My Watering Hole

Thor

2011-07-23T08:56:00.003+08:00

Claws. Sharp ,three bladed, indestructible. Back then in high school it seemed most of my peers wanted, pretended, or wondered if a real life human being can ever have one. Why? Because Wolverine was a star.

I always thought he was cool but I never joined the bandwagon. Thor was the one for me. His firepower, the chivalric-like culture in the stories, and all the meaning that comes with being called a god drove me to the Asgardian rather than the cigar smoking mutant.

Recalling those days, I find it strange today why action is not a word I'd use to describe the live action Thor movie. It feels wrong considering firepower was what drove me to the character. The thunder, the lightning; my mind should have been blown away watching film but I was not.

The movie was not all bad mind you so I asked myself what it lacked that it didn’t become as I said my blowing. First answer I came up with was that as a weapon swirling weird sized hammers are not as sexy as lightsabers. Strange reason but makes sense if you see both weapons in action.

Put it in another way the action was there it just looked either underwhelming or totally idiotic. The hammer was just oddly sized; a strange weapon to use compared to a sword, or a glowing sword at that. The Jedis rotate their sabers so unnecessarily at times but still it looks cool.

Hell, even at the height of my idolatry for the Thunder God I never wished for a hammer, but I did get a habit of tapping my umbrella on the ground hoping it'd stop the rain. In truth, I wanted claws like everyone else.

I was impressed though, in seeing the hammer’s powers in action; getting thrown and automatically it returns; tap it on the ground and see an output almost like a nuclear blast. But scenes like those unfortunately few and far between.

With action less highlighted than I'd hoped, Thor came out more of a father and son drama. An over eager son who thought himself a worthy successor if not replacement for his father.

I was sold on that point in Thor's attempt to lift the hammer after banishment. Seeing him with that broken man look into the heavens you'd know he understood Odin (Anthony Hopkins). That scene carried it all.

Acting wise I think Chris Hemsworth did an OK job being 'godly' especially since it was far from that syndicated 60s cartoon I had loved. I must admit being a fan, the prospect of seeing a real life actor talking like that cartoon show was my biggest dread.

At least the alter ego, Donald Blake found its way into the movie. It was cute the way they let the character into the movie. Cuter still, since it was Natalie Portman who did it.

Since good movie is truly the sum of its parts, the supporting cast should take most of the credit for good film having complimented where Chris may have fell short.

The lovely Natalie Portman of course was Jane Foster. Her character was a great reboot from a 60s damsel in distress nurse to a scientist. And a brave scientist she is considering she's following an outlandish theory about wormholes.

Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is even more perfect with that silent waters run deep look. Every time he walks into a scene you gotta wonder what he’s thinking. Odin was pathetic compared to the image I had in mind of the all powerful King of the Gods, but I guess Director Kenneth Branagh was looking for that wise and weary man look in order to highlight the relationship between father and son which ultimately is the story.

And it is a good story, a father and son tale. You know who the characters are where they are coming from. You feel the father's anguish or the son's frustration at never measuring up in the father’s eyes. The story felt whole.

But still there is that weird taste in the mouth. While I think the hammer deserves most of the flak my mind still searched for other reasons.

Compared to Iron Man, the movie about the armored avenger had more personality. In watching it you'd know; you'd feel how world works with a billionaire eccentric with a penchant for hi tech suits of armor. Even the Hulk had an entire army looking out for him. The greatness or the uniqueness of the hero is reflected in the context of the other characters and the environment.

Thor was always seen in the context of Asgard. Even though he can lay claim to being the strongest while at home he is normal.

The small town which the story revolved in barely even saw Thor. It probably didn't help that Shield had control, probably doing a news blackout of some sort. He looked like an incredibly muscular hillbilly on drugs. Destroying mugs in a coffee shop, what else would one think of him?

If there should be a display of power in should have been on Earth. On earth he is a god. Yet the small town atmosphere, the lack of a population, minimized risk; little audience, he barely registered. There was drama, conflict; but not end of the world stuff, end of Asgard maybe.

I know these films act like an introduction for the Avengers, but Thor looked like he was passing through. He came to Earth accidentally through exile. Even though he had developed interest for Jane it still looked easy for him to leave. Thor and Asgard barely registered.

Instead Thor should have had more exposure. He should have saved more than an isolated town. The world should have been asking itself why someone claiming to be a god had saved the day, and all the while it also dreading what else is out there besides a hi-tech armor, a green monster, and a God of Thunder.

That would have been a greater intro for 2012’s Avengers.

The Other Woman

2011-06-12T18:36:00.003+08:00

I’ve always thought a pretty face is as a plus in any movie. But often if they can’t act it makes me think I’d would have had a simpler time just googling the actresses image. Fortunately there are those who can act and Natalie Portman is among them.

Before winning an Oscar as ballerina in Black Swan, this particular pretty face was in a small film called The Other Woman. Adopted from a book called Love and Other Impossible Pursuits, the movie as its title implies, is a story is about the woman outside of the marriage, or to be more accurate, the woman of the second marriage.

The closest movie that this film can be associated, as one reviewer online puts it, is Merryl Streep and Dustin Hoffman's Kramer vs Kramer. When the first is about the struggles in a relationship trying to get a divorce, this film is about the second wife trying to get in sync with the husband's world and preserve a little bit of sanity herself.

If any bashing was done in this movie it’s from the son William (Charlie Tahan). True enough the boy showed, albeit with some childish subtlety, that Emilia is not wanted. Being a father’s son he tries to be obedient, but having also a mother he is territorial in his own way.

Unfortunately for the young second wife not everyone is indirect and possessed with childish innocence that would make you easily ignore such an infraction. Besides the son, Emilia also has to deal Jack’s (Scott Cohen) world from wary mothers at school to a nag of an ex-wife in Lisa Kudrow.

All throughout, Emilia is always treated as the villain, perhaps unfairly as the only villain. The mothers consider her a threat. She consistently has to ignore the stares and whispers in the corridors of William’s school. Carolyn (Lisa Kudrow) on the other hand considers her a disaster waiting to happen, or have happened since the marriage ended up in a divorce.

Who would not be threatened when a hot young thing just waltzes into the office and a marriage breaks? But perhaps the question to be asked during the entire film is it fair to lay it all on her?

What made it more interesting in this film is that along with everyone vilifying her, Emilia also vilifies her dad, someone who himself has strayed from marriage, and ultimately she also vilifies herself. Like many others she is the product of her society who hope that till death do us part really means growing old with the spouse until the inevitable. Any deviation would be considered a disaster, well then again any deviation actually is.

That is until one takes a step back from those expectations and tries to see the humanity in it all. People are imperfect; they make mistakes. Hearts drift apart; kisses can grow cold. Emilia said it best somewhat in resignation, 'not everything works out as you would hope'. Do people really have to dwell on the disaster?

Casting wise The Other Woman needs more work. Scott Cohen robs whatever saving grace Natalie Portman's character has. Their age gap brings out all the biases one has on older married guy breaking marriage for a hotter young woman. Natalie looks like a toy for Scott and that’s all I get watching the two.

Lisa Kudrow still sounds the same like she was in Friends, which in fairness strikes me as annoying ex-wife so no problem there.

Natalie Portman is always a delight to watch. She is the emotional anchor for the entire story. She carried it. It’s all about her trying to make it in a world that calls her a home wrecker. It would added more saving grace as I have mentioned if she and Scott had a little bit more chemistry or more dialogues, but instead she sometimes looks alone in her sincerity.

So I tried looking at it from the point of view of the title, The Other Woman, then the chemistry or lack thereof suffices. You will see the emotional ups and downs of a woman whose only mistake (supposedly) is to love and be loved back by a married man.

Perhaps also true in real life, the key for her happiness, in getting past the stigma as the other woman, is the son. Charlie Tahan as the son William and his combination with Natalie is the tandem to look out for. He looked oversized for a child supposedly at 8 years of age, and tall that it took me a while to convince myself that they were stepmother and son. I just focused on the dialogue and it worked.

William was a thorn on her side; he has seen her through the ups and downs; and ultimately he is the salvation. That salvation is nothing but a child’s acceptance of what is. He sees no broken hearts or relationships; no obligations that should have lasted until death. He has a mother and a father; a sister who tragically died as a baby, and what he says as “my sister’s mom”, Emilia. That is his family.

After that the pretty face does what she does best aside from impeccably fulfilling a role to a tee. She smiles.

CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS OF THE BUDGET UNION FOR THE DECLARATION OF GENUINE EMPLOYEES’ THRUSTS (B.U.D.G.E.T.)

2011-05-05T14:18:00.005+08:00

PREAMBLE

We, the employees of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Procurement Service (PS), in order to promote our moral, social and economic well-being, protect and uphold our individual and collective rights, promote our common welfare and interests, foster morale, efficiency, integrity and above all, honesty in public service, as well as foster relationship among ourselves, do hereby ordain and promulgate this Constitution and By-Laws.

ARTICLE I

NAME AND DOMICILE

SECTION 1. The name of the Union shall be the “BUDGET UNION for the DECLARATION OF GENUINE EMPLOYEES’ THRUSTS” or “B.U.D.G.E.T.” or “Union” for brevity.

SECTION 2. The principal office of the B.U.D.G.E.T. shall be at the Boncodin Hall of the DBM, General Solano Street, San Miguel, Malacañang, Manila.

ARTICLE II

PURPOSES

SECTION 1. The purpose of the Union shall be as follows:

To create an atmosphere conducive to harmonious management-employees relations, within the context of justice, equity, and respect for individual rights and obligations, good supervisor-employee relations and the improvement of the employee morale;

To foster closer fellowship, goodwill and understanding, and a feeling of belongingness among the members through the promotion and undertaking of activities such as but not limited to counselling, sports and cultural projects, mutual aid benefits, employees’ housing program, and similar services that will enhance general welfare of employees;

To inform the member of their rights and privileges as employees of the DBM and PS;

To safeguard the rights and legitimate interests of the members, and to act collectively in redressing legitimate grievances in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations;

To undertake joint activities with management to ensure effective delivery of DBM's mandate and to advocate the attainment of honest, and efficient public service; and

To promote the enlightenment of the members in regard to their rights and obligations as union members and as employees, the existing collective negotiation agreement (CNA) and all other matters that directly affect the Union.

ARTICLE III

MEMBERSHIP

SECTION 1. Coverage. Every rank and file employee of the DBM and PS not otherwise disqualified by law and without regard to sex, race, religious or political belief of affiliation, and who agrees to be bound by this Constitution and By-laws, upon application and payment of a fee herein fixed, is eligible for membership in the Union.

SECTION 2. Application. Qualified employees of the DBM and PS may become members of the Association through written application approved by the President upon recommendation of the Membership Committee and after payment in full of the required membership fee.

SECTION 3. Fee. Every member shall pay a one time membership fee and monthly dues as prescribed under Article IX, which shall be deducted from his/her salary as expressly authorized for that purpose at the end of every month.

SECTION 4. Termination of Members. A member shall cease to be a member of the Union upon his separation from any cause from the DBM/PS or upon resolution of the Board of Directors for failure of the member to comply with this Constitution and By-Laws, and the lawful rules, regulations and orders of the Union. Moreover, any member who will be promoted to the third level position shall automatically cease to be a member effective upon the date of his/her appointment.

SECTION 5. Record of Registration. There shall be kept and maintained a roster of registry of members containing their names, addresses and signature of all the members of the Association.

ARTICLE IV

OFFICERS, POWERS & DUTIES

SECTION 1. The Association shall have a President, a Vice-President, a Secretary, Assistant Secretary, a Treasurer, an Assistant Treasurer, an Auditor and a Public Relations Officer.

SECTION 2. President. The President shall have the following powers and duties:

Preside at all meetings and deliberations of the Board of Directors and of the General Assembly;

Call special meetings of the Board of Directors whenever necessary or upon written request of at least thirty (30%) of the General membership or a majority of the members of the Board of Directors;

Represent the Association in all occasions and in all matters where representation of the Association may be agreed upon or required;

Exercise general supervision over the affairs of all officers of the Association;

Execute on behalf of the Union all contracts and agreements as approved by the Board Directors;

Sign, endorse and deliver all checks, drafts and other negotiable instruments, in the name and on behalf of the Union;

Submit an annual report of the operations of the Union to the members of the Union at the annual meetings;

Act as the official representative of the Union in its contracts with governmental, civic, business and professional organizations for the purpose of advancing the objectives or purposes of the Union;

Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties as the Board of Directors or the members of the Union may from time to time fix or delegate.

SECTION 3. Vice-President. The Vice-President shall perform the following duties and functions:

Assume the duties and functions of the President in case of the latter's absence, disability, or incapacity for any cause, or resignation;

Assist and coordinate with the President regarding all Association matters;

Perform such other duties and functions that may be assigned by the President and/or the Board of Directors may from time to time, fix or delegate.

SECTION 4. Secretary. The Secretary shall have the following duties and functions:

Take down minutes of meetings of the General Membership and of the Board of Directors;

Keep full Minutes of all meetings of the Board of Directors and of the members of the Union, including Board Resolutions and a continuing register of all members of the Association;

Give or cause to be given all notices required by as notices of all meetings of the Board of Directors and members of the Union;

Have in custody the seal of the Union and when authorized by the Board of Directors, shall affix such seal to any instrument requiring the same;

Coordinate the activities of all various committees that may be organized by the Board of Directors;

Submit to the Department of Labor and Employment-Bureau of Labor Relations and Civil Service Commission annually a list of officers and their respective addresses, minutes of election of officers and list of voters within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of election or from the concurrence of a change in the Association officers and such other documents or papers as may be required; and

Perform such other duties as may be assigned by the President.

SECTION 5. Assistant Secretary. The Asst. Secretary shall assist the Secretary and perform all the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary in his/her absence.

SECTION 6. Treasurer. The Treasurer shall have the following duties and powers:

Collect, receive, and issue receipts for all money, funds and contributions to the Association;

Deposit or cause to be deposited all moneys and other valuable effects of the Union in the name and to the credit of the Union in such banks or trust companies as may be designated by the Board of Directors;

Render to the Board of Directors whenever the latter so requires a report of the financial transactions of the Union and prepare the Annual Financial Statement/Report before the conduct of annual General Assembly;

Make sure that all disbursements and payments made are covered by vouchers and accompanied by the necessary documents;

Keep correct and complete books of accounts of all the business transactions of the Union; and

Countersign all checks or drafts and other instruments signed by the President.

SECTION 7. Assistant Treasurer. The Asst. Treasurer shall assist the Treasurer and perform all duties and responsibilities in his/her absence.

SECTION 8. Auditor. The Auditor shall see to it that all accounts and books of the Union are properly kept and for that purpose he shall make a full, detailed annual periodic audit of all the funds and accounts of the Union and shall be in writing. If he finds that the books and accounts are not properly kept or any irregularity has been committed, he shall so advice the President and the latter shall call a special meeting of the Board of Directors for such appropriate action as the facts and circumstances may warrant.

SECTION 9. Public Relations Officer. He/She shall take charge of promoting good relations between the Union and the public as well as the publicity of important activities of the organization through all known media of communication. He/She shall represent the Union, together with the President or in his/her official capacity as such, in all aspects of public relations in order to promote that good name and goodwill of the Union including coordination activities with other associations, societies, or unions that share common interests with the Union for the purpose of undertaking joint projects or activities.

SECTION 10. Vacancy. If the Office of the President, Vice-President, Secretary, Asst. Secretary, Treasurer, Asst. Treasurer, Auditor or PRO shall become vacant by reason of death, resignation or otherwise, the remaining Directors, if still constituting a quorum may by a majority vote, choose a successor/ successors who shall hold office for the unexpired term.

In case of the temporary absence of any officer of the Union, the Board of Directors may delegate the power and duties of such officer to any other officer or to any Director for the time being, provided that a majority of the Board of Directors shall concur therein and such delegation is not covered by any express provision of this Constitution and By-Laws.

ARTICLE V

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

SECTION 1. The Union shall have a Board of Directors composed of the officers enumerated under Section 1, Article IV and three (3) other members. They shall be elected to hold office for a term of three (3) years and shall act as such until their successors shall have been duly elected and qualified.

SECTION 2. Qualifications. No member of the Union shall be elected as officer or member of the Board unless:

He/She is a permanent employee on the day of the election;

He/She has been in the service of the DBM/PS for at least three (3) years;

He/She is not holding a position higher than Chief of a Division or its equivalent; and

He/She is not holding a co-terminus position.

SECTION 3. General powers of the Board. The government of the Union shall be vested in and its properties and affairs administered by a Board of Directors.

SECTION 4. Specific powers. The following are the specific powers:

From time to time, to make and change rules and regulations consistent with this Constitution and By-Laws for the management of the Union’s affairs and business.

To purchase or otherwise acquire for the Union any property, rights or privileges which the Union is authorized to acquire at such price, terms and conditions or for such considerations as the Board sees fit.

At its discretion, to pay any property or rights acquired by the Union either wholly or partially in money or other negotiable instrument.

SECTION 5. Vacancy in the Board. Any vacancy in the Board of Directors shall be filled by the candidate who gained the next highest number of votes in the last election and the Director or Directors chosen shall serve for the unexpired term unless sooner removed or otherwise separated.

ARTICLE VI

UNION ELECTION AND ELECTION OF

OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

SECTION 1. Committee on Elections. There shall be a Committee on Elections (COMELEC) to be created by the Board at least forty-five (45) days before any regular or special election. The functions of the COMELEC shall include the following:

Adopt and promulgate rules and regulations relative to the conduct, supervision and administration of election, whether regular or special;

Pass upon qualification of candidates;

Rule on any question or protest regarding the conduct of the election and decisions/orders duly promulgated by the committee are final and unappealable; and

Proclaim duly elected officers.

SECTION 2. Elections of Officers. The elections of officers and members of the Board of Directors shall be held on the 4th quarter of every third year thereafter, and the term of office of the elected officers shall begin after proclamation by the committee on elections and taking their oath of office.

SECTION 3. Secret ballot. The election of officers shall be by secret ballot and shall be conducted by the Committee on Elections of five (5) members to be appointed by the Board.

ARTICLE VII

MEETINGS

SECTION 1. Place. All meetings of the Union shall be held in the DBM Central or Regional Offices or PS premises.

SECTION 2. Regular meeting of the Board. The Board of Directors shall meet every third Friday of every month, at such time and place as it may determine.

SECTION 3. Special meetings of the Board. The Board of Directors shall meet at the call of the President and as often as the members thereof may agree.

SECTION 4. Regular assembly meetings. Assembly meeting of the Union may be called by the President at his/her own discretion or by the Board of Directors or upon a written request by at least thirty (30%) of the total members of the Union.

ARTICLE VIII

REGULAR COMMITTEES

SECTION 1. There shall be five regular committees that shall take charge in the implementation and supervision of Union projects and activities, subject to the direction of the Board of Directors, and under the immediate supervision of the President who shall see to it that the functions of the Regular Committees shall perform the following functions:

1.1 Training and Education Committee. It shall be charged with enlightening and training Union members on labor education, public service, employer-employee relations and the like. It shall develop a comprehensive program and curriculum whereby members could be made aware of their rights and privileges under existing laws and develop them into enlightened, dedicated and committed Union members in preparation for Union leadership.

1.2 Public Relations and Information Committee. It shall be responsible for the promotion of a greater understanding of Union activities and such relevant matters of importance to unionism. It shall keep abreast all members on different issues and cause the formation of an effective organization that shall handle any course of action as part of union activities.

1.3 Grievance and Legal Assistance Committee. It shall formulate guidelines and develop a mechanism for the proper resolution of legitimate grievances of Union members; to receive, collate, investigate and document all grievances submitted by Union members against any employee of the DBM or PS, or established policies, rules and regulations being enforced by management that impinge on the legitimate rights and prerogatives of Union members as provided by law.

1.4 Socio-Cultural Projects Committee. It shall promote socio-cultural activities and encourage Union members in the participation of the same to develop desirable mental, physical, moral and spiritual qualities. It shall formulate an annual program of activities that shall culminate every end of the fiscal year to coincide with the DBM anniversaries.

1.5 Business and Finance Committee. It shall implement and supervise all kinds of income-generating activities or projects of the Union for the benefit of the Union members and shall be the custodian of all assets and resources of the Union.

SECTION 2. Regular Committees shall be headed by a Committee Chairperson appointed by the President with the concurrence of the majority of the Board of Directors meeting en banc for the purpose. The Chairperson shall hold office effective upon appointment for a period of the regular incumbency of the officers of the Union. Any vacancy occurring shall be filled by appointment in accordance with the procedure herein provided and shall hold office for the unexpired term of the predecessor.

SECTION 3. The Board may create other Committees as deemed necessary thru a Resolution.

ARTICLE IX

FEES, DUTIES, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, FINES AND OTHER PAYMENTS

SECTION 1. Membership Fee. A membership fee of P50.00 shall be paid by an applicant before becoming an official member of the Association.

SECTION 2. Monthly Dues. Every member shall pay monthly dues to the Association in the amount of P20.00 that may be collected through salary deduction upon previous written authorization as stated in the application for membership.

SECTION 3. Special Assessment. As a result of the CNA negotiations between management and the Union and in accordance with the PSLMC rules, all non-members of the Union shall be assessed an agency fee equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the CNA Incentive. Other special assessments or other extraordinary fees shall be made only upon resolution duly ratified by 3/4 of the General Membership through secret balloting.

SECTION 4. Funds of the Association. All amounts collected pursuant to the preceding sections shall constitute the General Fund of the Association to be applied to the operational and organizational expenses of the Association or any purpose or subject as may be authorized by the Board of Directors in a written resolution adopted at a meeting duly called for the purpose.

SECTION 5. Every member shall contribute to the Association such amounts as may be fixed by the Board of Directors or General Membership through a written resolution adopted during the General Assembly, to be applied to or expended for any or all of the following purposes:

a) education programs;

b) CNA negotiations; and

c) Such other plans and programs that will promote the interests and welfare of the Association and the members.

ARTICLE X

DISPOSITION OF ASSOCIATION FUNDS

SECTION 1. In case of voluntary dissolution of the Association or financial cancellation of its registration certificate, the Association members shall enjoy equity of the Association properties to the extent that said properties shall first be sold to the Association members before said properties are offered to non-association members and its proceeds, together with the balance of the association funds shall be distributed, pro-rata to its members, depending on the amount of membership dues contributed to the Association. The General Membership shall be consulted to settle differences of opinion, if any.

ARTICLE XI

QUORUM

SECTION 1. Except when greater proportion is required herein or by law, a majority vote shall prevail at its meetings and deliberations of the Association. A majority of the members (50% + 1) of the Association shall constitute a quorum to officially transact any business.

ARTICLE XII

COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATION

SECTION 1. Collective negotiation for and in behalf of the Association shall be undertaken by the Board of Directors and designate its representatives to act as the Negotiating Panel.

SECTION 2. The CNA resulting from the negotiations shall be subject to ratification and approval by the majority vote of the Association members at a meeting convened or by referendum held for such purpose.

ARTICLE XIII

SETTLEMENT OF INTERNAL DISPUTE

SECTION 1. Dispute involving Association members or its officers shall be made in writing to the President who shall undertake to have them settle their differences amicably.

SECTION 2. In the event of failure to settle the dispute amicably, the President shall pass on the dispute to the Committee on Grievance to be created by the Board of Directors, who shall undertake investigation to hear the case of its merits.

SECTION 3. The Committee on Grievance shall require the respondents within five (5) working days from the date of the aforementioned confrontation of the parties to submit their answers in writing. Thereafter, both sides shall be entitled to a hearing.

SECTION 4. After proper evaluation of evidence submitted, the Committee on Grievance shall render its written decisions on the dispute within seven (7) working days from termination of the hearing.

SECTION 5. Decision of the Committee on Grievance shall become final unless appealed to the General Membership within three (3) working days from receipt of a copy of the decision of the Committee on Grievance.

ARTICLE XIV

GENERAL PROVISIONS

SECTION 1. Annual Report. The Board of Directors shall render an annual report covering the Union activities and operations of the previous year, which shall contain, among others:

Statement of income and expenses of the previous years;

Statement of the activities and projects of the previous year;

Statement of the unfinished projects and its recommendation; and
Statement on the proposed projects, if any.

SECTION 2. The books, accounts, and records of the Union shall be open to inspection by the members of the Board at all times and by the general members at reasonable time.

SECTION 3. The members of the Board and the officers shall not receive any salary, honorarium or commission, but they shall be reimbursed of any transportation or other expenses incurred in the course of their official activities subject to auditing rules and regulations.

SECTION 4. Fiscal year. The Fiscal year of the Union shall begin from January 1^st and shall end on December 31^st of the Calendar Year.

SECTION 5. Amendments. Proposals for amendments to this Constitution and By-Laws may be made by the Board of Directors or upon formal petition of at least twenty percent (20%) of the General Membership.

No proposal shall be considered an amendment and become part of this Constitution until after the same shall have been ratified by two-thirds (2/3) vote of all the members of the Association either at a special meeting or a referendum called for such purpose.

SECTION 6. Seal. Unless otherwise provided by the Board, the seal of the Union shall be a lion holding a weighing scale on a raised right paw and a hammer on the left, with the acronym, B.U.D.G.E.T.

SECTION 7. Effectivity. This Constitution and By-Laws shall take effect on the day following its ratification.

APPROVED, ADOPTED and RATIFIED this 18th day of April, 2011, with the list of members, together with their signatures, who ratified the same appearing in Annex "A" hereof.

DBM, Malacanang, Manila, Philippines.

CERTIFIED CORRECT:

MERCEDES P. NAVARRO

Secretary
ATTESTED:

DIMPNA O. LEJOS

President

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ____ day of ______ at___________________, Affiants exhibiting their valid Identification Numbers and Community Tax Certificates No., as follows:

Valid ID/CTC Issued At/On:

Mercedes P. Navarro

Dimpna O. Lejos

Notary Public

Doc. No. ____

Page No. ____

Book No. ____

Series of 2011

Spark Message

Budget Union for the Declaration of Genuine Employees’ Thrusts
(B.U.D.G.E.T)

May 6, 2011

Dear B.U.D.G.E.T. Members:

Greetings!

May we inform you that the B.U.D.G.E.T. By-laws is due for submission to the Civil Service Commission and the Bureau of Labor Relations of the Department of Labor and Employment on or before May 18, 2011. We would appreciate receiving your final comments and suggestions thereon, if any, on or before May 13, 2011 to Ms. Mercy of FPB, Ms. Sheryll Grace of IAS or Ms. Ningning of CPRS.

Thank you and we are happy to serve you!

Very truly yours,

B.U.D.G.E.T. BOARD MEMBERS

Priestly VFA?

2010-02-28T19:38:00.007+08:00

“Fact-finding body

In this country, Rosales said, complaints against priests who commit sexual abuse may be raised before bishops. The subject priest would be made to answer the allegations before a fact-finding body.

If found meritorious, the case would be elevated to the Vatican, where it would be decided whether the priest should be defrocked, Rosales said.”

I saw this entry in a 2008 Inquirer article. The two paragraphs were at the tail end of the piece which lead with the local catholic church’s position on homosexual priests.

A fact finding body within an organization is fair, normal; but then Gaudencio Rosales depressingly went thousands of miles beyond what was necessary.

What is necessary? Local law enforcement authorities, the Philippine justice system, Philippine laws.

Why should any Filipino care about Vatican involvement when he or she was wronged here in the country? There are laws here, law enforcement, and a system of justice, which every citizen can avail. Why let the victim suffer through an international red tape. For that matter why should any victim care first about ‘defrocking’?

Does this mean a VFA status for priests? Does this mean that they see themselves as beyond all Philippine laws?

Now maybe I am overreacting. Maybe there is fault with the editorial policies of the Inquirer (but if true then that would be a different issue all together). But I have to wonder if this church is really sincere. Keeping facts of the crime within the church is what made sex abuse a scandal, and did Gaudencio Rosales promise anything that was not done before? At least from those two paragraphs, NO.

Nothing But the Truth

2010-02-01T00:33:00.004+08:00

Anecdotal evidence has always been against the middle man or against that middle ground.

In business removing the middleman means raised profits since the middleman needs his cut just like any other which raises overheads. In fights, riots, or brawls, the man in the middle or as they say the "taga awat" is the one who gets crushed. In romance, well let’s just say, one will be flirting with a broken heart if there is a middleman.

Perhaps in some definitions the Persian messenger in the movie 300 is not a middle man since he is a servant of the Persian King Xerxes; but considering his fate would anyone want to be in the middle of two warring kings. Maybe an army is better than be crushed in the middle of two kings because at least you’d have the chance to fight. Maybe...

Nothing But the Truth is about another entity in the middle: the media. In today’s society, media acts like a middleman, as our eyes and ears on all sectors of society.

Like the Persian messenger, the media in the film finds itself in the middle of the government eager to defend itself against all who dare question policy and its need to protect its integrity which depends on it being a institution where any citizen can express his ideas, including knowledge of a crime without fear of persecution.

The lead character is Rachel Armstrong (Kate Beckinsale), a reporter with a monster of a scoop and naturally already dreaming Pulitzer Prize. She stirred up a political hornet’s nest with her piece alleging the President ignored a recommendation from the CIA regarding Venezuela’s involvement on an assassination attempt on the President himself. The information, had it been considered, could have stopped a war against Venezuela.

It would have been simple for Rachel had it been reduced to a he said she said bout with the government but unfortunately for her national security was the government’s ace in the hole.

What made Rachel vulnerable is that she had uncovered and named in her article the CIA agent as Erica Van Doren (Vera Farmiga) the wife of US Ambassador to Venezuela. Revelation such as that imply not only squealer or worse a mole within the secretive CIA but that would also mean that the entire network of contacts at home and especially in Venezuela could be exposed.

Like any spy movie would tell you, or just look at your daily life, a network of contacts is not easy to build. And since in the context of the film a part of that network is a spy the exposure brings with it a danger of life and death to everyone.

The US Government in order to prevent revelations of its intelligence networks enacted laws such as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.   And though Rachel had freedom of the press, the government was on a roll: there was a war, a retaliatory strike for an assassination attempt at that, and there was a law.

Patton Dubois (Matt Dillon) plays the Special Prosecutor charged with the sole task of ferreting out the leak. Rachel she was the only lead the government had and since the Special Prosecutor had nowhere to go and carrying the full weight of the government he had a fairly easy time railroading Rachel to jail time for contempt. She and her paper were easily painted as unpatriotic. Government outlasted all media attempts to paint her as a hero of the First Amendment.

So that is, in a nutshell, the entire movie: will Rachel brake her vow not to reveal her source or not. Let this be a warning for spy movie lovers; though there was a spy and her identity was revealed it was all a side show.

Nothing But the Truth is about that middle ground: the media. Government, citizen, any part of society can use it; spur debate; make changes; inform; hold people accountable. The film asks of the audience those critical questions such as keeping sources secret, for that matter should government keep secrets? Should Rachel talk and be with her family or should she keep to the ideals of the First Amendment and rack up those lawyer’s fees, be a mother in absentia? Is the idea of a free press more important than one’s own life?

The Persian messenger comes to mind, "No one threatens the messenger", and we all know what happens next.   Leonidas and the US government in this film share the same motive. Sure media can have its abuses but think about it, if there is no such thing as anonymity who wins?   What will happen to a society which looses that middle ground where there is a free exchange of ideas?

I like Kate Beckinsale if only because she’s pretty. She did ok; a woman wondering if principles of the free press is worth her family. But I wouldn’t so far and say she was excellent. Oddly enough even with pen and notebook at hand she did not come off as a reporter to me.

The rest of the characters were somehow forgettable which doesn’t bode well for the film. The film has relevant issues yes, but somehow it seemed like a waiting game; will Rachel brake or not.

Alan Alda was the film’s highlight in the sense the he verbalized the message. He played Alan Burnside, Rachel’s Attorney.   When the case reached the Supreme Court he defended the right to keeping sources secret via the dissenting opinion of Branzburg v. Hayes.    'As the years pass, power of Government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power,' he said, 'whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it, and the people are the victims.'

"When we as a nation will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over-and what then is the nature of Government when it has no fear of accountability? We should shutter at the thought. Imprisoning journalists-that's for other countries; that's for countries who fear their citizens, not countries that cherish and protect them."

But the best moment I have to say was the revelation of the source was out of the blue and yet surprisingly very plausible. If Alan Burnside invoked jurisprudence, the source was largely symbolic and effective.

As for middle men and middle grounds, it is inescapable for anyone to choose a side but I think it is not always bad to have a place where all sides can meet; a neutral ground, a middle ground; where people can compromise; make changes, or to just simply talk...

Engineering an Empire

2009-12-31T01:41:00.012+08:00

Engineering an Empire: the title I thought was an interesting combination of two words: engineering and empire. It was enough to catch my attention.

My initial guess was that engineering was meant in a figurative sense; the producers way of sexing up ‘to build’. Who else have been credited in building these empires other than those charismatic larger than life leaders, the emperors and the generals? A feature of how they made empires was my aim because in stories of that nature those emperors and generals are the heroes.

The first episode on the British Empire proved me wrong. Engineering was meant to be literal: the profession involved in building various forms of infrastructure, machines and other forms of technology. It was a pleasant surprise I must say because the show was never boring considering ancient building techniques are not everybody’s first choice when studying empires, least of all mine.

What kept the show interesting was that it did not deviate from the format of historical features. A viewer will still see important dates, the important personages and milestones.

This use of familiar faces and dates acted as a picture frame for the entire series, which houses its key point, the engineering. While military skill expands an empire, the show implies in some way that engineering is the backbone of it all; that a civilization’s mastery of the discipline can be the catalyst that catapults it to be greater than the others.

Engineering, according to the series points comes in at least three forms. There the utilities, which includes aqueducts, sewage, or roads; just about anything that is of general benefit to the public. Second, infrastructure for reasons of prestige or as a symbol of power; it is built just for the sake of having it because no other civilization or country can. The third and most obvious is military technology which is a basic requirement if a nation wants to carve out new territory.

Credit for an interesting series can also be given to Robocop star Peter Weller who, to my surprise, is an academic; having a professorial post at Syracuse University, teaching Fine Arts and Literature. Rare is an actor hosting a series like this for reasons beyond acting. In Weller’s case it can be said that he knew as much or more than the script he was reading from.

He had presence, which more than I can say for many professors. But Peter Weller’s passionate explanation was not all that made the series interesting but also the topic itself.

Ancient civilizations gives one an image of hammers and nails which is to say the techniques are primitive or unsophisticated compared to present engineering and can therefore be irrelevant. That would be the wrong point of view.

The techniques may be antiquated but the projects are indeed comparable to the present day. Every episode I keep asking myself over and over how can they do that; especially in the absence of computers and heavy equipment. The organization and planning required collecting the materials and leading the enormous manpower is something I cannot imagine.

Take for example the aqueducts; this infrastructure used for water transport requires only gravity for transporting water for dozens and dozens of miles. I have difficulty picturing how one would create consistently accurate and gradual downward sloping; elevated maybe ten, twenty, maybe thirty feet off the ground over a great spans of uneven land using a series of arches. Add to that the manpower that is composed of either peasant or slave; let’s just say that Union trouble was the least of their worries.

Considering that they were suppose to be primitive I had this misguided (I now realize) opinion that I can easily grasp the idea. The accuracy needed for the end product plus the logistics for all the stone and supplies; as well as the command structure needed for what I assume are plenty of slaves; makes my jaw drop just imagining the possibilities. I mean if they were that good then shouldn’t man be on starships now, at least that’s what I think.

Overall I’d compare this documentary series to CSI. Typical detective shows before Crime Scene Investigations had the police at the forefront. Protecting the streets, solving crime, would not have been possible without those brave policemen or detectives kicking those doors down and shooting their gun. The police were the heroes being the sharp end of law enforcement.

After CSI, the lab guys, geeks and scientists became the heroes. For Engineering an Empire the spotlight has been taken away from those Julius Caesars or Alexanders and instead aimed on those builders and engineers who have all been overshadowed by the military.

If nation has an Alexander the Great chances favor it in every battle. But as Sun Tzu said of war, “There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”

So beyond war a civilization needs its infrastructure; its people well sustained; creative, and believes in the idea that makes them a nation.

In Engineering an Empire the engineer, the geek and not the warrior, can be the hero.

Rewriting Pandora's Box

2009-12-13T19:16:00.004+08:00

Search Pandora’s Box and moral lesson together in Google it will point to sites that say the myth is a condemnation of curiosity. ‘Curiosity kills the cat’ was even among those results.

In case you have forgotten your childhood tales, Pandora is the girl who unleashed trouble/monsters into the world because she could not control her curiosity to open a box (a jar in earlier versions).

There is a reverse version by Theognis who suggests that good creatures were contained in the jar. The fly in the ointment as it were was curious Pandora who opened the jar releasing the goodness until only hope remained inside. Unlike the unleashed evil which lurks the world, this version, the good spirits having escaped the jar have moved on to another.

The tale in its raw form of myths and monsters has been told mostly to the young. No different from telling a rather restless child that mumu, ghosts, and all sorts of monstrosities are around the corner to prevent them from straying. Unfortunately as a metaphor, the myth has made its way to adults.

Pandora’s Box has been used to describe the evils of ideas in the hopes that like children they may be scared to ever moving at all. It’s like saying this idea may look harmless to you now, but wait till you make the next step; when you ‘open the box’ so to speak. The RH bill, Sex Education, Nuclear Energy, Stem Cells, Homosexuality among others have been associated with the tale.

In most cases it doesn’t seem to matter which side you are on those views, the point of the tale is not to take the next step; perhaps more to the point, the message is not to ever look. Not unreasonable with monsters lurking under the lid. So end of story?

Well not quite at least not for me. With just monsters under the lid albeit imagined the story would have made sense, but it did not stop there because underneath it all there was Hope. Why is it there, an odd mix of monsters and a flicker of something good? If opening doors to knowledge declared as forbidden is evil why was there Hope at the end of it all?

So here I started think another way of seeing Pandora’s Box, maybe not the first to do so with many versions of the myth, but most certainly a minority.

We start at the heart of the story, Pandora, the curious girl who started all the trouble.

Of curiosity Albert Einstein said, “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.” And if you still doubt his support of curiosity he also said “It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education,” perhaps in reference of adult tendency to tell the young to shut up with all the questions.

There is even a support of the dead cat by Arnold Edinborough: “Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly.”

If you are in subscribe to the traditional meaning of Pandora’s Box then perhaps the Wright brothers should have accepted that man does not have wings or Pasteur should have accepted diseases as a curse from the Divine. Rizal should have just accepted the Church and Spanish abuse. Where would we be if not for people who dared open their own personal and societal boxes?

Perhaps you will say it is different because Rizal, the Wright brothers have always been heroes; that they were right. Curiosity is not always about right and wrong but more about asking questions; trying; or as the story goes, it’s about looking under that jar lid or box cover. Curiosity is a prerequisite of discovery.

Which brings us to the next stage: the monsters. After the numerous curious souls throughout history have opened their boxes was it always perfect once that lid was breached? Rizal ended up as dead as that proverbial cat for daring to question the church and Spain. And I am sure in the age of pre-flight; those early attempts to get off the ground have resulted in broken bones, bruises, and certainly death (if they got high enough). It seems at least for these two cases it was right, the box should have been closed.

But can it be closed? The evil unleashed version would seem to indicate this as a bad option because the monster is already out. No use turning back. Admittedly the Theognis version were good was released and they left the world is a difficult fit for this analogy. Perhaps the question in this case is that would it be of benefit if the box remained closed with all the good inside.

The key piece in the story is Hope. In the context of the myth if Pandora were to close the box the monsters would still be there. As a gift of the gods we can assume it can never be destroyed especially by a mortal. Closing or burying in the hopes that it can be forgotten only postpones the inevitable; the fact it exists means anyone else is bound to open it again unleashing only more monsters.

So there nothing to do but to brace for the monsters until the bottom of the box is reached and only Hope is left.

Pandora’s Box I believe is an analogy about knowledge and ideas. A person gets knowledge, ideas; creates something entirely new because of curiosity. It is by no means a walk in the park as is pointed out by the monsters.

To close any particular area of knowledge or idea is not an option because the mere fact it existed means that the idea exists. If one can open it and unleash monsters means others can. The discovery of something new is by no means perfect. There is really nothing left to do but to keep it open for all to see, add to the ideas, provide solutions, discuss, experiment, until finally you find meaning in those ideas and see Hope.

Rizal ended up dead but Filipinos not closing the box on independence eventually won it and have made made him National Hero. Airplanes have made the world smaller. Pasteur is considered one of the pioneers of microbiology. If the box that was closed prematurely we would not be where we are now seeing Hope.

Sure the Philippines may be in deep shit now but who knows; maybe this isn’t the end of the box. Powered flight is doing well which leaves outer space as the next box in that area. There have been new diseases since Pasteur but his way is simply better than relying that the ‘divine curse’ be lifted.

Now how is the RH bill, Sex Education, Nuclear Energy, Stem Cells, Homosexuality the same as Rizal and powered flight? How are you sure that it is not? Maybe all that is advertised by the naysayers is not the end of the box.

All are ideas opened up by the eternally curious human mind and as such they will never be closed. Nothing left but to brace for the monsters real and imagined because it is certain there will be mistakes and rough seas so to speak. But never close that box and wish that it will be buried and forgotten. Open it wide and understand it until the end where Hope is found.

Pandora's Box: no longer should be a box that should have never been opened but, for the Philippine setting at least, a balikbayan box with a really annoying package protection.

Battleplan

2009-11-19T17:27:00.002+08:00

Battleplan is not the Art of War. Certainly it is not as poetic, insightful, or as comprehensive as Sun Tzu’s work.

While many say the Art of War can be a great philosophy for both war and life in any age, the History Channel production, Battleplan, is still one of a kind for having clearly defined the steps of well known battle plans in the past 100 years.

One episode is one battle plan: a specific approach for the defeat of the enemy or for the achievement of specific objectives. And for each battle plan there are two examples.

If for example the attacker wants to use the navy, for that there is the episode Battle Fleet Action. Assault from the Air, is deploying ground troops through the air. Control of the Air, involves defeating the enemy air power first through one’s own air power. An Assault from the Sea is an amphibious assault like the Leyte Landings. Blitzkrieg, a term made popular by World War II Germany is a lightning approach to war, speed having the top priority. There is even an episode on guerilla war, with its most popular example in Vietnam.

Each plan is explained in a thesis like approach which the narrator describes as requirements. But like in a thesis those requirements seem more like stages since they need to be answered in a specific order. Like in a thesis, each chapter or stage needs to be well thought out.

Lining up the requirements are among others, Objectives, Means, Force Ratio, Intelligence, Follow Through, and Exit Strategy.

The narration then goes about defining each in accordance to the situation at hand, arranged almost in a FAQ (frequently ask questions) manner. What is an objective? What do you need to look for in making an objective for planning, for example, an Assault from the Air?

After defining and asking the questions for those requirements or to use some thesis writing parlance, chapters; the two examples for that battle plan are measured up to what is an ideal. Or if not explained in detail why it failed or succeeded or where it could have been improved.

The big surprise for me in this series is the requirement of Force Ratio which is a comparative analysis between one’s enemy force and the enemy. It’s not all about numbers but can also include among others training and morale.

I find it a surprise because even with a culture such as the military and in a war footing at that, some consideration still has to be made regarding the troops. Not necessarily for the sake of holding hands and being soft, it’s a war obviously; but the point I think is to leave no stone unturned. If the troops are not in the ideal physical and mental conditions it is still possible that any advantage in technology or numbers may be offset.

It’s not always about rank and orders. It’s about planning meticulously every single detail.

Honestly my dream documentary as far as war is concerned is about tactics especially those wars fought in antiquity by the likes of Caesar or Alexander, or as recent as Napoleon. I’ve been curious if armies did fight in neat formations like they do in diagrams of the ancient battles.

While Battleplan is not anything like my dream war documentary, it is better in the sense that it is all about preparation and strategy. Indeed the series is not the Art of War but being direct to the point and having examples of real battles, it works really great in its own way.

e-Minority Report

2009-09-03T07:02:00.006+08:00

Yesterday I was googling “divine right to rule” at work. Politics was on my mind for many reasons other than the Nonoy Aquino for president campaign getting a boost. The term just came to me out of the blue, weird as it is.

One of the sites identified by google led me to a firewall warning that says I have accessed an inappropriate website. Why; read the category and it has the answer: plagiarism.

Again I googled but this time for the word plagiarism and the top choice in the search was a plagiarism.org. Catering primarily to the academe, the site has tips for detection of plagiarism and the use of proper citation but most importantly a definition. It cited from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary which says that plagiarism means:

• to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
• to use (another's production) without crediting the source
• to commit literary theft
• to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

What the definition does not state is reading, which was what I was really trying to do in the first place. Perhaps it is a case ala-Minority Report where I was charged for a crime (plagiarism) I may or may not commit. Then again maybe the plagiarism was meant for the site.

Now I can understand the banning pornography. I can understand banning social networking sites; they are a chore to maintain as well as being a lot of fun. Youtube is tantamount to television so off with that distraction in the office. But what I don’t understand is the reason why my IT department calls the site plagiarism.

Could it be because they know that I am a student at the PUP Graduate School? Still even a student has the right to read but what he puts on in the paper that can be plagiarism.

Perhaps that’s the reason, reading outside of work. If reading is disallowed other that the office papers then the policymakers should just say so or they could just ban internet altogether; some corporations have been known to do that.

But plagiarism?!?

Freudian slip or honest mistake?

2009-08-07T07:08:00.004+08:00

Is there anything more hurtful than this caption to a sitting president?

Photo and caption was published on the August 6, 2009 issue of Manila Bulletin at the back cover, lower half.

August 7, supplemental:

I tried in vain to search for an office copy of said picture, using the paper in the library, knowing it will be a nice topic over lunch or later that evening for drinks. Alas internet chatter says the Bulletin management had removed it in succeeding batches.

Leaving your Car in the Flood

2009-08-07T06:01:00.001+08:00

Floods like this in the DBM parking lot and perhaps most of Malacañang come in seasons; mostly starting in June. Pasig overflows by rising back into the gutters and up to most of areas surrounding the river which unfortunately includes my office. It is subject to the tides and at times the amount of rain.

Here is one unlucky guy yesterday. Came to office to pick up the office car only to find it stuck. Good thing the guard was strong. hahaha

Angels and Demons

2009-06-26T20:45:00.002+08:00

I struggled how to write this review thinking how I can judge the movie independent of the book. Eventually I accepted the fact that there is no other view that I can offer except that of a reader. As a film Angels and Demons is a failure.

Yes it retained the usual elements; the murders; the stories of persecutions in history including the occasional unsolicited historical trivia coming from Robert Langdon. Of course they also retained secret codes and historically inspired puzzles. Unfortunately, as great as the aforesaid elements may be they are not the heart and soul of the story.

The heart and soul of the story is challenging the status quo and perhaps unbeknownst to filmmakers it lay in two characters, Leonardo Vetra and the Pope. Both are priests and both are also pro-science which in real life is far from the norm.

Leonardo Vetra in the movie is Silvano Bentivoglio, partner to Vittoria Vetra. After the character discovered antimatter he was murdered just 5 minutes into the film. The Pope on the other hand is just dead. Both he and the movie version of Leonardo were mentioned only verbally in the end. Without any physical embodiment who they are and what they stood for was forgettable.

With the story’s theme of science versus religion, these two characters carried the argument at least for the book. They do not strike anyone as the stereotypical priests and neither are they the villain. Their beauty is that the credibility to stand in both sides of the argument with equal force.

But what really highlighted them was that they have families. Vittoria Vetra was an adopted daughter of Leonardo which in the movie was reduced to a research partner in Silvano. The Pope was a deeply pious man who loved a woman and longed for a child. That ambivalence was what drove him to love science especially he availed of in vitro fertilization. To be part a father without violating the law of chastity was for him heaven sent.

Is it possible for science to explain God? Is it right for a Pope to have fathered a child even without the sex? Are they entirely wrong or are they entirely right? Wrong or right, nothing truly makes you think than a controversial idea.

Without them all Angels and Demons the movie had are the extremes: the scientist who bit off more than he could chew or the religious zealot who could not accept the encroachment of modern science into what was during the middle ages their domain. Obviously there is not much of a choice. The attempt to verbally express the good qualities of science and religion which the two characters would have been effective in embodying was drowned in the murders, persecutions, and secret codes.

While those are indeed great elements to have any story can have murder. History books have stories of persecutions and historically they can be more accurate. Puzzles don’t make it special. But how many stories dared challenge the status quo. The true heart and soul of Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon is challenging Christianity and it went away along with the disappearance of Vetra and the Pope in the film.

As it is, Angels and Demons is a no brainer because it requires literally no brains. It also answers the question why the church and religious groups did not put up a fight against its release. The film is a tour of Rome and the Vatican City; it is an expensive way to kiss ass, nothing more.

While I agree that in most cases a film should have leeway in deviating from the book, however, that is no excuse from changing the essence of the story all together. That is why Angels and Demons is a failure.

A Day or so in Palawan

2009-04-20T18:21:00.003+08:00

April 16 at around 4:30 p.m. I hopped on a plane along with two fellow employees of DBM and their families, onward to Palawan: from the afternoon of the 16th to the afternoon of the 18th.

As was customary we arrived two hours before the flight at NAIA 3. We availed of the Go Lite promo of Cebu Pacific. That required no check in baggage and a hand-carry that should be about 7 kilos.

Because of the promo I packed my bag conservatively meaning I was trying to bring only the exact amount that I needed. I was always wary about the weight. Although, now that I think of it, the regulation weight never was in my mind during prep perhaps because even if I did know what the weight requirement was there was no way for me to measure my bag in kilos.

I wanted to bring a book or two to help pass the boring hours, and I wanted to bring an excess of clothes which was what I was accustomed to, but all I thought about was necessities and the total time in Palawan almost amounts to one day.

Typical of any airport security was tight, guards were frisking; bags went through x-ray machines; and IDs were asked to match up with the tickets. By the second check (the gate was the first) I removed, for the first time I might add, my footwear. I was wearing sandals and thought of keeping it on thinking it should be easy for the guards to examine it at the frisking area but then I would stand out, everyone was in their socks or on foot. ‘When in Rome’ as they say.

In waiting for the flight I wondered about the two hour rule or how strict it is. It was a boring wait. After eating an expensive but rather delicious clubhouse sandwich I had nothing to do. There was a bookstore nearby, and if I didn’t have a limited budget I would have bought me a magazine. By now I was really itching for the book I never packed especially knowing of the 3 kilos to spare after weighing in the check-in counter.

And boy was I was really itching for that book or anything to read during the flight. Strange that unlike my two previous I seemed more bored and cramped in this flight. I was relaxed enough to want to read.

Food was no solace because there wasn’t any that came with the ticket in Cebu Pacific, which explains its cheap. You’d have to buy the food, and even souvenirs too if you’d like. The stewardess will parade the goods in mid-flight should any passenger wish to avail of any: food and souvenirs.

We landed at Puerto Princesa at around 5:30 pm. There was the usual taking of pictures beside the plane which makes the locals easily tag you as a tourist but then who cares. It was a welcoming ceremony in a place some of us have not been to before, and certainly it was much better than kissing the cement. Getting a ride was not difficult because my officemate had friends in the locality and she was assisting us much of the way. She had sent over a driver who easily picked us out of the crowd; so without check-in baggage we were off into the city in no time.

I stayed at the Tropical Sun Inn with at least half of the party. The entire structure was rectangular in shape with the quadrangle in the middle used as a kind of dining area or a place where patrons can hang out. Beer is always available should you feel a need to drink at 12 midnight, there will be a staff getting it for you but the kitchen, like many places I know, closes early. Rooms are clean with air conditioning and cable.

The only bad comment is that Tropical Sun Inn takes its check-out time seriously and charges overtime. We had exceeded only one hour. One reason which should have made the Inn exercise more discretion is the frequent brownouts. They had generators, but not powerful enough for the air-conditioning. Though it was not the Inn’s fault they should have had the foresight of giving patrons a reason to come back. It was not a five star hotel after all; some leeway would have been nice.

The locals including our host said the brownouts were not frequent occurrences. For only the occasion of our visit there was damage in the plants that power the city. It was just bad luck, made even worse considering it was summer. Though the blackout did not take the whole night it still took some drinking in the cool quadrangle and outside, in the city, to make sure one is ‘knocked out’ enough should power fail again in the early morning.

We spent the night of the 16th at the establishment of our host which she calls “Kweba” for short. I am sorry to say the full name escapes me. But the inspiration behind the name is the abundance of natural caves in the land.

On Friday, April the 17th, we were on our way to what is effectively Palawan’s pride and joy, the Underground River. While the island enjoys a host of other natural wonders I know of nothing else the locals aggressively campaign for than that river.

Anyone with the desire to visit the place has to rent a van. There is no public transport to and from Puerto Princesa to Sabang at least from where I could see. It was almost two hours just going there, through fields and mountains; there were strait roads and winding roads; and there were long tracks of rough roads too. I saw no busses or jeeps. In some areas there were locals walking which could suggest the absence of a transport system or if there is any, it would be irregular.

In looking at the landscape you get the feeling that it is untouched, or maybe more appropriate, unspoiled by man. It was green as far as the eye could see. Sad to think that when the population of the province rises the unspoiled land is sure to be no more. But for now, Mayor Hagedorn from what I see has a good handle on things especially on the environmental aspect.

In credit to Hagedorn I saw in the infrastructure something I never saw before nor thought that anyone in the Philippines would even consider making one: it was a row of street lights with either a windmill attached to it or what seem to be solar cells.

Now they say Palawan enjoys more sunshine than the rest of the country and that makes the solar cell a good idea. There are less storms that could endanger the expensive solar cells, not to mention having lots of sun powering it. Luzon and Manila along with it has storms which could make the windmill part more ideal.

The road to the Underground River goes through Sabang. It is a port area from the looks of it. You need to secure permits there to get to the Underground River. I saw some beaches on the side but I am not sure if Sabang is developed as such other than being the halfway point to the Underground River.

From here large parties would have to group themselves into 6 in order to get into the boats. That number is strictly enforced perhaps for both the safety of the passengers and the equity for the boats all around. Our small party of eight was supplemented by another DBM office, the Budget Technical Service (BTS) who by stroke of coincidence was holding their office outing; so the total DBM contingent there reached to almost 60.

Inside the boat I was glad to see and wear a nice looking life vest. It was of a simpler kind than one would normally see on banana boat rides but infinitely better looking than those available in snorkeling rides in Puerto Galera. For one I like that I can zip this vest tight unlike the Galera kind you get this awkward feeling because everything depends on how good you tied it. Thankfully the Underground River too had similar life vests.

Once reaching the island that has the underground river our boat reminded us that we should remember the body number. They were to be the same boat taking us out back to the mainland. The river entrance is some meters inland.

We were advised before landing, in fact, before even taking off from Sabang to pay close attention to devices that may protruding in our pockets or food that we might be holding; indigenous monkeys are known to be a little courageous ‘relieving’ tourists of goods especially the food. Have no fear, they don’t attack they just grab things. There is no danger of harm but still if you think of it, it won’t be a pleasant trip if you are robbed of a sandwich half finished. On this particular trip I saw one tourist raving mad that she was robbed of a suman by a monkey.

Depending on the season you came in there is to be certain a long line going into the Underground River. Including our now expanded party and the people present we could be talking at least 70 or more people and that’s not counting the people already inside. The boats now require groups of 8; we stretched it to 9 because of one excess in the division from the BTS group; that makes a total of 10 including the boatman.

All patrons are required to put their names and age in the passenger manifest for, I suppose, statistical purposes and also for safety. You are also required to wear safety gear such as helmet and a life vest. Everyone is not required but passionately requested on a separate sheet to list their names as a vote for the Underground River to have a place in the seven natural wonders of the world. Once accomplished all you have to do is wait for boats to come in.

We had the pleasure of a certain Teng as our boatman. He is a pleasant sounding fellow; full of jokes and information about the cave. I suppose just seeing how everything in Palawan is run, Teng might not be unique. His jokes, his information about the cave may be how the government wants Underground River tour to be run.

From the river entrance to about 1.5 kilometers deep he always had something to say. He had jokes, he had stories about the discovery of the cave, he had information about the rocks and how it got its color; how high is the highest point; what are the indigenous organisms inside. The trip took almost an hour and he was talking all the way.

I wonder how much of the science he spouted out are based on true knowledge of geological and biological principles but suffice to say he was saying a lot. Between listening to him and minding the surroundings I doubt anyone had the ability to quiz him. What astounds me more is that Teng assists the lightman who is part of our party. The lightman was one of us free to light any shape he wished. Teng can pilot on his own seemingly not needing lights. And on many points, in advance, he would point to the lightman where to point the spotlight.

‘To the left, higher, higher; that’s it’ is something he would say to the lightman depending on the location of the rock he was aiming for. There are plenty of rock shapes and he had imaginative stories to tell about it. Even if memorized his memory is phenomenal. Can you imagine memorizing every location of every rock while navigating in the dark?

The Underground River is certainly something I or anyone else has never seen before. The awe factor never leaves you. And yes to be honest I thought of Batman a few times considering the vastness of the cave. I also remembered in literature of lost worlds underground especially after seeing the dinosaur shaped rock. But the surprising thing is that the cave is cool. I was thinking hot and stale air but in fact the air inside is cooler than the air outside where we spent some minutes falling in line.

People with claustrophobia need not fear enclosed spaces. The main route was maybe 5 meters across and the ceilings were uneven. There was a point or a rock that reached down almost close to the touch while sitting down. And the highest point was as high as a typical cathedral.

After the cave we went back to Sabang to go back to Puerto Princesa. We took our lunch at the Chicken Inasal though not exactly the local delicacy if you are the traveler who loves local food while on the road they do make good chicken. It was at this point that my conservative way of packing for the trip and the unnecessary caution on the hand carry weight requirement was beginning to haunt me. I was running out of clothes, in fact I was down to one.

To complicate things there was a dinner organized by Mayor Hagedorn. Thankfully before dinner we passed by a market place where I bought me 4 T-shirts to last till Saturday. Getting an XL size was a headache, and even at XL it barely fit me. The stores all say the shirts were free size; for what, I thought, for a hobbit. I found XL somewhere at the back.

DBM was not alone there. There were also members of the local government in Cavite if I am not mistaken which is why the Mayor took time to organize an event to advertise his advocacies and yes lets be honest, he also advertises himself. From what I see he has every right to and he, unlike other local politicians, is not full of hot air. Puerto Princesa from the looks of it is beautifully run.

Mayor Hagedorn did not come in that event which was understandable considering the office but he left for us a nice meal and a lovely cultural presentation. The band was named Sinika, and it had a unique feature; in some songs or a song the back up singers were mimicking jungle sounds perhaps to illustrate the virgin nature of Palawan. Accompanying them were dancers in local costumes. Many of the songs were ballads and mixed with the dancers viewers will see what seems to a history of Palawan. All participants were given rainmakers as souvenir.

The night life needs a little more exploring which my party unfortunately did not have time to do. We chanced upon a little spot from the opposite corner of what I remember as the Capitol building (at least I think it was). The place was decent. Some of its best tables were styled like individual huts. Food and service was ok. All would have been perfect except for what the establishment seems to consider its main attraction: the singers. The quality of the song and the way that they sang is far less than most of the bands seen in Manila. It might have been better if we’d listed to a videoke bar because then there would be lowered expectations.

The flight home on the 18th was chaotic at the airport. There was a pile of passengers for Cebu Pacific and why did it reach that long, the counter was closed. PAL had theirs open which accounts for the shortest line. A long line of passengers, now with loads of check-in baggage, just imagine the headache of going home.

The waiting area of the airport was full but no biggie I just found myself a nice little corner. Our flight was delayed so we came to Manila past 6 pm. The headache was repeated again at the retrieval area for the check-in baggage. Coming out of a trip, and almost always in similar looking boxes, the moving tracks of the check-in baggage was full. It took a while getting the check-in baggage. If you are a large party I suggest getting all familiar packages you see and not letting in circle the tracks again. It also helped that my group was positioned at different points. Except for getting an extra package because namesake to one of our party we got everything out.

And so ends the Palawan trip. We had little time but it was beautiful as Mother Nature can ever get. If budget permits we shall come in for seconds or firsts since we, or more to the point, I have yet to see all that Palawan can offer.

Dexter

2009-04-11T13:45:00.007+08:00

In Red Dragon, Hannibal Lecter said to Will Graham; ‘we’re very much alike’. It was not out of spite that made the canniba serial killer say what he said. He meant that the fear and revulsion of Graham was misplaced, that there lies deep within the FBI agent a killer nature similar to Lecter’s own.

Such remarks are not unique, however. The hero and the villain sometimes are said to be just opposites of the same coin. Often it is the villain who says it with the hero saying something like ‘I am not like you’.

But more often the truth is neither side can stay apart or different from the other. One side needs to understand the other side in order to win.

Dexter is how the ups the ante on killer and hero being alike. Killer and law enforcer are no longer on the opposite sides but are in one. The law enforcer is no longer the man with an unusual imagination and understanding of the sick mind of the killer as movie and TV often portray; he is the serial killer.

Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall) is the lead character. He is a forensic analyst by day perhaps not surprisingly specializing in blood spatter. Perhaps it is a wise choice because blood pacifies him being an everyday constant instead of going ‘cold turkey’ like an addict would, except that for Dexter reform is farthest from his mind.

Dexter is every bit the serial killer one sees in other shows and films. He lusts for blood every so often; every potential kill is like opening gifts on Christmas day. As a sociopath he is incapable of genuine human feeling. He is a single white male, a typical trait in a serial killer profile. He is meticulous.

What sets him apart from all the villains is his loyalty to his adapted father, Harry Morgan, the only man who knew who he was, and ironically a cop. It was Harry who made Dexter a serial killer of serial killers. With a serial killer’s eye for detail he makes sure that he doesn’t kill any innocent people.

I rate this show high on my unique list. While there have been stories where the proverbial ‘devil’ goes against his nature to be a good guy, Dexter seems more real. He cannot help himself hence more challenges. He lusts for blood almost like a vampire would.

Often he has this amusing look while analyzing crime scenes, almost that of enjoyment, admiration. At some points he feels like he wants to drool at the cases he handles at forensics. Dexter is a bad buy, a sick man, with only the loyalty to a dead father’s code holding him together.

Ironically enough the stories deal with aspects of humanity, things that are foreign to someone of Dexter’s condition like love, sex, smiling, and friendships. As a sociopath he is always an outsider, a fake human in a way. So the stories are the observance of the life that he cannot feel.

If you like stories where the police and FBI strain to solve clues left by serial killers you will like this show. There is that cat and mouse feel; often that mouse is hidden in the open.

Michael C. Hall is perfect in this role but I wonder sometimes if he can act. Dexter, as he often says of himself, fakes his humanity every day, and so it is possible that a layman can do it. The role calls not for genuine emotion but an essence of being fake. But then again he can also be a genius as he really got the fake human part very well. Michael owns the role of Dexter in every way.

If ever there is a downside to this show is that it is hard to draw empathy. No one can ever understand what it means to hunger for the death of another human being, see the blood; not for revenge but just to see the life drain away.

In watching heroes on film or TV there is always that tapping of everyone’s desire to be a hero; be recognized, do something extraordinary. People might even go for Ghost Rider with that flaming skull for a head and trying to pull a fast one over the Devil himself by doing good instead of evil.

Of course people will readily be a Vampire; there is a large fan base for that. When I had a physique that was still palatable, and if I were only able to rip my shirt off, I even admired being the Hulk at one time.

There is just something about Dexter that even though he is a monster doing good deeds you draw the line. I don’t remember even getting that good feeling whenever a bad guy is defeated. In contrast, when I see Jack Bauer torture a suspect you get a feeling that something is achieved. There is just that line.

Fortunately for the show, now on its 4th season, the time for that squeaky clean hero has long been gone. It is indeed one of the most interesting shows to watch.

Demented Thinking

2009-03-12T07:53:00.002+08:00

A group has the right to enforce conformity among its members like a secret handshake, tattoos or burn marks, or walking naked around the campus which I hear some fraternities do. And so does the church with its policy of no abortion.

But in Brazil, for the local church to have no words of condemnation for the rapist or establish a policy that would excommunicate perpetrators of the crime; to say out loud, especially with Vatican backing, that the people who actually care for the child this case the mother and the doctors are more in the wrong that takes some demented logic.

I guess if the Church can protect their own they can protect any one else.

Not Innocent

2009-03-11T20:35:00.007+08:00

Legally they may be qualified for parole. It is even never in doubt that they are not the mastermind.

But do not tell me a man can walk into a quarantined area, like an airport, where no unauthorized person can just loiter around. No one wondering why he is in there nor even attempting to question his purpose to be in the premises. And this one man can brake through number of armed men, trained guards; soldiers; till finally he can let go of ONE perfect shot at the back of the head.

It makes no sense what so ever for a soldier, a guard, a policeman; anyone on armed services especially on guard detail not to pay particular attention with dangers possibly coming from the rear.

They know. They had to know. At least the person who led the alleged assassin Rolando Galman into the airport had to make sure his own people don’t shoot him. They all knew.

No one is innocent.

Defiance

2009-03-06T06:20:00.007+08:00

Defiance is a story about the struggle of Jews from Belorussia. Hunted like animals they retreated to the forests in order that they live as men. There, even far from the people that hates them; it proved no easy task to maintain the humanity day after day.

Daniel Craig takes a break from the posh lifestyle of James Bond to playing the leader of a band of Jewish guerillas, Tuvia Bielski. Called by some as the Bielski Otriad, the group had at its core the three brothers: Tuvia, Zus (Liev Schreiber) and Asael (Jamie Bell).

As Tuvia, Daniel Craig is more the leading man now than in films like Road to Perdition, Lara Croft Tomb Raider, or Munich. I guess the role of James Bond rubbed off on him because I remember him more vividly now than in those films that I have mentioned. However, Liev Schreiber, the man portraying to be his brother, carried more of the dramatic load. Zus was the wilder and more emotional of the two strongest Bielski brothers.

As the leader of the group Zus and Tuvia also tackled the moralities in war. Being hunted should the group as well? Should they kill collaborators? Should they mount a guerilla war even if only a small percentage of them do the actual fighting?

As if that was not enough they had to deal, as all human beings do, the shortcomings of their own making. There are those waning in courage, others hungry for company; and there are others hungry for a taste of the culture they once had. The most despicable of the lot are engaging in power trips maltreating their own like the Germans who hunt them.

Beyond the moral issues and the internal discord Defiance is very much like Schindler’s List. Tuvia like Oscar Schindler had very different ideas in mind when the war changed their lives. As any children would do surviving their parents Tuvia immediately took his younger brothers under his care. But going through the country side and the villages, as a Jew with some skills in combat, he can’t help but risk taking in more than he can protect and feed.

Imagine the strain of protecting hundreds of people all of whom are scared, hungry, trying to get strength enough to reach the end of the war which in this case happens to be Tuvia. The Bielski group had by the end of the war over 1000 people.

My only issue with how the film was made was the language. The style of the filmmaker was confusing; anyone within the camp was in English and anyone outside was speaking some kind of eastern European language perhaps Russian or Polish. It confuses me because I can’t tell if they were still within their country, Belorussia, or, being in the border regions and on the retreat from advancing Germans, did they actually cross the border.

Filmmakers should have copied the approach done in Valkyrie wherein Tom Cruise started the film speaking German. After a few minutes have been established, when audiences see character and establish the nationality only then does it turn to English for the rest of the film.

With that being said I believe they still did a terrific job with maintaining authentic sounding Eastern European for the rest of the cast.

I loved Defiance very much and being a war movie was a plus. I guess you can say it was a feel good movie considering the topic; hooking in the audience with scenes of despair, chaos; and by the film’s end there was hope. It is always gives you a warm feeling to see the goodness of human nature pulled through when you least expect it, especially in an era that is one of the 20th century’s darkest.

Valkyrie

2009-02-21T13:26:00.003+08:00

In the later years of World War II members in Hitler’s own army were attempting to kill him, and the most famous of these, because it almost succeeded, was the July 20 Plot: the inspiration for the latest Tom Cruise starrer, Valkyrie.

Count Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise), an officer from the famed Afrika Corps, lead the conspirators into using Operation Valkyrie: a self defense measure signed by Hitler himself. The plan, modified for purposes of the coup, involved the mobilization of the reserve army under General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkinson) to secure major government installations as well as isolating and imprisoning much of the hierarchy of the more loyal SS. Once the loyal parts of Hitler’s regime were incapacitated, more respected leaders such as Ludwig Beck (Terrence Stamp) and Dr. Carl Goerdeler (Kevin McNally) were expected to take control of the military and the chancellorship of the government respectively.

Overall the film has the air of a typical spy thriller with a little touch of politics. The pacing is good and there is always the perception of movement.

Each character is defined: there is a group leader doubling as assassin; there are politicians who seem more trouble than a help; and there seem to be useless men always lurking in between. Audiences will have no need to bother with historical details but I suppose the greater trick would be to remember all the German names for future Google search.

Tom Cruise cannot arouse little emotions try as he might but he is a hero, he is the leading man. Bill Nighy (General Friedrich Ulbricht) is no General with that sickly thin body of his, but then he was meant to be indecisive. Most likely his body type was meant to emphasize the indecisiveness of the character. Overall there is nothing bad to be said of the cast they all blended in the context of the story; surely a product of a script that clearly defines who they are.

Story wise with the outcome already played out in history Valkyrie had little going for it in terms of suspense. I know enough if only it is just how Hitler died. But to director Bryan Singer’s credit I didn’t find the film boring. In part I think credit should go to Singer’s perfect setting of the film’s emotional tone: a Germany in near ruin wanting to win back its honor. Count Claus von Stauffenberg giving the german salute with a right hand clearly amputated was a stroke of genius in showing how far Germany had fallen and was in need of saving.

Major-General Henning von Tresckow (Kenneth Branagh) says it all; the point of the attempt was to show the world that it is not “Hitler’s Germany”. A coup has to be successful before Allied victory as a means of making amends to the world at large for the War.

To the film’s credit I found myself rooting for the conspiracy and that is always good for a film; the audience believing in the characters and the mission. It was if I was almost hoping that this version would be different. Hitler is after all one of the most despised men in history. My friend who watched with me also gave it thumbs up as well. He says that for a film that is more talk than action he did not sleep at all.

So what does a guy like me who knew the ending way to early do for the rest of the film? I do what fans of books and comics do when they watch adaptations on film; enjoy the characters visually play out the story and see if emotions derived are the same as imagined. I enjoyed especially watching the dynamic of conspiracies. How does on organize against a government especially one which has a fanatical following?

Getting to Fromm was an all or nothing move in itself and it isn’t even an attempt yet on Hitler’s life. Once successful the problem remains; how much information you can tell the people under Fromm’s command. Many could still be loyal to Hitler.

Information has always been a double edge sword in conspiracies. In the right amounts and more importantly to the right persons it will be a source of strength. The plot can lay hidden waiting until the right moment. While in the wrong amounts and to the wrong persons needless to say results will be catastrophic.

In hindsight killing would have been simple but the conspirators had to consider a credible working infrastructure that could negotiate with the Allies for peace. The way I see it, who cares if the country plunges to civil war as long as the true driving force is dead? Take the chance.

But that is just me having as they say the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. The conspirators had wanted it all; in addition to Hitler they wanted Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler too. But they didn’t know when or if at all the three can be together or when, never realizing that every in every miss, nerves falter, and they slowly expose themselves.

It must be emphasized also to read up to know how accurate did the filmmakers make of the plot. That includes one part which I deem as the saddest thing in the story; the conspirators almost campaigning man to man, sector by sector, after they planted the bomb. One would think as system was in place, or that people will be dancing in the streets in the event an assassination succeeded, but no. Von Stauffenberg and Beck was seen working the phone using all powers of persuasion just so a sector can be placed under their side. Soldiers just shouldn't campaign like politicians especially when their enemy can still pack a punch.

Truly Valkyrie, from beginning to end, is a litany of missed opportunities in history. Maybe destiny is true for a plot so well thought out to have failed, or that a country so progressive as Germany have followed a mad man who makes speeches like he has epilepsy.

Is it worth it? Should they have waited? Considering 20/20 hindsight, all the war dead, German self respect, and the type of man Hitler is, YES. Some nine months after the July 20 Plot the war ended, but not after purging of almost 5,000 citizens were rounded up relation to the plot. Such men should really taken out preferably successfully.

W.

2009-02-14T07:04:00.002+08:00

Watching W. was distracting to say the least. All the time I was thinking, this is a movie full of impersonators, good and bad. Which is not to say that they were bad actors, it’s just that I never had the ‘suspension of disbelief’ as they say in watching the film. There are physical limitations to looking and sounding like some else it would seem.

Just to run through my opinions of them, Jeffrey Wright who played the Secretary of State Collin Powell reminded me too much of his role in the James Bond films. Condoleezza Rice (Thandie Newton) strangely reminds me of Saturday Night Live. I can venture a guess why but we’ll get to that later.

George H. W. Bush (James Cromwell) doesn’t sound anywhere close to the real one. Laura Bush (Elizabeth Banks) seemed at least physically accurate. CIA chief George Tenet (Bruce McGill) makes me almost expectant that MacGyver will be waiting in the wings having played the TV hero’s sidekick long time ago. Richard Dreyfus was the best, even scary, as recently coined most influential vice president, Dick Cheney. Unfortunately he is just too good that he seemed out of place.

As for the story, from George W. Bush’s first term onward to the day weapons inspectors declared that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction; it is a strain just to remember.

Josh Brolin certainly earned his paycheck playing the 43rd American President George W. Bush. He got the mannerisms, the accent, and the timing of the words right. But I wondered, more often than I wanted to, if Bush really talks like that. Of course I never new the man personally but something about the manner of speaking feels unnatural; like a man acting out on stage, which is exactly what a politician does.

I can blame a lot of how I feel with the portrayal on Saturday Night Live. The show has comedians doing much of the same: the acting, the accent, the timing between words, and the mannerisms. And that is the underlying problem in taking W. seriously: the comedy.

America’s 43rd president and his administration’s follies have been a great inspiration to comedians, too great in fact that I never got into a serious mood for the duration of the film. When the movie discussed his policies and received subsequent disagreements from all over the world, I feel like Will Ferrell is going to pop out with a punch line.

Furthermore to the film’s detriment, I did not feel empathy when George W was always feeling inadequate when compared to his father George H. W Bush. The father and son dynamic could have been the film’s emotional theme because the entire story is the son trying to prove himself worthy, albeit inadequately, of the family name. Instead the drama was buried in the shadow of the comedy barely if it ever got a peep out. The simpleton who at times appears that English is his second language always stands out.

Surprisingly I almost feel pity for the man because the last thing any president would want especially in making so many controversial decisions is just to be an inspiration for comedy. Well…almost. He got what he deserved.

And with creative liberties taken by Hollywood or Oliver Stone at least he was one of the worst in recent memory. Recently coined most influential vice president Dick Cheney was shown in W. as one of the prime movers of the war in Iraq.

During one planning scene he used the term empire which took me by surprise. And also from the vice president’s mouth a motive was stated: control of the country holding much of the world’s oil reserves. ertainly not how the Bush Administration wants to be remembered.

There were reports that George H. W. had disagreements with the policies of the son but even then it is safe to assume that such disagreements it remains only on policy. Rarely does a parent openly say he is ashamed of his son especially one holding such an office. W. takes liberty on this regard in the sense that the father privately confronted the son by saying the family name was destroyed because of Iraq. While having the possibility of being true something feels awkward about putting words and interpretations into the relationships of people still existing.

But with George W’s presidency now part of history I guess its fair play. With records now up to scrutiny people can interpret deeper than what was once released to the press. Hollywood being on the entertainment side of the information business may be too liberal in interpreting than most.

Overall I don’t like this film. I’m just too confused between taking it as an interpretation of historical events or a two hour comedy. If you want comedy, go watch reruns of Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show. But if you want history, just read up as always in supplement of films like W., at least in the book or in articles, without the funny accent, I am sure you’ll take the history more seriously.

Passengers

2009-02-03T21:49:00.002+08:00

The strangest manifestation of post traumatic stress I’ve ever seen depicted on film is the victim, almost like an addiction confronting death which is the very thing that traumatized them.I saw that in Fearless in Jeff Bridges. Among other self inflicted brushes with death, he ate strawberries, a fruit which he had history of near fatal allergic reactions.

So when watching the Passengers the word rehash came to mind as the movie also dealt with plane crashes. There was a scene reminiscent of Fearless where Eric (Patrick Wilson), a survivor, was hanging dangerously close the edge of a roof.He was assisted or coaxed down; rather poorly I might add, by the grief counselor or a trauma specialist or what ever it is they call it, Claire Summers (Anne Hathaway).

The star of Princess Diaries is trying to diversify the genres she’s been seen in with Passengers but unfortunately for this film she’s barely surviving. She plays someone who though has had experiences in handling trauma victims seems to be too green in handling this one. Granted that a little awkwardness may be called for in playing Claire she just doesn’t have the aura of a grief counselor in her.

Maybe as a date I would confide problems, cry on her shoulder, but trust her judgment and advice; no. Bottom line is I can still see the Princess Mia, and I don’t want princesses when I just survived a plane crash.

Anne was convincing in the scenes involving Emma Summers (Stacy Grant), Claire’s estranged sister. Unfortunately that bright speck was negated by the lack of chemistry between her and Patrick Wilson. I guess the writers were aiming for spice in putting a love angle between counselor and victim but in the end, I think, that lessened the grief counselor persona.

The brightest performance overall would have to be David Morse as Arkin. His appearances were perfectly timed as he anchored the mystery angle into the story. David really fits the role of villain and when I saw him I immediately went looking for hidden strings, clues to conspiracies, or whatever the movie had in store.

Unfortunately he is just one man. Arkin anchors the mystery and spice that can make or break the movie but he had no other means of support. The script was weak. There was not enough hook to lure the audience in.

Hook the audience in one direction first then twist them in another; that didn’t happen. Passengers’ twist, though common (a few popular movies have used it in fact), could have been perfect if only there was better writing.I was not hooked into the romance nor did I remember any other survivor or their trauma.

I found a clue within the first few minutes in fact, and what kept me from figuring it all out was David Morse. Even with that being said I was 50/50 in getting a conclusion before the movie ends; either one or the other I thought. So instead of being emotionally invested in the character I was betting within myself the outcome which is never a good sign.

What the writers should have developed were the angles on life and death because that’s where the moral of the story is. Life can end quickly. Did you risk it all to have a life? Maybe, come to think of it, that is the point of portraying traumatized people challenging death. Risking is what makes them feel alive; to be alive is to risk.

Life and death, indeed could have saved this movie and not be a rehash of old ideas. And it would have made a perfect loop too in the story with the Summers sisters.The start had Claire phoning Emma, and the end had Emma giving the answer. Passengers indeed could have been the perfect sandwich had the filmmakers made the perfect meat to stand in between Claire phoning and Emma answering.

But alas the film is like its story, a crash landing.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

2009-01-28T06:26:00.004+08:00

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans came as a surprise and in some ways a disappointment to me because instead of seeing what happens next to the main character Selene (Kate Beckinsale) the story went into rewind.

As the title implies the story was set pre-Selene era when the war between the Vampires and Lycans began. Strange though that Kate had some voice over narration parts at the beginning and at the end but whether it was new or just an audio file in stock I do not know.

I watched Underworld: Evolution, again, the day after watching this third installment just to rid the uneasiness forming in my mind regarding the story line. The top three immortals were dead by then; including the leadership of the Vampire clan, but in the narration Selene never hinted the end. There was no conclusion was given to the widely held belief that killing Marcus, William or Alexander could end it all.

What was mentioned or just hinted were uncharted waters regarding the new stronger breeds: the Vampire and Lycan hybrid Michael Corvin and Selene, now a day walker. So why didn’t the story line go there?

The survival of Underworld: Rise of the Lycans in the theaters will depend on fans and lovers of the mythos. I for one enjoyed it, that is if avoid my line of thought away from my own vision of the story line. I was hoping to go forward if for any reason at all movies should come in trilogies before making an entirely new set.

Effects wise there is something basic in the transformation of the Lycans. It didn’t feel as high tech as I would imagine with the present state of special effects but it was cool; just brute animal power. I just loved the Vampires and the Lycans going at it. The fight scenes were what made my night actually.

I understand and appreciate the use of what would seem blue lights and camera filter in the cinematography but it was boring now that it is the third movie. Do not use the blue and all you have is a much boring black but they could have compensated with the characters. In Vampire Chronicles, Louis described of his immortality as in part missing the color blue, which at night would look black. So it’s a wonder to me that a race of immortals avoided the use of brighter colors in clothing or interior decor. They must be so bored.

Michael Sheen was great as Lucian. And what made me appreciate him even more was the trailer of Frost/Nixon which appeared shortly before Rise of the Lycans. I’ve seen him as Prime Minister Tony Blair in The Queen. My friend even found it difficult to believe that the actor playing Robert Frost and Lucian are the same. I always admire actors who easily fade into character; different characters at that.

Fans of the story will like Lucian now as has more of a warrior quality than in Underworld. His morphing into a werewolf and subsequent interaction with fellow Lycans really makes him a fully developed character. Michael may not have star power but he is the leader of the Lycans, the script was good enough to highlight that. And he mixes well with Rhona Mitra who plays Sonja, the ill fated daughter of Viktor (Bill Nighy).

I like Bill. He makes these weird facial and head movements that seem unnatural as he emphasizes words. It seems at times that he is overdoing it but the effect is natural even regal. Physically Bill is more perfect which is to say, with all due respect, he’s that close to looking dead.

With regards to the story there is nothing really new or exciting to figure out. They will see Viktor as a father and Lucian as a slave which was of course all revealed in part one. As I have said what will make or break this film is the love of the fans. If fans would like to see it played before them in the theaters how the war began then they would enjoy it.

Furthermore, Rise of the Lycans barely got away with the failure in luring in the main casts; at least I am assuming it was a failure. Kraven, the traitor of part one is absent. The two other leaders of the vampires Amelia and Marcus Corvinus were implied but only referred to as elders resting within two large sarcophagus. Needless to say Alexander and William Corvinus were not there though William was often mentioned.

If their absence was intentional then that can only mean the desire for the filmmakers to have wiggle room for at least a couple more which is annoying if you think about it. How Rise of the Lycans ended certainly points to a big gaping hole that can be exploited before you can truly say it circles back to part one.

Overall I liked the film, surprisingly. I loved the actors, they felt real. I loved the story as simple as it is, even with a hole, I was engrossed in it. And of course the war. Had movie houses been cheaper I’d like the film even more because at the back of my head there is a tingling that this direction was an unnecessary one.

But being a fan I look forward to the next if only to see Vampires and Lycans locked in combat. Hopefully they move on from where they left off in Evolution.

Lack of Probable Cause

2009-01-25T05:50:00.001+08:00

What sufficient belief can you derive to determine a crime has been committed or will be committed with three persons riding an SUV? What is the probable cause?

My friends and I were flagged down while traveling on N. Domingo on our way to San Juan for some beer at around 9 pm on January 24. We had just finished Underworld 3 in Gateway and had decided to our favorite place for chicken liver and heart, and beer of course.

In hindsight I had neglected to open my window but my two friends up front had not. Seeing the drivers face is often good enough for the soldiers of the PSG in Malacañang especially if you were just passing through; meetings with the President will undoubtedly warrant more.

If it was only a flashlight in the face and then go about your business kind of incident I would have just forgotten the whole thing, but, the two cops searched our pockets while in the car and asked my friend for documentation; license and so forth. Maybe I should be thankful that we were not made to go down but the search was really intrusive.

The fact that the two cops have been courteous (if you can still call it that) does not negate the intrusiveness of the search; furthermore I fail to see what the probable cause is.

Checkpoints are a common sight on election season but this isn’t one. I’ve had the experience of passing through a few of those but all I got prior to this was flashlights and looks. Those election checkpoints have road blocks and signs; these two cops just parked on a lonely road and went about their search. Never before have I had my pocket searched while riding in a great looking car while still on the way to get myself a drink.

It would have been more OK had they explained that there had been prior incidences involving cars of that nature or that their bosses are trying something new within the precinct. Maybe the cops should have said there was an alert of some sort; just an explanation why should me and my friends be violated.

I heard motorcycles are always searched but then news reports always say hitmen and snatchers always have those as transportation. For a time the news also reported explosion in malls and recently suspects in the Rizal Day Bombing got life sentences, so at least that answers why your bags get somewhat searched when enter a mall or ride the LRT.

Just give a reason why and everyone will often forget, me included, the need for probable cause. But something tells me in progressive countries probable cause is everything regardless of the war on terror and citizens are aware of it.

In the end this incident was only a mild annoyance. I had good company and the place we went to had good cold beer and great pulutan; overall not a bad Saturday night. It did leave me wondering of the legal aspects of it all.

So those who read this watch out. If you are more legally more aware than I am then good for you. As I have said I was not told of any new police policy or any need of the search. But if it was only in the precinct level, a local incident, then mind the stretch of N. Domingo between Ortigas Extension and Cubao.

Safe travel to you all.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-01-20T05:46:00.007+08:00

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a movie meant to give the audiences the unique perspective of someone who ages in reverse as he goes through in life. There is no magic nor are there wizards; neither is it about biological warfare or bad DNA. It’s all drama about being born with a different deck of cards than people would normally get, and triumph in spite of it.

Hollywood pretty boy Brad Pitt shed his much loved looks (at least for half the film) as the lead, Benjamin Button, a man who ages backwards but ironically is better than most in going forward.

The man has charisma I must admit. He is a leading man even if just by looks alone, but as Benjamin Button, acting wise, Brad looks and sounds emotionally dead.

Its not that I expected much from Brad Pitt; I don’t. He was never exceptional but neither is he that lifeless. I think his lines were to blame; it was inadequate to give the part some respectability being the lead character. There was little opportunity and effort to express different emotions, and the result was that Benjamin looked unnaturally passive for all the exciting events he had in life.

I liked it better when Benjamin was narrating the movie which was styled as a flashback. What I would have liked was some difference between the narrating voice of Benjamin and scenes of him getting shot at by a U-boat. Intentionally or unintentionally, he just didn’t sound emotionally present.

Fortunately for a fly in the ointment Brad Pitt is a good looking fly. Viewers may not empathize too much when Benjamin was heartbroken, or when his loved one died; or when his tugboat was drawing fire from a U-boat, but he looked cool; and for that women will always be supportive. And like the actor, the character too had a great support of women in Oscar Winner Cate Blanchett as the love interest Daisy and Taraji P. Henson as the foster mother Queenie.

As an emotional anchor I think Queenie did much of the work even if she didn’t have that many scenes. If Benjamin seemed overly relaxed at the big and simple things in life, the mom was always full of emotion as any mother would. However short the scenes may be, the look of Queenie says it all.

Daisy, on the other hand, as the love interest is Benjamin’s woman in the latter part of his life. Romantically I am not sold, well it was close enough; and you can thank the more superb performance of Cate Blanchett for that. Like the mom I can always get a sense that she loved Benjamin; and from there everything else follows. She sets the emotional tone; the anchor for the second half of the film.

The screenplay was beautifully written though I wonder why Benjamin appeared too relaxed even emotionally invisible. Maybe it’s the director’s fault. The supporting cast, the rest of the production took up the slack which made me think sometimes the inadequacies of Benjamin were intentional. Maybe Cate Blanchett was meant to carry it all emotionally as she is a co-narrator of sorts. Or, the women were just too good that they overshadowed Brad.

In some ways The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is reminiscent of Forrest Gump minus an Oscar Best Actor award (Brad will never win for this one obviously if he ever gets nominated at all), less of the comedy; and none of the historical figures or historical events. The story gave the viewer the sense of completeness of one characters life; both of whom happened to have handicaps.

Benjamin’s life though had far less glamour than Forrest but I have to hand it to the writers for making the story just as compelling. You can also thank Brad Pitt’s charisma for that. Benjamin may not have had Forrest’s experience with Elvis or Kennedy or Apple Computers, but he had a great script and the looks. Put William H. Macy in there with same lines and I doubt it would have worked.

I’d recommend that you be fully rested before watching because the movie can be quite long with a lot of talk. But overall, I believe The Curious Case of Benjamin Button will endear to audiences, and ok, the woman especially; because it shows what we all hope to be: a man, a human being, who in spite of everything that life has thrown, including aging backwards, can be anything in life and keep going forward.

Revolutionary Road

2009-01-14T06:33:00.002+08:00

The lead tandem of the highest grossing film of all time – Titanic – reunites in Revolutionary Road, a film adaptation of a book by Richard Yates.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet are Frank and April Wheeler, husband and wife experiencing the ups and downs (more of downs in fact) of married life in 1950s America.

Frank is a dedicated husband with a well paying job and lives in a good house in quiet neighborhood.From all appearances he is living the dream.The beautiful wife, April, is the more restless soul. She was an actress who never really took off as one.As Frank’s wife she now spends her life managing a nice quiet house, entertaining neighbors, taking care of the children.

Family, quiet neighborhood; friends and neighbors coming and going every so often: it would seem that it’s a dream life, but we wouldn’t have a story if everything went smoothly.As they say if things can go wrong it will go wrong; the stable albeit routinely lifestyle is not enough for the Wheelers.

It is here that I find the movie somewhat confusing.What message is the filmmaker trying to send?

Present but not highlighted is the equality of sex.Men should always work and wives should always be at home.Roles should never be reversed on pain of ridicule.It doesn’t matter if the wife agrees delineation of duties was that rigid as the film tries to point out.

I found it humorous on this regard; the film has men merely record their reports and paperworks in the office; women secretaries type after hearing the recordings.It is a weird way to do work if ever it was true. Whatever happened to dictation?

What is highlighted is mundane lifestyle.A stable job, nice house, quiet neighborhood, would have been a cherished goal to many but was presented in the film; quite effectively I might add, lifeless and dull.There was this scene where Frank was going to the office and along with him in the road and the train were people all the same, dressed in suits.Perhaps more than the dull neighborhood that opening scene really sums it all.

The confusing part is that I don’t know where the filmmaker sides, or the author to be more accurate.Who is in the wrong; the one hanging on to a job he despises to fulfill his responsibilities; or the one chasing the unknown with children in tow? Is it so bad and irresponsible chasing the dream, lay it all on the line, having a life?

Acting wise nothing bad can be said of Revolutionary Road, except for Leo DiCaprio’s voice but then that’s just me.Kate Winslet deserved every ounce of that Golden Globe.She and Leo really had the chemistry going ironically playing a couple who have little or no chemistry at all.Their scenes as husband and wife were almost too scary I might add.

Providing some relief from the drama is Kathy Bates and Michael Shannon as Helen Givings and son John – the neighbors.They are not the rumor mongering type as you would expect from typical dramas, they are just simply there; not in a bad way, and maybe not even good either.

If ever the film had a message in it John Givings would be the one to have it as the recently “rehabilitated” insane guy with the overly honest mouth.He was always commenting on what Frank and April should and should not do.Still, I am at a loss for the writer’s opinion of things.

But maybe that is the point of the story; the audience will be the one to find out where they would place themselves in the whole thing of chasing life and providing food on the table, while married.In any case the film was successful in presenting a very mundane existence though set in the 1950s can still be true today.

The movie industry, unfortunately, for this film is often an area where escapists go to live a fantasy even if audiences want realistic movies.Revolutionary Road is just hitting too close to home; and for that, the Titanic tandem may see their present film hover in the opposite end of the highest grossing list.

Seven Pounds

2009-01-09T06:34:00.003+08:00

I don’t quite remember if the motives match but the title hit me at once as inspired from The Merchant of Venice wherein the Jew, Shylock, demanded for payment a pound of flesh instead of money. So Seven Pounds to those classically inclined would mean at once to seven people.

Who and why would be the journey that is our film. Is the lead like Shakespeare Jew businessman? What does that ‘pound of flesh’ mean to the lead or to the seven?

Will Smith stars in the lead as Ben Thomas, a taxman with a mission atypical of a profession often seen as bloodsuckers for worthless governments. He goes around watching the lives of strangers saying in some cases declaring a gift will be forthcoming. The twist is he never really goes about declaring the what, only that he’s adamant that it comes to those who deserve it. He was quite meticulous in fact.

The people that he is watching are a sorry lot with the likes of Emily Posa (Rosario Dawson) and Ezra Turner (Woody Harrelson), George Ristuccia (Bill Smitrovich) among others. At first glance some of them may look like they deserve a gift on the spot but Ben did not abandon his selection process.

Seven Pounds would be the first time I have seen Will Smith in a dramatic role. I am amazed to say that he was very convincing. Being a pretty boy and one of Hollywood’s top draws I have to say I was expecting less of him. He really looks the part of a broken man who is at the same time determined to serve his mission. He held the film together very effectively.

I have not seen the Will Smith lead film In Pursuit of Happyness but I have heard rave reviews about it highlighted which includes an Oscar nomination for Best Actor for Will. Suffice to say ‘In Pursuit’ will be in my ‘to watch’ list because of appreciating this present work: Seven Pounds. Both films were directed by Gabriele Muccino so maybe that is a factor in producing some great dramatic work at the very least with Will involved.

Story wise it’s like a detective movie only without a crime. Ben as I have said is on a selection process for that gift he declares quite often all throughout movie. You may think you’ve figured it out because the movie has a flashback but there is enough kick in the end.

The flashback may even be a stroke of genius because you get one perfect circle; every scene made it into one. Ben Thomas’ character who is by the way also the story is fully developed. Truly only in the end can you say is the character of Ben a good person, a bad person, a weak person, or an insane one.

Over all I like Seven Pounds. It didn’t brighten my day but that is the point; it’s a drama. Just don’t you watch it on a bad day or if you are into movies for leisure.

Return Duckpin Bowling for the Department's Anniversary

2009-01-01T14:46:00.005+08:00

It was January of last year when I joined fellow members of the New Worlds Alliance (NWA) in weekly bowling (ten pin) at Farmer’s Plaza. The group then had a bowling craze which ended somewhere in the second quarter of 2008.

What I had hoped besides having fun with fellow fans of geeky shows was to ready myself for the office’s anniversary season; duckpin bowling in particular. I was a player for the yellow team in 2007 which collapsed in the championships. I wanted to get back and get some satisfaction.

In the end all I got for my games with NWA was having the greatest leg exercises of my life for over a three month period. The hastily organized anniversary did not have duckpin bowling in its line-up. For 2009 I hope that it will no longer be the case.

2008 saw only two sports for the Department’s sports fest, basketball and volleyball, including some parlor games. Participation was marginal especially with one man sports like chess, badminton, and darts also out of the table.

If anyone would just consider the demographic: age, physical factors, and desire, not everyone can play volleyball or basketball. There was not much hope for audience participation either because of the fact that the opposing team is formidable; or in basketball practically unbeatable.

In bowling everything levels out. For maximum participation everyone is organized into teams of ten players each; if it will be a repeat of 2007 that’s ten players a building. There’s no size or stamina factored in the play just the five players who are active at each set, the ball, and the lane.

What makes it fun is what the five in waiting can do before they get their turn. They can eat, sing, drink, or practice with friends from the opposing teams while waiting. Often in these establishments there’d be billiard tables too but I’d focus on just one type of ball per game day.

You can change tables, share tables, jeer or cheer for whomever you wish. In bowling everyone can play, everyone can watch, everyone can party.

In basketball and volleyball, the outdoors gets in the way; plus the fact that a sports fest starts often along with the summer season can really make it a problem. Even if you can get past the heat you’d be insane setting up tables and food with balls flying around. Furthermore watching only one team getting cherry red asses from all the kicking tends to get boring after the first few years.

Chess and darts are a little slow. They are not the games people can get into for cheering and shouting unless maybe it’s the finals...just maybe. Does anybody shout in chess anyway? Badminton on the other hand is exciting but because it’s either doubles or singles there may not be enough audiences for a festive atmosphere. Everyone could be playing.

Schools sometimes make it a policy to move heaven and earth to get audiences in competitions. I got an attendance credit after watching a few times. If the department can arrange something similar then we may have something with badminton.

Nothing really competes with bowling. I only mentioned duckpin because it’s cheaper and that is what my office prefers. Whether tenpin or duckpin, any bowling establishment is rigged up to be a restaurant with games. You have food, drinks, and the maximum opportunity to participate in cheering, playing, and enjoying.

It may even be better than anniversary night. By then everything hinges on the performer and the raffle; great if the two pull it off. Loose interest in both then your only choice would be seeing the stash of food in your office, and that just misses the point of having a Department Anniversary.

Often bowling and badminton find themselves in the chopping board at prep meetings because of the need to go outside the office, rent an establishment; spend for shuttles and gas. It is not inconceivable that the more serious of us may cry out for legal basis; say that the amount of work prevents us from parties; or use the economic turmoil threatening our shores to limit or control the expense and effort for the anniversary. And lets be honest they have some legitimate points.

But anniversaries are not supposed to be just numbers on a calendar celebrated by token activities just so we can say we ran through a list. Anniversaries as they say are a time for reflection. No other time of the year when the Department can have the excuse to think for its own, spend for its own, care for its own. Sometimes what other people say is not as important as employees saying ‘I enjoyed my Department’s anniversary’.

I wrote this in part for the bowling which I hope to practice in some shape or form this January until April.

I am in it for that once in a year opportunity to hang out in a loose and festive manner with co-employees, not people from the other bureau or the other building, but employees of one Department which will be celebrating its anniversary this April.

License to Wed

2008-12-30T09:16:00.002+08:00

It’s funny (or maybe not) that in driver’s license there is a mandatory age before you can apply, but sometimes in marriage people seem to have the idea that there is an age when you should apply regardless of anything else.

In License to Wed, comedy’s energizer bunny Robin William stars as Reverent Frank a highly unorthodox pastor of St. Augustine. Believing that desire (and majority age of course) does not close the deal for having a great marriage he holds what is in effect a stress test masked as a wedding seminar for couples wishing to use his church for the ceremony. His target, at least for the duration of the film, Ben Murphy (played by John Krasinski) and Sadie Jones (played by Mandy Moore).

Sadly for much of the film Ben and Sadie did not successfully sell the relationship. John Krasinski was just too awkward never really connecting with the much powerful character of Mandy Moore. What would have given this movie some added depth is a couple with chemistry and not one that screams disaster a mile away. Audiences will never feel the love before, during, or after Reverend Frank tears them apart.

As for Reverend Frank, well, he made and probably also broke the movie. Robin Williams remains as energetic as he has always been even at this age of 57. Cohesion wise it was a problem. For License to Wed there was no energy, actor, nor script available capable of matching him and level things out. He just stands out too much as he gave lines that are both humorous and critical.

The supporting cast is just forgettable. With Reverend Franks unchecked, it is appalling that Ben and Sadie were unchecked too. Sadie’s father, mother, sister, and friend had little presence even if they we’re physically there. There was insufficient interaction with the Joneses to give the atmosphere of a wedding. Of them all sister Lindsey (Christine Taylor) had the greatest presence unfortunately she was too neurotic, recovering from a divorce to be endearing.

In terms of pacing there is nothing wrong with License to Wed. It was never boring. What it lacked is the emotional connection necessary with what I assume to be a romance comedy. It is even more important considering the message it is trying to bring on not rushing to marriage with just riding the euphoria of hot sex and candle lit dinners.

Reverend Frank’s remarriage program was on the ball. It would have been nice if the story was able to reign in the emotion of the audience romantically before convincing them it was wrong or insufficient. And speaking of insufficient so too were Mister and Misses Jones. They could have been the emotional anchor in terms of giving words of wisdom but they seem just as neurotic as their daughter Lindsey.

License to Wed, for all its short comings production wise, does have a good message. Like all licenses, marriage does not boil down to age or desire it also comes down to ability and responsibility.

Until then it’s the jeep for me.

Notting Hill

2008-12-30T05:20:00.002+08:00

As vacations would often do around the world plus having budgetary constraints and struggling for company, I reached deep into my DVD collection (both the legal and illegal) for entertainment. Hidden deep among my stash, among the originals in fact, is Notting Hill. That movie is a rarity considering that among the handful of originals that I have it’s the only romance flick. . . so far.

The central theme of the film is perhaps the Holy Grail in the area of love; two different people, polar opposites, falling head over heals over one another. Hugh Grant plays the bottom half of that pole as William Thacker, a travel book shopkeeper while playing the prestigious top end of the pole is Julia Roberts as a world famous actress in Anna Scott.

As Anna Scott, Julia is basically playing herself. In 1999 when the Notting Hill was shown Ms. Roberts was one if not the most bankable female actress which adds immensely to the credibility of the character of Anna: confident yet vulnerable; wary of publicity and people who might in it for the advantage.

As a commoner Hugh Grant did as well as he could but unfortunately he was just physically impressive. Plain shirts and jacket will never look that well with me.

But just to be fair Hugh delivered his lines well. He was convincing as an awkward and uncertain shopkeeper facing what is essentially every man’s dream date. I guess what helped Hugh go down a few notches in the social strata are his capable supporting cast.

There was the frustrated cook and best friend Max played by Tim McInnerny. Gina McKee plays opposite Tim as his wife Bella. Wheel chair bound but not out Bella has an interesting dynamic as William Thacker’s former girlfriend. Then there’s Honey played by Emma Chambers. Though physically she’d be the last woman I’d pick to play Hugh’s sister she did quite well gelling with her film brother and friends. Another of the bunch is Hugh Bonneville’s character Bernie. This one is largely unimpressive as is often stated all throughout the film with his frustrations in work but surprisingly it’s hard to imagine Notting Hill without him.

Topping the support cast is Rhys Ifans. He was great as the sometimes perverted but always with a good soul roommate Spike. In real life it seems unseemly having a high profile actress and a man with a breeding of a dog but it worked. I think it’s ironic that in assembling and creating an unimpressive group of characters the filmmakers have created also endearing ones, perhaps even more than William or Anna.

Story wise the film was paced beautifully. The banter was terrific, simple but intelligent especially from Hugh.

Notting Hill also possesses an excellent soundtrack lead by the hit “When You Say Nothing At All”. I liked the scene when the song was first played, the birthday party. Anna, a first time guest, was just observing barely even having a romantic context but you’d know something was going to be there.

Romance writers should learn from this including a recent vampire movie which I do hate; that saying “I can’t resist you” or “I’ll die for you” will not necessarily close the deal for a convincing romance.

And while we are on lines Notting Hill was not beyond throwing out that catchy romantic line that for some will be melodramatic, over the top, or even unrealistic. It summed up I believe the idea of opposites can love each other or at least try to: “I'm just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her.” If anything that line had perfect placement and timing somewhere near the end.

As my dearly departed Uncle Mon would say movie romance is so perfect its lasts for just two hours. But who cares. With a cast like Notting Hill, a well constructed story, a lovely soundtrack, and lines delivered in perfect timing and convincing portrayals, I’m sold.

Here’s to hoping for that actress one day. hahahaha

Eagle Eye

2008-12-24T22:11:00.001+08:00

In some ways Eagle Eye is a souped up version of The Net but with a little something extra. Love or hate the movie depends on how you swallow that extra.

Transformers star Shia LaBeouf plays Jerry Shaw a young man who unfortunately happens to have more money than he had actually deposited plus he now has an apartment he doesn’t have a spot to lie in since it’s full of explosives. To make matters worse, the FBI is on his tail just as he was barely coming to grips with money and crime he didn’t commit.

Also in the same boat is the pretty Michelle Monaghan who as Rachel Holloman is like Jerry Shaw seems to be living a life of crime one morning.

If you’ve seen The Net well you know Jerry or Rachel will get no where citing records. While the lead characters were more outgoing than Sandra Bullock’s character there was the theme of an ever present and “dependable” computer network is apparent all throughout. The evidence was never challenged. The technology is there and everyone believes in it. It may be too much of a stretch now that I think of it that people would just follow a stranger’s call so easily.

The internet and computers are ever present now with the coming of cellphones and wireless technology. There was even a reference to a popular social networking site which makes me wonder to be honest of what posts like I am doing now will do in the near future. How much of a picture am I painting of myself even with just movie reviews?

Story wise Eagle Eye is fast paced. It was a chase most of the time; two people getting framed trying to escape the FBI through a mysterious woman who keeps calling his cellphone. Shia reminds me too often of Transformers, but he can really sell the intensity of the situation with the occasional humor. Michelle also did ok.

Helping give credibility to the story are supporting characters who are, among others, Billy Bob Thornton (Agent Thomas Morgan), Rosario Dawson (Zoe Perez), and Michael Chiklis (Defense Secretary George Callister). Chiklis as great as he is has too few lines though. I wasn’t completely sold on the Defense Secretary role having thought of him more as Ben Grimm or Vic Macky of TV’s The Shield.

Finally for that extra, suffice to say I was not sold on the idea. One reason is its lack of originality. And two, well, it was too outrageous for its environment. I’d have to give it to the movie for giving the audiences something to think about in this age of connectivity.

But overall I’d say that Eagle Eye is one fun ride. Not a bad movie to watch one lazy afternoon.

Quantum of Solace

2008-12-23T12:48:00.001+08:00

The first thing that came to mind was bad cinematography or bad editing. There was just something unappealing to it, I don’t know how to describe it; maybe in the framing, the pace or choice of shots.Something’s just off.

For the fans who are not up to date it may be necessary somewhat to refresh from the preceding movie just to be in sync with James Bond’s (Daniel Craig) state of mind.Quantum of Solace started off in a sprint, a car chase in fact seemingly just minutes after Casino Royale.Remember the man that he shot ending Casino, the one supposedly in the shadows, holding the strings; for this movie there seems to be an entire organization in the shadows, and its name is Quantum.

Agent 007 goes after Quantum in an obsessive fury throughout exotic locales the franchise is well known for.It was revenge in a way for having known Vesper (Eva Green) in Casion Royale.

On that note I find that the obsession part is somewhat underdeveloped with characters like Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) and M (Judi Dench) often the ones to reminding Bond to forgive and move on.There was little sign from the man himself that he was tied to the past; little sign that he was looking except when he was reminded that he was. Bond seems quite happy when in the company of Agent Fields (Gemma Arterton) or Camille (Olga Kurylenko).

Mathieu Amalric stars as villain Dominic Greene, one of the top players in Quantum.With the accent, the wardrobe, and the parties he gave off a classy aura.I wonder if there ever was a villain in this franchise who was unshaven, lived in the mountains, and never went to the top hotels and grand parties.Compared to the villain in Casino Royale Le Chiffre, Greene comes off as less threatening which I guess could be good if you’re a villain.

The organization Greene belongs to, Quantum is underdeveloped which is reasonable considering filmmakers need to focus on just one mission.The closest the film got to it (besides Greene of course) was in the opera scene where Bond uncovered three members all influential internationally.After that no contact.

Action wise I’d say one review I read was accurate, Bond is close to becoming Bourne.After reading the movie’s IMDB page I think I may have found why: the second unit director, David Bradley, did some work in Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum.The scenes were great I must admit but for the purposes of establishing an identity perhaps the leaders of the James Bond franchise should rethink in going the Bourne way.Perhaps they should highlight the classy part a bit more because I can think of no other spy in the genre with more extravagant tastes than James Bond.

Quantum of Solace has an environmental theme to it.Sadly, there is just something about a secret terrorist organization and making profit because of the environment that just doesn’t mix.The story, the premise is quite sound to be honest but it just removed the terror factor out of Quantum, which I have said was underdeveloped.

Finally, I don’t think there is finality.Daniel Craig’s stint as Bond may have a storyline more connected that in previous incarnations.Unfortunately I have not seen much of James Bond in past movies to be sure but suffice to say the mission does not seem over.

I don’t know if the fans of Bond’s past will ever like Craig’s stint as 007 especially Quantum of Solace which I agree was a let down. But I am completely in favor of many of the changes made in this present James Bond so I am optimistic that for the next 007 will have regained lost ground.

Erap for 2010?

2008-12-21T18:32:00.000+08:00

Erap’s logic escapes me in his recent statement implying a run for the presidency, again, this time in 2010. The candidacy, the former president said, hinges on the ability or inability of the opposition candidates to unite. He will declare in late 2009 if the opposition remains disunited and go forth with his magic solution of having his name again in the ballot for presidency.

It is entirely possible that the former president and actor did not do well in math during his school days. In fractions, the larger the denominator does not mean a larger piece, so how can his running be a solution when all other presidential hopefuls remain on the table.

If he has any shred of ability and clout worthy of being president then he should first try to mediate and settle disputes between opposition parties. He should show the ability to build a coalition now before winning again the presidential seat he seems confident of winning.

Erap’s inability at this point to lead or show any real solutions betray the lack of lessons learned from his downfall. His threat to announce his candidacy still shows the man who lost the presidency: I am popular therefore I can lead; I am powerful therefore I can do whatever I want.

Erap still has some sway with the people but allies should beware that he has not one shred of ability to rule. He lost the presidency in spite of having the greatest mandate in recent memory. He had great minds at his command, the entire resource of government and he was deposed under a cloud of scandal.

If he wants to get back at the usurper which I am sure he perceives President Arroyo to be then he should accept his limits and make the most of it. At best he could be a kingmaker make every sleazy deal as politicians have been known to do to make a coalition. But the presidency please not again.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

2008-12-21T17:41:00.001+08:00

The day the earth stood still for me when I watched the movie of the same name.It was as if I watched a movie from the ancient past never mind the new effects brought in.Granted that I never saw the original, a sci-fi classic from 1951, this 2008 Keanu version was predictable enough in the first 10 minutes.

The idea that man is as much a problem for earth as they could be the agent of solution and new horizons, I guess, has been in the minds of many sci-fi writers from all over.Tom Cruise’s War of the Worlds should have taught me a lesson in lessening my expectations of these remakes.

Leading the cast is Keanu Reeves who plays Klaatu a powerful visitor from another planet with a mission of changing the earth or saving it.A big emphasis should be made that Klaatu’s mission is the earth and only the earth; man being the contagion.

The acting prowess of the former Matrix star remains the same.He looks, sounds, and acts the same as he did in Devil’s Advocate, Sweet November, Speed, and much of his movies.That cold annoyingly monotonous voice that he has removed all the mystery, power, and scary quality required in the character if Klaatu.He sounded like a surfer who came down in a glowing sphere.

Jennifer Connelly did a much better job as Helen Benson, the only person ever to understand how best to handle the all powerful alien.Son of Hollywood megastar Will Smith, Jaden Smith starred as Helen’s stepson Jacob. He did ok, I’m sure Will Smith would be proud.

Leading the supporting cast is Kathy Bates as the United States Secretary of Defense.She did her role well and I suppose so did the rest of the cast.

Unfortunately, I never saw the cast as a group or parts of a story.They were who they were.There was Kathy, Keanu, Jennifer and Jaden; then there was Roger Cross from 24 and Robert Knepper from Prisonbreak.And there was the guy, John Cleese, who was Q of the James Bond franchise. I distinctly remember Cleese giving Pierce Brosnan a few toys when he played Britain’s top fictional spy.

I don’t know if it’s fair to blame it on acting, but maybe a large part of it is casting; the other being the script or the director himself.Or just maybe I was just too bored; having had too easy a time to size up the character and the story.

The moral of the story wasn’t bad, the earth needs to be taken better care of.The Happening did a better job in the originality department albeit the ending sucked.An all powerful alien isn’t as impressive as it once was.Helen Benson’s character can be as simple as beauty taming the beast.If you want to be technical you can call it Klaatu devoid of all contact from his own kind had every chance of being assimilated.

It was no challenge at all.

The Day the Earth Stood Still 2008 could still work I think at least for the young, people who are newbies to the sci-fi genre.Also if you are not a critic of Keanu it could work.Maybe. . . .

Traitor

2008-12-21T14:28:00.001+08:00

To betray is to go against what is expected with the greatest of malice. It’s a stab in the back, not a pleasant surprise. He who betrays is the traitor.

For the film of the same name – Traitor – it was obvious from the title alone that someone will go against someone; there will be betrayals. Set in the age of the war against terror there are many sides to this film: the Americans, the Arabs, the terrorists, and the ideology. The trick in this movie is to find out who betrays who, but most importantly who survives.

Don Cheadle leads the movie as Samir Horn, formerly trained in the US Special Forces; he now sells explosives in the Middle East. If you think spy you are correct, but that is where the simplicity stops.

Horn is a devout Muslim. In a world when armies no longer fight countries but people in the shadows, it will not be impossible to forget who you are. There are no flags only ideologies. With this war sometimes branded as a holy war, how can Horn cut off from family and friends maintain his soul especially when he needs to reach out to terrorists.

There are many scenes where Horn is engaging debates with Omar (Saïd Taghmaoui) a contact from the terrorists group. The treatment was fair; not always against, but also not always in favor of those who blow themselves up for virgins in heaven.

Supporting the strong performance of Don Cheadle is Guy Pearce as FBI Agent Roy Clayton. Clayton is leading a task force assigned to track down a terrorist group responsible for a spate of bombings in Europe. His approach balances well with Max Archer who I can describe as having the typical ‘us against them’ attitude in this war.

Aside for being a dramatized debate on who or what is a traitor, the film Traitor is also a cat and mouse chase between the FBI and the terrorist group. How can you find an enemy well hidden among a largely peaceful citizenry?

Put a spy inside you say? Well the downfall of what can be a successful spy operation is that information is always compartmentalized. No one knows who Horn is. A history with the Special Forces mean nothing, unfortunately what direction he prays to may mean everything.

Horn could be a traitor as far as most people know. But to whom; the US, the Arabs, the creeds of Islam, well you’d have to watch.

24: The Redemption

2008-12-20T19:22:00.002+08:00

24: The Redemption is a transition piece that should act as a bridge for season 6 and season 7.

Unfortunately the fact that it was shown in the same real time narrative as the series removed all chance of this piece being a stand alone film. Two hours in real time is just too short to establish deep plots and great action.

For these two hours Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) does a Kenshin Himura with his self imposed exile around the world hoping to find peace when home could not. In this Jack lives in Africa with a friend from the Special Forces days Carl Benton (Robert Carlyle). And to continue the Samurai X comparison, Benton lives his life running some sort of an orphanage like what happened to Kenshin once in an episode where he helped a samurai turned school teacher.

Beyond Samurai X, the rest of the film is basically like Tears of the Sun; helping the young boys escape armed militias.

So what part of 24 needs to have a smooth transition between seasons? Your guess is certainly as good as mine. The fact that I don’t have an answer could mean the story line is just too cryptic or like season 6 it just sucks.

In Redemption, Jack Bauer had a subpoena chasing him all over the world mainly about torture. Considering the number of times he did commit torture the timing of having inquiries into his methods is odd.

Jon Voight is Jonas Hodges the top villain in The Redemption. Could he be Tony Almeida’s boss? (For those who do not know Season 7 trailers has Tony as a Villain now) Jonas Hodges was shown communicating with the Secret Service detail of the new president. It suggests that he is powerful most probably in the cabinet; high enough to be top villain in a 24 series. But if he was revealed now then how high of a villain can Jon Voight really be in season 7?

So many questions and no answers, in the end what we have is basically just a two hour teaser.

Maybe the most annoying thing of all is that season 7 starts January in the States. Redemption sucked with the copycat thing with Samurai X and Tears of the Sun but it still worked because I am teased. I just have to wait months being not in the States.

Timex Ironman

2008-12-07T13:55:00.001+08:00

I don’t remember how many times over the years I have changed batteries for all my watches. But something tells me that getting 3 years before a change would be a lot. My Timex Ironman lasted 7 years.

It could have lasted a year more but the batteries were weak that you couldn’t have both the LCD display and the watch light on together. Avoid pressing the light and turning on the watch’s alarms the watch looks as if it’s running on full capacity, the LCD, the numbers were really black, not faded as a waning battery would do to the display.

I had the batteries of my watch changed yesterday in Timex SM North. My choice was risking my cellphone in the dark of night to know the time or having a fully functional watch with night light.

The battery change was expensive at P150 but not that I didn’t try the inexpensive route. My officemate took a stab at it but I decided against it when he came across something uncommon at least from the watches he changed batteries by himself. So I went the route that will guarantee me that my Timex will be as it is.

7 years is a lot for batteries I feel, having had lots of watches before. If you include the date of manufacturing and the fact that absent of lights and alarm my watch was still readable, battery life could reach maybe 10 years.

I don’t know if it’s a fluke or maybe digital watches lasts this long nowadays, but if I leave out the questionable sentimental meaning, Timex (or at least the model I have) is a very dependable watch to have.

The Irony that is CDR-King

2008-12-05T05:58:00.001+08:00

I remember accompanying a friend back in the day when this store was true to its name – CDR-King. Since then it grew, selling not only CDs but all sorts of tech gadgets from mouse to mp4s to keypads to ear phones to mics; catering perhaps to all your technology needs.

And yet, the greatest irony of all, CDR-King still does in handwritten fashion its sales and inventory making lines a common sight.

Wanted

2008-11-02T14:18:00.001+08:00

I thought at once the curving bullet was a deal breaker for me. Why should it curve even if you fire a pistol as a pitcher would throw a baseball? So it was then I decided not to watch Wanted in the theaters.

I turned back on my decision because of the lack of anything to watch. There weren’t many A-list films in the offing and I was getting tired of trying out new TV series to enjoy. Surprisingly the film had more meat than I expected.

The topic is not entirely unique and I have seen it play out in a number of movies and also in a number of different ways. The TV series Heroes played with it a little. Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx had some banter about it in Collateral. Even Batman Begins played with it a little. The topic is simply answering the question of what is a person’s purpose in life. And, if you found it would you see it fulfilled at whatever cost?

James McAvoy is Wesley Gibson a boring accountant. You know the stereotype: 8-5 job and always looking at the horizon of something more, but never getting the nerve to impose himself. McAvoy’s performance was ok. If he had any shortcoming at all it would be on his accountant persona.

Fans of Angelina Jolie may be disappointed for her role as Fox as she is nothing more than a supporting cast. It was McAvoy all the way, providing the emotional element for most of the film. Wesley Gibson’s purpose in life is what it is all about, among other things of course. But she was great at it, never coming off too strong or too weak.

Morgan Freeman is Sloan the head of a secret society of assassins known as The Fraternity. He was just perfect as a father figure and leader. The filmmakers deserve applause for having a cast that compliments each other. It was a perfect mix of story and characters. Everything was paced just beautifully.

And now back to the action. It can be cute at times going ala-Matrix with some beautiful cars and weaponry along the way. But somehow assassinations and mystical powers don’t mix well. Even with the liberty of being superhuman in the Matrix I don’t remember curving bullets. So in the end, judging the action depends on how well the idea of a secret society of assassins can be almost magical at the same time will depend on you.

As for the moral of the story, the purpose in life; lets just say don’t do this at home folks. It would be right to impose yourself but going from a subservient accountant scared for his life to a highly trained assassin is a little insane to say the least. If that happens there will be a lot of trouble in offices everywhere.

Just watch the movie if you want to know what I mean. Surprisingly it’s not that bad even if it’s not that good, but for an afternoon of easy to watch action it is perfect.

Gettysburg

2008-11-02T13:44:00.004+08:00

Think of Gettysburg, a made for TV movie, as the things learned from ROTC during its heyday. It certainly made me asked why military strategists and generals kept soldiers in neat formation in an era of muskets and cannons is just stupid. The result was more than 50,000 Americans dead, making the Battle of Gettysburg the bloodiest in the American Civil War. This was 1863 and it would be two more years before the war was over.

ROTC and all it’s marching, falling in line and rigid formation is so yesterday even in the 19th century.

Though the movie has an enormous amount of military jargon and talks on strategy, the point of Gettysburg is the American Civil War: all its detail and all its tragedy.

The entirely American cast gelled remarkably. Everyone felt realistically in character, maybe because a large part of it was due to the fashion of the period – thick beards. Though the actors were not masks with those beards – and the costumes and sets of course – I really got lost in the story and saw them only as either a Union or a Confederate soldier. I forgot the actor if I minded who he was at all.

But that is not to say the acting all relied on facial hair. Tom Berenger was excellent as Gen. James Longstreet one of the most reliable division commanders under the General Robert E. Lee who in turn was played by Martin Sheen. These two officers provided much of the point of view of the Confederacy as they occupied the top positions in the Southern Army.

And that view was that there were major disagreements on Southern strategy at least from the point view of Gettysburg, that it shouldn’t have been fought. Longstreet favored redeployment and it was an advice unheeded by a higher ranking Lee. It was overconfidence and lack of control over events that drove the southern commanding general to what turned out to be a mistake. Lee, the best general on both sides, was fallible.

C.Thomas Howell and Jeff Daniels played Union brothers Lt. Thomas Chamberlain and Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain respectively. Brothers in war and in the same unit too; it was not an ideal situation for a parent or wife if the unit were to fall into bad luck. Every time the brothers showed up it was to tackle the rationale of the war, which means the issue of slavery and freedom for every citizen.

The tragedy of a civil war was best illustrated in the battle scenes especially one that involved Gen. Lewis Armistead (Richard Jordan), a Confederate officer under the direct command of Gen. George Pickett (Stephen Lang), and Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock (Brian Mallon) a Union officer. Armistead and Hancock were dear friends but has had the misfortune of fighting on different sides. For many scenes they always wondered how the other is doing, perhaps even in dread if the orders they give will cause the death of the other.

Brother against brother was a tragedy felt by all in fact, and not just of Armistead and Hancock. It was one American Army after all before the Civil War. Every character had some weariness in them that they should continue fighting without animosity or total disagreement with the enemy.

That’s the entire drama of the story and its most important point, the tragedy of a civil war; anything else tackled besides that was military strategy. I doubt anyone could have followed dialogues on strategy and terms like corps, slopes, divisions, brigades, muskets, and cannons. It was amusing to watch it sometimes. I have always found it strange that war could be seen almost literally as one big chess board.

Anyway studying 19th century tactics would be pointless in an era of tanks and automatic rifles but it still could be important to get a view of history and the understanding of the basics if you were to say start building an empire. As if that’s going to happen.

At the very least if you watch this and college still requires you to march every Sunday, ask why and what for.

Thirteen Days

2008-10-18T19:39:00.002+08:00

It is unclear to me if the film Thirteen Days got any inspiration at all from the book of the same name written by one of the principals, Robert F. Kennedy. But then the scriptwriters of the film have the next best thing because they in fact included the authors of The Kennedy Tapes - Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Thirteen Days is a political thriller of a real life event, the Cuban Missile Crisis which happened in 1962. The title was derived from the time span of the crisis, from the discovery of the missiles in Cuba to its disarmament. Just to give the short version the Soviet Union placed nuclear weapons in Cuba; the Americans found out and didn’t like missiles so close to Florida; and suffice to say a nuclear hell almost literally broke lose.

In the lead is Kevin Costner as Kenny O’Donnell, Kennedy’s appointments secretary and close personal adviser to the President. Kenny would be, in the film at least, the third most important man in the decision making process of the administration: the Kennedy brother’s being the top two.

Acting wise Costner will always be Costner; yet while I never wished for the stars in his performance the accent bugged me a little. It sounded like a Kennedy. Maybe it was the real Kenny’s accent but then again maybe not.

The downside was that it made me feel like there was an impressionist loose in the story. The rest of the cast of Thirteen Days did well enough; it felt real except Costner. It’s like being in the same room with the US President as he decided the fate of the world. Bruce Greenwood was very presidential as John F. Kennedy that is if you don’t mind the voice. It was too deep from what I remember of JFK from actual footages.

Steven Culp did better as Robert F. Kennedy. He had the voice and he had the bangs. As for the others, they gelled which is important. The viewers will know at once who the people are, at least in the hierarchy of the story.

It must be reminded however that the film has been disputed at least from the point of view of who is important and who is not: O’Donnell is one. Though he seems like a friend of the famous brothers especially Bobby according to some websites, his role in the crisis according to critics of the film, Kennedy Defense Secretary Robert McNamara among them, is little.

There have been criticisms about the representations of the rest of the Kennedy people too. Inadequate was the word that comes to mind when in real life many of the policy makers of that period were highly educated men; scholars, lawyers, even academics.

Most criticisms may be right on the money. McGeorge Bundy for one was almost invisible when his position as National Security Advisor would make him one of the most important people in the crisis.

But rightly or wrongly I leave it to Hollywood to add some creativity to the situation as far as it can without breaking. History though very important has always had a reputation of being boring when studied. What matters every time in these situations is that viewers be inspired to read up and check the information on their own.

You can check up the two books that I have already mentioned: The Kennedy Tapes - Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis and Thirteen Days by Robert Kennedy.

Now people may say it’s boring to read up on this; that it’s America, that it’s a hemisphere away. But compared to the millennium brouhaha; the affair with Saddam, Bin Laden, and the Iraq War: the world really could have ended in those thirteen days.

How high is your electric...meter?

2008-10-18T06:45:00.004+08:00

This high?

I took this photo somewhere between Quirino Avenue and Osmeña Avenue. It is a picture of a group of electric meters placed high on top of a wooden structure – approximately 20 or so feet high.

It is the second such structure that I have seen the other one was closer to the Aurora LRT. I keep seeing it when I ride the train to Cubao and the electric meters seem to be just on the level of the rails.

Some officemates say there is a device which Meralco uses to read these meters even at a distance; a kind of laser pointer thing. I sure hope such gizmos are true because if not it makes you wonder about your own electric bill if Meralco just guesses on meters they cannot read such as these.

Max Payne

2008-10-18T06:38:00.001+08:00

Max Payne is a video game inspired movie (so I read) about a cop grappling with personal ghosts prowling the streets at night in search of the murderers of his wife. On the onset it really sounded and looked like many a cop movie I have seen.

Mark Wahlberg is in his element now unlike his science teacher persona in The Happening. He has the physical quality required of cops but, perhaps ironically, I liked him best as a street thug in Four Brothers.

In Max Payne the physical qualities went only so far. Detective Max Payne (Wahlberg) carries enormous baggage chief of which is the hunt for the murderers of his wife. His obsession has cost him his credibility with the force. While relegated as a custodian of the cold case unit (unsolved crimes) he prowls the streets at night with a virtual death wish wondering if the next junky or the next thug he encounters is THE one. He is lost; his soul trapped in the past. And, Wahlberg didn’t pull it off.

While I never thought Wahlberg was a quality actor I am not willing as of yet to put all blame on him for this film. The blame should fall also on the Director and maybe to the scriptwriter too because this movie really sucked.

The scenes feel out of joint if that is the appropriate term. Though arranged chronologically it feels as if actors were placed in different scenes to act out and then were just edited together. Watching feels like riding off road; there’s a discernable direction but it’s a really bumpy road. You’re going somewhere for your ride but obviously it is not enjoyable.

Beau Bridges accompanies Wahlberg as BB Hensley an ex cop, the former partner of Payne’s father. BB many others in this film he came off weak and predictable. Another in the long list of disappointments is Amaury Nolasco as Jack Lupino. I am guessing the lack of dialogue aims to make him look more sinister but instead it made his character more underdeveloped. He looked sinister alright but a sinister Fernando Sucre of the TV series Prisonbreak – a role Amaury is famous for.

But the worst thing in this film by far is the attempt to put a supernatural angle to the story. Producers may rationalize it as misdirection to give the film an added twist unfortunately it looked more like false advertising. The supernatural thing was what attracted me to watch the film you see having seen cop movies before.

The scenes were there; black angels, some sign of hell, but what happened was it added to the ‘loose joints’ I have always felt about the film. Maybe you could say it was worse than a loose joint because it felt like a different theme all together. There is a cop and there are angels and a third theme hidden in between.

Nothing in this film was ever in a perfect mesh. Most likely the game is better.

Body of Lies

2008-10-12T15:12:00.002+08:00

Even now I cannot explain the title – Body of Lies. Maybe it refers to the nature of espionage and the web of lies inherent to it. But by the film’s end, lies were the last thing on my mind. I got more ideas mideast politics and social mores, along with America’s lack of understanding. While everybody lies in the film ironically it was not presented in a deceitful sense.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Roger Ferris a field agent of the CIA who does understand or at least tries to. He speaks Arab, even wears his beard like an Arab. Like many agents in the field he values his contacts and is sensitive of their feelings. With due consideration to himself and to the contacts he develops he even has this code of shoot before capture to avoid torture. It is brutal but that is actually his act of sensitivity to the job.

Along with DiCaprio is Russell Crowe as Ed Hoffman, Ferris’ immediate boss at Langley. He is the man behind the desk, the antihero if you will, and he can be someone you love to hate. Hoffman is very much the interfering boss. He is distant and insensitive to the methodology that has made Ferris his most effective agent so much in fact he can be more a trouble than a help.

The story of Body of Lies is a game of cat-and-mouse which in this case the mouse’s location is unknown all the while it is exploding bombs in Europe. The story has a nice pace to it perhaps with due credit to director Ridley Scott.

Surprisingly for an American made film about searching for Arab terrorist the story is leaning more towards the Arab point of view or at least it tries to give it a 50/50 shot. There are many shots in the Middle East some even depressed areas perhaps in an attempt to show that the trouble of the post 9-11 world not all about religious fanaticism.

What really made this film to be in way pro Arab is its lead character Roger Ferris. Often during the course of the story he advocates in favor of his Arab friends and counterparts one of which is Hani, (Mark Strong) the Jordanian Chief of Intelligence. Ferris remains a dedicated CIA agent mind you but unlike the distant and pot bellied Ed Hoffman, he is of the belief that at the end of the day the war against terror or at least the intelligence business comes down to people understanding each other.

Who cares about the threat of death, social restrictions, and other such difficulties when you are friends? Hani presence tries to drive home that fact every time to an America overly dependent on its status as superpower. A friend is very much possible even in this war against terrorism if it is only nurtured.

Body of Lies, unfortunately, in spite of having all the elements of a great political thriller lacks the emotional kick to it. While it tried to make points about the Arabs and the need for true friendships it came off as nearly neutral. Perhaps if blame can be truly pointed out I’d say it was DiCaprio. I so much hate his voice. Russell on the other hand was perfect.

Had the DiCaprio’s character been stronger it would have contrasted greatly to Russell Crowe’s performance of a distant and detached CIA boss. There was not enough disillusionment in Roger Ferris (DiCaprio) to match up with the insensitive and epitome of American arrogance in Ed Hoffman (Crowe). This is where the conflict was greatest and could have had the best impact if only it was attended to.

But don’t fret. If you’re really into spy flicks then the concept of the movie should thrill you. It has all the action from the war in the Middle East and some thrill in catching a mysterious bomber. Body of Lies is good enough to watch. Too bad this movie just wasn’t great.

The Tudors

2008-10-09T06:52:00.002+08:00

Anne Boleyn, the Queen of England, was a beauty. Her life as seen through the eyes of her even more popular husband, King Henry VIII is the centerpiece in The Tudors the latest Hollywood attempt to bring to life one of the most well known couples in history. Helen of Troy may have launched a thousand ships, but Anne was the catalyst that eventually brought down the monopoly of the Catholic Church already softened by a rising Martin Luther.

This drama series, produced by Showtime, is not a love story as implied by having husband and wife as characters but it is in fact a political story wrapped in the pretense of love.

For those uninitiated with this part of English history Anne Boleyn is but a second wife. Her rise is shown in the first season (the series is already 2 seasons old) of The Tudors.

Before Anne, Henry was married to Katherine Aragon of Spain and in this time of 16th century Europe a royal marriage was more political than love. As if dealing with fellow kings is not difficult enough - Katherine is related to Spanish royals after all - to make things even trickier for Henry this period was also a time when the power of the Vatican was absolute and divorce is unthinkable. Henry wants separation from Katherine and to wed Anne in the hopes of having a son.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays Henry, the young son-starved king of England. His portrayal is of an ill-tempered, confident, and arrogant king. Too unnatural it seems, as if King Henry is always making a point that he is above everyone else. Of the entire cast, Henry feels like the odd man out which could be intentional being a king after all. Nevertheless he should have had a more human side at least when alone in trusted company. Natalie Dormer plays the infamous beauty Anne Boleyn. She played a cool and calculating gold digger very well.

With regards to its plot The Tudors is surprisingly easy to understand. The only characters I have heard or read about in history are Anne and Henry, but I did not think much of the historical context with regards to the others. I never found myself asking who they were. The script was well crafted enough that anyone can understand who is friend or foe.

And friend and foe is something the story has in abundance. 16th century Europe was full of religious turmoil brought about by the rising Protestant movement; countries were divided between catholic and protestant. The transformation of characters between friend or foe and vice versa provides the story with a healthy amount of intrigue.

A king’s life would normally have people jockeying for position but Henry’s situation is even more difficult by the religious fervor of the time. Whatever the side, the name of the game is to win the king’s bed and right influence the world: to make it catholic or to make it protestant. Anne was the seductress who won it all…at least for a time.

The Tudors is showcase of religion mixed with government in its extreme. Henry’s challenge to the Church though self serving has its fair points. Is it right to be dictated to by people not of your country and living thousands of miles away? How can a sovereign rule his subjects when said subjects bow to another crown? While Henry is hopping from one bed to another, it was these questions that occupied the political back drop of the story.

Another interesting point in the show is its take on power. In 16th century Europe the divine right to rule was very much in season. Henry in fact brought it to a higher extent in going over the authority of the pope. But is a King really god on earth? If anything the show presented the self proclaimed God’s representative to the English throne to be vulnerable as well as all powerful. There doesn’t seem to be anyone he can trust; everyone looks up to Henry the King but never Henry the man.

Overall, The Tudors is an acquired taste, I would not recommend it for everybody. The script may be easy to understand but its characters are not endearing. Not many would want to see the lives of dead kings and queens no matter how much sex scenes you add in between (which was distracting I might add). But if you are looking for a drama of a different sort with issues that can still be relevant (love, power, religion, relationships) then The Tudors is one such show worthy of a try.

Sacrifice

2008-09-18T06:19:00.004+08:00

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” John 3:16.

I remember hearing it in the 3 p.m. prayers. It is used so often that it is fair to say that this is the closest thing Christianity has to an opening spiel.

The verse shows pride in a God – or at least the Son did – who abandoned all the trappings of omnipotence and lived as a human being.

The Son of God was to die in the most humiliating and most painful fashion possible at the time, and in the process save the world – or the souls of mankind, whichever comes first. In short John 3:16’s implied sacrifice is that God (or his only begotten Son) became man and had to die horribly.

Unfortunately, if we are to test using many dictionary definitions of sacrifice, God did not do such a thing.

God never died, and even if we are saying that he gave up a Son he never lost Jesus. Men do not just walk up from their own graves especially after having suffered trauma coming from a crucifixion. The truth is God never had the prospect of giving up anything. He had no chance of losing, not one iota.

Loss is exactly what every dictionary requires of sacrifice. For one, the American Heritage Dictionary says when used as a noun sacrifice is defined as “forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim.”

Think of a soldier that fights in Mindanao, or if he’s American, fights in Afghanistan. He sleeps on the ground under the sky; he endures great discomfort and danger, and he will most likely be shot by the enemy. He will die for his country. And not only is the soldier affected but so is his family at home who is in a constant state of dread that their loved one will come home a corpse.

How about a teacher? An 8-5 job can be draining even boring, but for many teaching is not always an 8-5 job. Sure the children go home, and so does the teacher, but the work never stops. The teacher still needs to grade projects, tests, maybe compute the over-all grade for the month. And still there is the lesson plan to do, on top of reading crappy essays if she is the type who avoids giving multiple choice tests.

In both cases, the loss of personal time and especially the loss of life are never to be returned again. Teachers teach and soldiers defend the country anyway because the country and the welfare of children are believed to be a greater good; greater than a soldier’s life and a teacher’s personal time.

So how does this compare to Jesus dying, when he was never dead permanently?

To be fair let us explore all possibilities. Maybe the sacrifice implied in John 3:16 was just the act of dying or, the act of being human?

Maybe eating everyday is a chore and so is walking? Maybe it’s beneath God to be human? If your answer to that is yes then God basically hates himself since we are made from his own image or so the bible says. Then again if you use all known definitions of an all-powerful and all-knowing God, thirty years of humanity plus one day of excruciating torture and eventual death is not even a pin prick.

Perhaps people give the whole cross thing too much credit. To be gripped in fear at the prospect of dying on it is very human, but if you’re a god, what’s a day of torture? How can you judge the effect? A god dying on the cross could easily mean just as much as a Bill Gates buying a building in the Philippines … peanuts.

Besides if dying is all we admire then why don’t we worship soldiers? Why are there no set of statues of people who died in protecting the country during World War II in our altars at home? We don’t worship teachers, sometimes we don’t even obey our parents; they have sacrificed as much or even more.

On this regard the Chinese have it better with their ancestor worship. Who indeed has a direct line in you becoming what you are today other than your ancestors? It is they who we should be thanking day after day and not just on Sunday.

I keep hearing in my head that I’ll be called an ingrate because a god (or a man) with no obligation to do so, died for me. Again, he did not die. Still if you want to be technical about the heart ceasing to beat and getting buried, again, Jesus did not stay dead.

But is death all there is to humanity? Did he have to die? Why are we so obsessed that he died for us? Maybe we should really answer first if God was really a man.

Perfection would give that query a resounding no. If Jesus was perfect then he shouldn’t be called human, after all it has been said that no man is perfect. Even the bible says it so under Romans 3:9 and most especially verse 10: ‘no one is righteous, not one.’

But Christianity, unfortunately, want it all – Jesus was perfect in every way. Many schools of thought, if not all, consider him as god and man at the same time.

I find it ironic that for a sect that prides itself on faith or the belief in the absence of fact, Christians always want that naked display of divinity.

Jesus had it all going for him, and this they admire: a man/god aware of all cards on the deck; he advises, he gives sermons, he heals people, and he is never in doubt about his destiny. In short Jesus is still basically a god! Whether he bled like a fountain or had cardiac arrest is beside the point.

Humanity is not just about dying and all the physical hardships. Humanity is also about living in imperfection. It is to live in doubt; never really being sure what life holds. And the most important thing which makes a man great or not is to overcome in spite of these challenges.

Humanity is about asking who am I? why am I here? where am I going? and answering these three existential questions through sweat, perseverance, pain, heartache, and failure. In the end not all will have answers, but majority do try. The learning never ends, as they say.

A soldier will sacrifice his life because he thinks the country is worth it. But he never knows that his country will win the war, or what future his family will have without him. Sometimes soldiers don’t even know if the war is worth fighting. Yet they do it anyway because they believe it was worth it or at least they force themselves to believe.

A teacher doesn’t know how many of the students will grow up to be good adults yet she does the job because children need to be taught. Incidentally that is also what can be said of parents; they don’t know if in the end it can all be worth it: the crappy 8-5 job, the changing of diapers, the embarrassing appearance at the principal’s office. They are parents and they have a child to raise, that’s it.

On the other hand, Jesus knew everything: his destiny, his mission, his death. He never even longed for the love of a woman or so the critics of The Da Vinci Code would want to believe. Jesus knew his death would be painful. And the kicker there is he knew that it wouldn’t be permanent. That is supposed to represent humanity?

I can almost hear him say, “no time for girls…I have a mission to do…I will die for the sins of man and oh, wait for me in 3 days.”

Jesus is and always will be a god who in suicidal fashion set himself up for the cross. He never was betrayed because Judas was never a friend. John 6:64 shows that he had an inkling that a traitor was in the midst. He knew what he was in for.

Lastly, a man sacrifices because he believes he has nothing else. For a soldier there is nothing else to defend the country with but with his own life; a teacher cannot teach without giving up a few more dozen hours and a respectable paycheck; a parent has to forget that he or she was once single who could use up money and time like there was no tomorrow, just to raise a child.

Does God have nothing else than to pretend to give up a Son who as a “perfect man” went in and out of this world with barely a challenge?

Danger Zone

2008-09-04T14:07:00.002+08:00

I guess this would fall as one of your ‘dodge the bullet’ type of situations.

Whenever I go to Cubao from my office at the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) I usually take the LRT at Recto station. If I am fortunate enough to catch an officemate with a car, then, I will ask to be dropped off just in front of Legarda station, where the officemate can either go back to the office or go straight to Quezon City. However, if I can’t find a car I’ll commute via the Pasig-Quiapo jeep going to LRT’s Recto Station.

Observe the sky-shot of DBM (building marked B), the street corner is a weird shaped intersection, looks like a melted cross. The building marked A is an apartment where all those who wait for Pasig-Quiapo usually stand and catch the jeep before it turns right – its last turn before reaching Quiapo. And like everyone else that is where I waited around 5-5:30 pm on September 3^rd.

As had been my usual I lined myself up at in front of the traffic as much as possible so that when the traffic stops I’ll have ample time to study if I actually fit in any of the incoming jeeps. I never liked having just one ass cheek sitting you see especially with so weak a lower body strength.

I had my eye on one, about four cars back; a great enough distance to observe it if it was packed or not. But before it got close to me (I actually wanted to ride it by then) to my surprise the lady in the front fell out of the jeep, almost face first. My mind raced for answers: boyfriend trouble, smelly passenger or a drunken passenger (either her or someone near her); slip, even attempted rape. It wasn’t long that I was soon dazed observing the puzzle unfold before my eyes as other passengers follow suit, through the window, door – so I was thinking mechanical trouble, maybe a bomb.

Failing to appreciate the situation and remaining relatively untouched from where I stood I watched on, passively. Soon with almost all of the passengers out scattering in all directions the insides of the jeep was clearer, there was a noticeable scuffle; how many I could not count. The answer was soon revealed because by this time passengers who got out at this time were already shouting hold-up.

Perhaps noticing the commotion they were causing, and also the lack of available victims, the two assailants got out of the jeep. Looking around realizing the attention was already too much (traffic was packed by now the jeep just stopped, plus the people at the store in the apartment) they ran away.

Thankfully no one was hurt in this incident but it did give me a front seat view of what the place’s reputation was all about.

That stretch of road (Arlegui to Palanca and General Solano), that general area, has its reputation of hold-ups and riots (I saw remnants of one in Palanca one late night: shattered glasses and rocks in the street), as well as being an area of dormitories, students, government buildings, and a wide array of colleges and universities. It’s not anarchy mind you so you can relax a little. Just keep in mind that if you do come by this area to just keep your eyes open and relax. Everyplace has its dangers.

Thankfully, I am still not part of that crime statistic unfortunately some DBM employees are. But the sad thing is, more of an annoyance in fact, is that because of the reputation of the place, taxi drivers often think of me as a potential criminal. I have experienced being passed over by passenger-less taxis a number of times during late nights at the office.

Anyway, I wish a safe travel for everyone. Be mindful of danger zones wherever you travel.

(Post Script: the sky shot of my office is at least a year out of date. My building – marked B – and its twin across the compound is no longer separated by a parking lot. A construction of a new building has been going on for over a year now)

Fish at LRT Central

2008-08-17T15:38:00.004+08:00

"Manang pabili ng buntot!"

Compare the fork of Mr. Art (middle) to the serving...its really generous; guaranteed to give a fulfilling lunch.

Fulfilling indeed!

In my younger days I never would have thought I would beeating fish with regularity as I am doing now. What a difference reaching 30makes.

Here am I with the guys in the office at one of our favoritelunch spots at LRT central station. There are many eateries at the CentralStation, this one fronts a fire station; the last in a row, the one closest toPark and Ride.

We go here - maybe three times a week - only for its fishand nothing else though the place has a decent variety of meals. Going here forpork and beef meals would not be worth the effort because we have many of thosecloser to the office.

Today’s fish, according to my officemate, is a pompano, andit is cooked as always in Sinigang style. We get the tail almost alwaysdepending on availability. Middle parts are second choice but we try to avoidit because of the holes which give you less meat. Don’t worry being typicalFilipinos no part goes to waste; the place also serves fish head if you sochoose it.

The place never serves popular breads like bangus ortilapia. It’s always the large kind which makes for a full filling meal. Thereare even times when I feel that although I was served a cut just the same as Ihad before but it feels like it has more meat.

A fish tail plus rice would go to about P50, a good price.It is fresh, it is tasty, and it has hot soup – which you can ask for extras.

The only imaginable drawback in this spot and that food isthat we always end up sweaty after eating maybe it’s because of the soup or thecondiments (toyo, calamansi, and sili). Keep your hanky or towel in handy ifyou try this place because you'll get all sweaty.

Anyways, all things considered this spot, this food, andwith good company makes for a truly enjoyable lunch.

Couple's Choice

2008-08-09T18:08:00.005+08:00

“What god has put together let no man put asunder”.

Every priest knows that. You hear a lot of this phrase whenever the topic of marriage comes up especially on the question of ending it – meaning divorce.

But what every priest should also try to see is a thought that is hidden between the lines.

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