cleaned everything up--the mess she made in the bathroom--after Ted rushed his wife to the hospital. Ted may have asked the maids to clean up. Or he may not.

Further, Ken thought that--whoever shot the wife, the maids or Ted--it was for protection. For her, "Hindi lang sarili niya ang pinoprotektahan ni Ted," which led us to the next question: Ano ang pinoprotektahan niya?

We all agreed it was some sort of romantic in nature. Not the good-romantic way but the one that involves lies-deception-lovers. The wife, we all agreed, was the one who had a lover because she was guilty in her suicide letter, if it was truly hers. And that it was her who did not spend the night. Not Ted. And, their daughter arriving from Cebu went straight to Camp Karingal (where Ted was waiting to be allowed to leave after making his statement--along with his maids) and not the hospital where the wife/mother was fighting for her life. Ken said, this was a show of allegiance. And since daughters--or even sons--are expected to be close to the mother (that one would rush to her bedside instead of going to a military camp where the suspect-father was) by natural means--the wonders of biology--this implicates something. That there is a reason why the daughter rushed to Ted, and not the mom. Maybe this has something to do with the wife's supposed adultery. Hmm.

This looks like a plot directly coming out from some freaky and boring detective novel ala Richard North Patterson or some psyched, worked-up narration of the workings of the mind ala Chuck Palahniuk. But it is not. This is real life. A woman with a bullet wound (am not sure if the bullet is still in her head) is, as Pinoys say it fifty-fifty, lying on some hospital fighting for her life--or maybe she isn't, maybe she's getting ready to die--after being shot--either by herself, by her maids, her husband Ted or maybe somebody else--in her daughter's bathroom. Add to that (some may find it) intriguing plot is Ted's famous anchorman status.

In the midst of all the ruckus, doubts, questions and people's-very-own-musings (like what we had), lies the age-old, million dollar question: Was it really suicide? What really happened that morning in the Failon residence in Tiera Pura?

I wish we had E! True Hollywood Stories to answer these questions, which I sincerely hope would not go unanswered.

Audrey Hepburn Review Series Part 3

My ever-brilliant mother correctly observed, one summer, that me and my siblings were wasting away our time watching crappy movies like... So to sort of lead us to the right direction (read: movies that made sense, to say the least) without literally telling us to what to watch, she bought this Audrey Hepburn movie collection. My siblings refused to be fooled. I did not. I was as curious as a moth to a flame. For some reason I cannot recall, I watched Charade first. And the rest is... well, you'll read about it here, here and here.


Love in the Afternoon. I skipped a couple of Audrey Hepburn movies in the timeline just because they seemed boring. Or maybe, they were just too serious for summer viewing. This 1957 movie follows Roman Holiday and Sabrina in the black-and-white category. For me, its plot (a detective daughter saves a "gigolo"-if you may-from the wrath of a cheated-on husband and falls in love with him as the story goes on) is below average, boring and predictable. It stars a relatively-unknown-today Gary Cooper opposite Hepburn, who is still young (and it shows) in this movie, and Maurice Chevalier as the detective-father.

There are two things I semi-loved in the movie: 1) Audrey shows some cello-playing moves. Another talent up her arsenal. 2) It's funny in a not-so-funny way. I liked the scene where the drunken Frank and the gypsies were passing drinks (Frank fills their glasses) on a busyboy across the room while they were playing, and yet they continued playing.

Kissing under a piano chair.

For me the movie is neither good nor bad. I don't feel hate or love, just semi-love or semi-hate--lukewarm.

How to Steal A Million. Again, I skipped the chronological order and three Audrey movies (three from the ones we have at home) when I chose to watch this 1966 film. Well, it intrigued me because a screencap from this movie was the featured scene of the DVD collection. Gets?

Good poster.

PETER O'TOOLE IS THE BEST AUDREY HEPBURN LEADING MAN EVER! I haven't watched half of her movies but for now, this is my judgment. He's "the best" for Audrey because: 1) They're of the same age. Or at least, appears to be. 2) He has the boyish charm I find perfectly appropriate for Audrey's classic one. 3) He acts so effortlessly with Audrey (I have yet to watch a film of his--but I will.) 4) He is simply, the boy-the-next-door surrounded by all fatherly-looking-and-acting gentlemen of his time. In Pinoyspeak, sila ang tambalan ng taon!

The adorable Peter O'Toole

Aside from obviously-loving Peter O'Toole, I loved: 1) The movie's plot, that it revolves around art--a forger amongst museums, auctions and authenticity. 2) The cast were all entertaining and performed their roles to a T. Audrey as Nicole Bonnet, O'Toole as Simon Dermott and special mention goes to Hugh Griffith as Charles Bonnet.

Peter O'Toole + Audrey Hepburn: I wonder what their modern portmanteau  be.

Audrey Hepburn Review Series Part 2

My ever-brilliant mother correctly observed, one summer, that me and my siblings were wasting away our time watching crappy movies like... So to sort of lead us to the right direction (read: movies that made sense, to say the least) without literally telling us to what to watch, she bought this Audrey Hepburn movie collection. My siblings refused to be fooled. I did not. I was as curious as a moth to a flame. For some reason I cannot recall, I watched Charade first. And the rest is... well, you'll read about it here, here and here.


I decided that these movies were the next in my Watch Audrey Hepburn Movies Phase because they were her first three movies in Hollywood, or at least the ones that made her famous.

Roman Holiday. This 1953 movie won for Audrey Hepburn her first Academy Award, Golden Globe and BAFTA Award for Best British Actress (Sabi na nga ba, Brits are better than Americans, in all aspects!), and a bunch of nominations for co-stars Gregory Peck and Eddie Albert.

Next to Breakfast I think this is her most famous movie.

I love this movie because: 1) Gregory Peck (as Joe Bradley) is, so far, the only 'ka-age group' of Audrey in terms of leading men. Yes, I am very particular with age. Cary Grant, who was supposed to play the part played by Peck but turned it down due to the age (aha!), played opposite her in Charade. That for me, made me feel that the movie was quite right. Haha, ageist.

2) Eddie Albert as Joe's photographer friend Irving Radovich was simply great, in the supporting actor sort of way. He reminds me of Baron Geisler and someone else I could not remember. Basta, simply put, magaling.

3) Nice ending. (SPOILER ALERT!) Princess Ann (or Anya) not ending up with journalist-writer Joe was a nice touch, and, I believe, a unique ending in those days when romantic films feature lovers who always end up with each other no matter what. Again, Princess Ann just accepts the power and responsibility she was given as a princess of some unnamed European country, and that "hooking up" with Bradley was a not-so-good idea.

4) Audrey was as usual refreshing. She even had her hair cut for the movie.

I disliked it--take note: not hate ha--because: 1) The movie's plot is much like.. the First Daughter (starring Katie Holmes) and Chasing Liberty (starring Mandy Moore) and yet, it won a Globe Globe and an Oscar for Hepburn as Best Actress. Hmm. Fine, it was shown before those two movies. Points for creativity.

But nonetheless, I liked the movie much more because of the ending. :) The movie's message to all those romantic movies of their time (or at least from my POV): Love stories need not end happily ever after for them to be called love stories.

Sabrina. This 1954 movie may not have won a Best Actress for Audrey, though she was nominated for an Academy Award and a Golden Globe (Edith Head won for Best Costume Design), but it sure solidified, or built up, her role as the premiere leading lady of her time. Starring opposite, with the same billing of course, a realllly old Humphrey Bogart (as Linus Larrabee) and a much-younger looking William Holden (as David Larrabee). (Note: I realized, watching this movie, that William Holden is not that old as I perceived him to be in Paris When It Sizzles. Bogart is the epitome of old. Hahaha)

Bogart + Hepburn: SUPER May-December  Love Affair

I loved it because: 1) Audrey is in her usual lovable self. :) 2) William Holden is funny and effective as the happy-go-lucky younger Larrabee (a funny name for an affluent family, I think). And so far, having watched two movies starring him, I like him. Like Audrey, I guess he's growing on me. Hahaha

Before the Jonases and the Hemsworths, there were the Larrabee Brothers.

3) The story, though common nowadays, is well-written and is cohesive--me speaking in my best mediocre scriptwriter self.

I hated it because: 1) Humphrey Bogart is sooo old. Hindi sila bagay ni Audrey. Maybe that's why there are a very few "romantic" scenes between him and Audrey, and only a couple of kissing scene, by my unofficial count. (Sana Cary Grant did not have "conflict of schedule" para siya na lang ang nag-play ng role. Yes he's old but he's a lot less older.)

Funny Face. I was supposed to watch Audrey's 1955 film War and Peace (because I was watching her films chronologically) but I decided it was--or seemed--too serious then, so I watched her 1957 film Funny Face instead. At hindi naman ako nagkamali. (I wasn't wrong.)

A colorful movie.

I loved the movie because: 1) It was colorful. Literally. Roman Holiday and Sabrina were in black-and-white, so a colored movie was pleasing and refreshing to see the day I watched all three films. Not only was it literally colored, it was also colored in the sense that the dresses and the set--and practically everything--was in vibrant colors, true to the "magazine office" setting of the story.
 

2) It is a f*cking musical! A real musical ha. For me, Funny Face is a cross between High School Musical (with more flair) or Chicago (with less flair ha). Basta, okay! The songs and the dance numbers were great and practiced, and more importantly, entertaining.

3) Fred Astaire is the perfect singing and dancing and acting leading man! Grabe! I loved his voice, the way he danced (which had a comic flair to it).

Ms. Hepburn having (too much) fun.

4) Kay Thompson as editor of Quality magazine Maggie Prescott is the best, like Astaire. She's even a better singer (in their song and dance number together) than Audrey. She's good in the best-supporting-actress way but did not let Audrey Hepburn outshine her.

5) Director Stanley Donen (director of Charade and Two for the Road) did a good job in directing and choreographing the dances of the film. His films--aside from William Holden films--are now on my to-watch list.

Funny Face is, for me, High School Musical (or Chicago), Devil Wears Prada and A Good Year all rolled into one, and throw in an Adrien Brody (The Pianist) to provide the singing and dancing leading man. It was that good.

Audrey Hepburn Review Series Part 1

My ever-brilliant mother correctly observed, one summer, that me and my siblings were wasting away our time watching crappy movies like... So to sort of lead us to the right direction (read: movies that made sense, to say the least) without literally telling us to what to watch, she bought this Audrey Hepburn movie collection. My siblings refused to be fooled. I did not. I was as curious as a moth to a flame. For some reason I cannot recall, I watched Charade first. And the rest is... well, you'll read about it here, here and here.



Breakfast at Tiffany's. When you say "Audrey Hepburn" it automatically relates to this movie. This is like her one-time big-time thing, which was, in her case, did not turn out to be one-time big time. Too many one-time-big-times, I guess. Her portrayal of Holly Golightly is the most talked-about, even up to now.

Well, I don't know how to judge or criticize films made during those times, that era. Should I be as critical as I am of movies today? Or should I be er, nice since they haven't had the technology and maybe, technical skills, in making movies (as we do now, I suppose)?

Pero sige, I'll be..nicer. The 1961 movie's plot is somewhat shallow compared to.. let's say, Priceless which starred another Audrey (Audrey Tatou opposite Gad Elmaleh). But then again, I have think of the fact that things that appear to be common sense (like the organizational chart and car bearings, perhaps, by Alfred Sloan Jr., or the assembly line by Henry Ford) like the movie's plot need to be invented or thought of in order for an improvement to happen. (In Tagalog, Pa'no ka mag-iimprove kung walang ii-improve? Right?)

It's an okay movie if you're into kissing in the rain, cats, and, uh, high fashion. (I feel like I'm watching 27 Dresses [though I haven't watched it], sa dami ng dress ni Audrey Hepburn.) Also, its a film adaptation of the novella by the same by Truman Capote. (Ah, so he is a writer.) One thing I loved about the movie is its OST (May OST na ba dati?) especially the song "Moon River." Hepburn is as good a singer as an actress. (Oops, almost forgot to mention that George Peppard co-stars. :) )

What's not romantic in kissing in the rain in black and white? None.

Charade. A relatively older (and it shows in this 1963 film) Cary Grant is paired with a fresh (Hahaha) and much younger looking Audrey Hepburn. I feel like he's her uncle or something. But having conditioned my mind that this is just like um, Brad Pitt being paired with Anne Hathaway (Angelina Jolie despite being younger than Brad in theory--hehe--looks mature but not old.) or Richard Gere and Julia Roberts (in Pretty Woman) perhaps.

I liked this movie better than I did Breakfast. According to Wikipedia (which is a not-so credible but is always available source of quick info), it "spans three genres: suspense thriller, romance, comedy" and is "the best Hitchcock movie that Hitchcock ever made". So, I guess, I picked right when I chose to watch this one first, amongst the many Audrey Hepburn movies we have at home.

Reggie (Audrey) and her old man. Literally.

I liked the witty jokes used in the movie. Especially the last one, in the last scene, where Reggie (Audrey Hepburn) says something like "I love you Peter, Adam, Alex, Brian" to Cary Grant's multi-named character, and as she said that, screencaps from the movie showing Grant while he was using the said names. For me, that's a bright idea for an old movie. Kudos to Director Stanley Donen and scriptwriter Peter Stone. Of course, to Mr Grant and Ms Hepburn, and Walther Matthau as Carson Dyle aka Hamilton Bartholomew.


Paris When It Sizzles. In this 1964 film, a screenwriter takes centerstage. Scriptwriter Richard Benson (William Holden) has two days to write a script (The Girl Who Stole the Eiffel Tower) for Alexander Meyerheim (Noel Coward) which he should have done 19 weeks ago. Enter typist Gabrielle Simpson (Hepburn). And, yes, as the cliche goes, they fall in love while working together, creating a love story which mimics their own.

A writer and typist love story

Clever jokes, film cliches and good on-screen chemistry makes this film click, for me, at least. I like William Holden as an actor. He is, in filmspeak, very effective. But again, I am bothered by the age difference between Hepburn and Holden (Or Holden just looks old. Hehe). Pero sige, let's see this as Billy Bob Thornton and Angelina Jolie, when they together, but waayyyyy better. Hahaha

Holden and Hepburn in one of their onscreen kisses.

Again, nice movie.

Overall: Audrey Hepburn is growing on me with every movie that I watch.

-----------------------------------------


PS: Curiously, there is no article on Audrey Hepburn in the 1994 Britannica Encyclopaedia (which we have at home) when I looked her up. But there are articles for Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant. Goes to show how old they are and how outdated our Encyclopaedia is.

Movie What-Ifs

Movie casting is as important as writing the screenplay or choosing the director.
A good script + a talented director + a good set of actors with screen chemistry = Good (if not great) movies


Imagine...

Pretty Woman starring Molly Ringwald (Breakfast Club) with Richard Gere?

Sandra Bullock (Miss Congeniality) playing Rafi (Uma Thurman) in the movie Prime, alongside Bryan Greenberg and Meryl Streep?


Anne Hathaway (Princess Diaries 1 & 2) playing Alison Scott in the movie Knocked Up alongside Seth Rogen?


Gwyneth Paltrow (Proof) and Leo DeCaprio in Titanic?


Nicole Kidman (White Oleander) in The Reader?


The Graduate starring Robert Redford (Barefoot in the Park) instead of Dustin Hoffman?

John Travolta (Grease) as Forrest Gump?

and..

Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line) and Mark Wahlberg (Max Payne) in Brokeback Mountain?

Queen Bee

I first heard of Jollibee's attempts to expand internationally from my SoscSci120 (Directed Readings in the Social Sciences) prof from the University of the Philippines-Manila. (Well, I did saw the ads in front of some local branches saying there's a Jollibee in Shanghai, etc.) But in the US! Wow.

Ayos.

My professor said the first Jollibee in the US was in the West Coast. Yesterday, I read from the Philippine Star that the East Coast version (in Woodside, Queens, New York--though I have no idea where that is) opened in February 14th, 2009 in the area which was also known to be Little Manila. For obvious reasons, I suppose.

RAVES
1. Upon entering the place, according to reviews, it "felt as if we were transported back to Manila." This, I think, is the main reason Jollibee is there.
2. Mostly Filipino crew
3. Taste-wise, the burgers and Chicken Joy are true to the original recipe.
4. Turnover is quite fast.


NOT SURE IF RAVE OR RANT:
The Spaghetti was less sweet. Absence of hotdog but it seemed to be a hit with the locals (i.e., Americans)

RANTS
1. The "mostly Filipino crew" seemed a little confused at times.
2. Long lines.
3. Price. One customer said, "It was really expensive. I find it horrendous to pay so much for fast food. McDonald's fries are cheaper."
4. Drinks are not included in the meal. But there's a soda machine for refills.
5. Not so jolly like what is back here in 'Pinas.


Jollibee is located at 62-29 Roosevelt Avenue (63rd Street), Woodside, Queens; (718) 426-4445.

Lowdown: DLSU vs FEU (4-Mar-09)

Game Two of the Women's Volleyball Finals was a reversal--up to an extent--of what happened in Game One, which I watched at The Arena. This time, I watched at home, half thinking that I may have jinxed La Salle, my favorite team. Well, they won so I guess watching at home was better for me--and the team--than watching at the venue. Ha, chika lang. I had tons of schoolwork so I had to watch at home.

Anyway. La Salle won in four-set fashion. FEU won the first, then La Salle won the next three. Set Number Two was, for me, the clincher. It spelled the difference. It was a neck-to-neck set that either team could have won. If FEU won that one (Coach Nes Pamilar put in the injured Shaira Gonzales for emotional sake I think) they could have easily won the championship. La Salle was defeated in the first set, 25-17. La Salle winning that set pumped up their game--slowly--and gave them the confidence that they needed.


Why La Salle won:


1. Jacqueline Alarca stepped up big time. She said--in the post-game interview because she was the best player--she had to prove that she wasn't a Best Blocker for nothing. :D Boom Gonzales, the commentator, pointed out that when Alarca started smiling and enjoying every point she won for the team was when the other players were affected. Which brings me to the next reason..


2. Intensity. FEU players have always been known to have intensity. From the onset, Morada and company rejoiced after every point scored. Thus, iritating the La Salle Spikers, who were very much affected by the crowd in Game One. In Game Two, La Salle players started feeling every point in Set Number Two and Three. Behind Alarca's exploits and Michelle Datuin's ever-present intensity at the net. She got Morada's number, definitely.


3. Defense. Blocking was surprisingly missing for La Salle in the first two sets but they adjusted. Floor defense improved as the blocking materialized. I think losing the first set made the La Salle players realize the urgency of winning, and stepping up. Thus, they dove for every ball, jumped for every spike, and tried to dig every attack that went their way. All of April Jose's drop balls were checked. :D


4. Much-improved service. In Game One, as I've pointed out, there were too much service errors on La Salle's side. This time, Manilla Santos (who was by the way always checked and dug by FEU's libero, Taganas) only had one service error--as per my unofficial count--and Alarca and Mercado had one each as well.


5. Other players stepped up. Aside from the usual suspect on offense--Illa Santos (who was berated by Coach Ramil De Jesus for not variating her shots. I think he said something like, "Sa lahat ng pinalo mo, ilan ang napatay mo?" With that, she was brought to life and scored points on her varied attacks.) Stephanie Mercado finished the game (at the end part of the third and fourth set), scored a flurry of points, for La Salle. Alarca stepped up into the scoring parade as well. And even players like Datuin and Cha Cruz scored on some of their attacks.


6. The presence of an improved-in-numbers La Salle fans. Now, there was a Barangay La Salle--na wala nu'ng Game One.


--------------------


Why FEU lost:


1. Shaira Gonzales didn't play much because of her injured left--or was it right?--ankle. I hope it's just a serious sprain, not anything more. She was able to play though. And scored dramatic points in the second and third set. They sorely missed her quicks. Their seventh--or eighth--player was Cabanag, who is obviously not as great as Gonzales.


2. Cherry Mae Vivas wasn't in her element. She was often asked by Coach Nes during timeouts, "Ano ayaw mo na?" She even "scored" La Salle's winning point in the fourth set by miscalculating what should have been "an easy over."


3. Morada's attacks were well-read, checked or blocked by the La Salle defense in the latter sets because the offense became predictable with Daquis in the back row, and Jose having no other options but to go to Morada. Her psy-war and verbal tussle with Datuin at the net really went up the next level, so to speak.


I am excited for Game Three, the deciding Game, but I won't be able to watch the game because I'll be in Sagada this weekend. But still, I will be rooting for the Lady Spikers, of course.

UAAP Season 71 Women's Volleyball

Individual Awardees Season 71

Awarded March 4 2009

Best Attacker - Aiza Maizo (UST) as seen in the stats

Best Setter - April Jose (FEU) as expected..

Best Server - Irish Morada (FEU) as seen in her mean jump-serve..

Best Receiver - Manilla Santos (DLSU) as always..

Best Blocker - Jacqueline Alarca (DLSU) as predicted..

Best Digger (aka Libero) - Lislee Ann Gata (AdU) as per last year..

Rookie of the Year - Melissa Gohing (DLSU) as surprised (Hehe, maipilit lang ang "as")

(I didn't know Gohing was a freshman.. she didn't look like one. He he)

MVP - (yet to be awarded, on Sunday Either La Salle's Alarca or FEU's Daquis. Darkhorses: FEU's Gonzales, Morada DLSU's Santos or Mercado)

Lowdown: Game 1 of the Finals, UAAP 71st season Women's Volleyball

I was stunned that La Salle lost to defending champs FEU Lady Tams. Stunned because La Salle won the 1st set in a very convincing fashion, and lost the second and fourth sets in a very convincing fashion as well. Stunned, that they won the fourth set: 26-24. And more stunned that they lost the fifth, considering they should have had the momentum (having won the fourth set) come that final set.


I watched the game from the "Lower Box" of San Juan Arena, unfortunately behind me was the FEU cheering squad (made up of loud, coarse-voiced men) and drummers. Sitting there, watching the game, made me feel what it was really like to watch the games live.


First, magastos (expensive). Going there by G-Liner bus costs around P15.00 from Lawton (but I still had to take prior transportation to get to Lawton). And, the ticket! It costs P120 for "ringside" which was like a dozen rows pa behind the "School Officials" seats. Hay nako. (Lesson: Be there at around 12.30nn for a 2pm game.)


Second, maingay. The men behind me (as mentioned) was very loud and..well, I guess they were too below-the-belt with their cheers (which helped FEU a lot) and jeers (which affected the La Salle players, Illa Santos the most). They were saying things like: (To Illa) Mag-trabaho ka na lang! or Laos ka na! (To Steph Mercado) 'Wag ka na ang chaka mo!


If I were more courageous (and pikon) I would have stood up and cheered whenever Illa scores a point, "Sino'ng laos!" or "Hindi ito beauty contest."


But I guess that's part of the game. Cheers are cheers, no matter how foul they may be.


Third, full of energy. Every point scored (especially in the first set, and the fourth and fifth) people got up to score and cheer. Yes, it was a La Salle crowd--on the count that there were many La Salle fans there--but the FEU fans (though outnumbered) cheered their hearts out. And I guess, being champions, they have earned a following.


Why LA Salle lost:


1. Manilla Santos was not in her usual impeccable game. I guess the crowd (jeering her) affected her game. She had some service errors, and her spikes were not that..um, accurate? But I had to give it to her though, she really led her team out there. She was constantly saying things to boost the morale of her teammates, even though they lost two straight sets.


2. Melissa Gohing (libero) had notable receiving errors during the end part of the game, which could have spelled the difference, though she had some nice digs (on Shaira Gonzales, who was by the way injured at the end of the fourth set, and Rachelle Ann Daquis).


3. Blocking was great, as usual.., but not as intense.


4. Intensity-wise, only a few players were intense. Santos, Gohing (as always), Michelle Datuin and.. I guess, they were the only ones who wanted to win it all.


5. Kaye Martinez is still not the best of setters--which makes it hard for La Salle since she's going up against a witty April Jose of FEU.


6. Service errors killed La Salle. And April Jose's drop balls (three I think) translated into points. All her attempts at the drop. :'(


6. They lacked focus, and the heart to win. They had errors which I think were brought about by the intensity of the game, and the crowd going against them. The La Salle crowd should come out to watch and cheer in Game Two. Rally behind the team, so to speak.




What La Salle needs to do to win in Game Two:


1. Focus. Don't let the crowd affect you. Play your usual game.


2. It has been said that La Salle is not the type of team who wins five-setters so I think it's better for them to win the first two sets to give them the confidence they need.


3. Illa Santos should really dominate--not in the Daquis way--but in her own support-your-teammates-and-do-your-thing way.. The team needs a leader. A true one that gets things done. Her serves should be accurate the next time.


4. Though they were well-prepared for Daquis, La Salle shouldn't take for granted other players like Gonzales, Maika Morada, and even Vivas. They attack and score. So beware.






What the La Salle community needs to do:

CHEER (Y)OUR HEARTS OUT!

The team needs the support. It's war out there, as I've seen and experienced.