Sunday, October 23, 2011

Batangas Brouhaha: Cleverly winning tourists back to Batangas




Thanks to Facebook User Alan Chan for the photo.

I have to hand it to the folks over at the HollywoodPilipinas facebook page. This shows how creativity and humor can be a source of social consciousness. The stream of funny pictures really is a treasure trove of endless fun.

I do have to admit that this idea of putting up a Hollywood-style signage on taal lake may be one of Governor Vilma's not-so-better ideas, but I can definitely understand why there is a need for her government to OWN BACK the Taal Lake tourist-cow. Of course, being a Batangas-elected official, the Governor has to find ways on how to protect the interests of her Batanguenio constituents, and this is what people fail to realize.

She just does not want to make it public, but she has every right to think of ways on how to win back the Taal tourists and business from Cavite that rightfully belongs to Batangas.

Everybody knows how the Taal lake view is a beautiful creation and everybody wants to see it. So naturally, the tourists that Taal brings are big business. I would say that the Governor just started asking the question why Cavite gets all the Taal tourists whereas Taal is naturally located in Batangas; so naturally, the Batanguenios should be the one reaping all the benefits. Right? In truth, this is not so.

So, I'm making it my personal mission to defend the Governor in this case. She just does not want to make it public, but she has every right to think of ways on how to win back the Taal tourists and business from Cavite that rightfully belongs to Batangas. This 'Batangas sign' idea is very wrong though; funny, but very wrong.

I'm not from Batangas (I'm from Tarlac; and I love the Tarlac sign that i saw on HollywoodPilipinas), but you Batanguenios have every right to win back your tourists from Tagaytay. I'd say Tagaytay is using your Taal Lake, and they are getting more tourists than you.

You have every right to fight for it.

Just not with a stupid Hollywood sign.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Review of 'No Other Woman': Your textbook mistress melodrama

Thanks to the owner of the photo.

After 2 years, I'm back; and before that there was nothing.

I am forced out of my self-imposed Filipino movie exile to share my two cents about the new movie everybody in town is talking about: No Other Woman.

The movie stars ABS-CBN's Derek Ramsey as the philandering husband of Cristine Reyes, and Anne Curtis as the fighting mistress. Other cast members include Tirso Cruz III and others, who clearly lent their names in the posters for the money.

Firstly, how many movies were made with this same movie title? Secondly, how many other movies were created, sans the movie title, with the same premise about a philandering husband? These questions asked tells us that this movie has absolutely nothing new to offer the moviegoing public.

My other distaste probably came from the fact that that there's absolutely nothing I can relate to in the movie: not the setting, the premise, and absolutely not the characters.

The hype surrounding the movie was blown out of proportion and near destructive that left a very bad taste in my mouth. My other distaste probably came from the fact that that there's absolutely nothing I can relate to in the movie: not the setting, the premise, and absolutely not the characters. The beauty of La Union is unmistakable, but none of us own a resort there... Well, maybe a fraction of a percent of the entire population. The story, as said before, is very commonplace; just look around for a married friend or a co-worker who still tries to hit on that new-hired chick, and if he succeeds, look at their miserable wives and you will know that these people are who this movie's market audience are. The fantastical destroyer of suspension of disbelief is that affairs like this almost always DO NOT end happily; so there goes your reality right there. Some might say that it is only a movie, but how the story went is just too ridiculous to be enjoyed. Most of the time I was slapping my forehead, scoff-laughing, and shaking my head; and then I was playing 'Snake III' on my mobile phone. I kept asking myself: "Who talks like that?" I've seen a personal debate or two but I have never heard anybody argue cinematically.

The premise is commonplace: a self-confessed ex-playboy breaks his personal vows as he falls for the lucious traps of a femme fatale. However, the events and occurrences that shape the twists of the story are near impossible-to-fantastical: after having his way with both his wife and his mistress, he became confused as to which girl to choose, while the women fight over him in catty, epic cliche 80's dialogue proportions. Suddenly, In true Deus Ex Machina style, the story finishes with anout-of-place tragic realization

This movie is owned by the three lead actors, and as said before, the supporting actors are clearly unimportant; their roles should create a ground for reality as they give 3-sentence advices to make things extra-confusing. However, put them in or remove them and nothing changes. The only good thing that came out of this story would be Ms. Curtis' acting. Who would've thought that the teeny-bopping, lollipop wielding little darling would grow up and be taught to act? She's thousands of lightyears away from when she left GMA Artist Center, and in turn they must really be kicking their own arses for letting her go; or is it that they really do not invest in acting classes for their actors?

That being said, I would say that 'No Other Woman' is definitely not worth the fare. What should have been a quest for the filmmakers to create an unforgettable, timeless movie in the vein of 80's dramas such as the ones created by Bernal and Brocka turned out to be a forgettable, moneymaking fad to keep the movie department afloat. We are way better off watching a stress-free, feelgood movie like 'Dolphin Tale' after a long day of work. Some of us need not reminded of the stresses in our lives.