In Review: No Other Woman

No Other Woman, Ruel S. Bayani, 2011

The Gist

An eat your heart out bitch-out fest powered by great performances from Anne Curtis, Cristine Reyes, and Carmi Martin, No Other Woman is a brave take on the subject of infidelity; All at once witty, comic, and powerful, it begs to have the audience asking why it ended with a fizzle instead of a bang that it deserved.

The Good

• great acting and chemistry between the characters
• the script is brilliant, most likely to spawn facebook and twitter status
• a heavy drama that does not go dragging until the end
• set design and costume is proper

The Bad

• very traditional Filipino and dragging ending

Synopsis

Ram Escaler (Ramsey) is a married furniture dealer not above using his good looks and charm to sell expensive furniture to a mostly female clientele. A faithful husband, Ram has since foregone his promiscuous ways and has been faithful to his wife, Charmaine (Cristine Reyes). Luck smiled at his fortune when a client came to his shop to add him to the shortlist of bidders for supplying furniture to a luxury beach resort. Along the way, Ram meets with the Zalderiaga heiress, Kara (Anne Curtis), who helped him secure the deal all the while seducing her way to his heart.

Primetime

In a nutshell, No Other Woman is very soap operatic. In case you've seen those soap operas from the 90s where they fire one verbal missile after another, it's gonna feel like that, though to a good effect. It's a bitchfest where the words have fangs and nails that sink to the skin; and given you are in a safe distance, it is very fun to watch. Kudos to the wonderful dialogues and perfect delivery. The execution of each wonderfully written line gives meat to the whole worn-out skeletal plot of infidelity, and sometimes provides a good comic relief, too.

Not with a Bang, but with a Fizzle

I have bemoaned the way the movie ended long before I even started typing words into this review, so I might as well get this out of the way as soon as possible. The ending is just bad. This is why: the start of the movie is mellow, progressing slowly to a bang, then another bang, then another bang, then the director decides he had enough and ends it with a slow and dragging fizzle that wants to discredit the prior scenes. There was no heavy consequences to face for the characters to end. It felt kind of too redemptive, kind of formulaic and feel-good, felt like a foreign body to a good film. They could've simply ended it at the confrontation scene and made a short scene that discusses the consequences each character now face, but no, the director decided to expand it some more which made for a dragging ending. For me it ended on the last confrontation scene between Charmaine and Kara. That scene is such a climax, everything else after it grew bland.

Anyway, that was how much I despise the ending. Everything else is perfetto. Anne Curtis gave the performance of her life in this one, playing an heiress hell-bound on getting what she wants and ending up a lovely trainwreck. Cristine Reyes who plays a demure housewife also did very well with this one, though not as fine and experienced as Anne. Carmi Martin's portrayal as Cristine's nouveau rich mother delivers one of the most memorable lines in the movie: "I-packup mo na yang Lucy Torres mo, ilabas mo ang Gretchen Barretto mo; ako na'ng bahala sa red stilettos mo." The moviehouse went howling at that. Derek Ramsey didn't do half-bad either, but the women owned this one. Completely.

I would also like to commend the costume design, even if just for Anne Curtis' wardrobe. She did feel like a New Yorker, though with the kind of climate we have here, and yes at the beach, too, it's kind of odd to actually be wearing those. The wardrobe made her look more assertive and bitchy and Westernized, just the kind of girl who'd play mistress and deny that fact to herself.

As I've also noted earlier, the script! Such a thing to be a classic soon. The lines are bound to make it to facebook and twitter shamelessly. The delivery also meant those lines weren't wasted and such a chemistry  hero-villain was made apparent thanks to those lines.

So did it feel like a two-hour seater? Not really. Save for the ending which felt dragging (whose only redemption were Kara's hospital scenes where she is shown completely debased and powerless). As usual with Star-VIVA films, they are edgy but still has that tiny little error which is brought about by Star Cinema's need to be formulaic, commercial, and family-values concerned. The good thing about it is that 3/4 of the movie is so good, you wouldn't mind the dragging ending. It could've been better, then again, it could've been worse. So now, I need to write down my rating.

My verdict:

A passing and recommended mark of 4/5.

In case I haven't spoiled everything for you, here is the trailer for No Other Woman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF-PUiKSn54

In Review: Fright Night (2011)

Fright Night (2011), Craig Gillespie

The Gist

An action-dark-comedy movie with some thriller and suspense elements along the way does not make a horror movie scary, but whatever, this movie contains an amazing performance from Colin Farrell that more than makes up for the lack of the much expected spook.

The Good

• good acting, particularly from Farrell
• great effects
• has some comic moments in it that makes it more appealing to non-horror movie fans

The Bad

• not scary enough
• does not deviate much from the 1985 film in terms of resolution

Synopsis

Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin) is having the time of his high school life. He's with the prettiest girl in school and has since forsaken his nerdy ways and friend, Evil Ed Lee (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). However, things change when a new guy named Jerry (Colin Farrell) moves into their neighborhood and the disappearance of his classmates (and soon even Evil Ed) soon becomes too apparent to ignore. Upon Evil Ed's goading and help, Charlie soon finds out that Jerry is a vampire who is out to eat his mom and the whole neighborhood and that with him as the next target, it might be too little too late to take matters into his own hands.

Scary Movie

What went wrong? I really don't know. I don't expect myself to get frightened when I watch scary movies, but this one just didn't give me any. I wanna be like at the edge of my seat frightened the way I was with Insidious, but that didn't happen. There was not much scare after scare after scare affair. And it probably is also for the good. Else it would have been something less of a veritable and credible film. Then again, a credible film does not have a douchy resolution. Also, probably because I've been watching too many True Blood that vampires like this one on the movie does not call to mind much need to be scared. I'm used to them in TV and also, the possible lack of gore on this one did not help either. The scariness did feel like a 1985 affair and so as the ending that I can't help but feel that I did watch the 1985 version (although they differ in a lot of ways).

Turn off the Lights

Not much notable acting going on besides Farrell and David Tennant. But mind you, Farrell owns this one. He was so detestable in the movie, just like how most of the vampires are in True Blood. I mean, why can't you just die, dude, you've been staked by a mile post. And each time he gets back up, you just know trouble is gonna happen and you can't help but root for Yelchin and hi girlfriend. And that's the role of the villain, to be hated and make you root for the heroes, who are thankfully not hate-able (cause some heroes in movies are just begging to be hated).

David Tennant on the other hand lends some comic relief and "character that badly needs redemption" feel to the movie and he did those roles very well. At some point you will be annoyed at him and at some point you will wish him well even if you know he's a total douche.

Pacing was a bit fast and you won't know an hour and 40 has elapsed when the credits start rolling. The effects are also very well done and lends a proper feel for the movie. Character development is also well done, which helped make rooting for Yelchin easy. The script is fine but not as noteworthy as you would like. But still none of these can hide the fact that this is a horror movie without much horror and with that, how easily forgettable it is. It is not a bad movie, just one you won't remember for long.

My verdict:

A passing mark of 3.5/5.

In Review: Horrible Bosses

Horrible Bosses, Seth Gordon, 2011

The Gist

Darkly humorous and well-cast, Horrible Bosses does not stray far from the humor and feel of the original Hangover. The dangers of feeling borrowed from other comedy films are easily remedied by the great acting of the cast and the great chemistry between the main characters.

The Good

• good acting from Spacey and Aniston
• smart script with a great cast and great chemistry
• feels quite original in its own right

The Bad

• feels to have borrowed from other comedies
• the ending felt so Deus Ex Machina, cliched

Synopsis

Nick Hendricks (Bateman) works with a psychotic boss (Spacey) who tricked him to doing things for a promotion he never intend to give. Dale Arbus (Day) who dreams of nothing but to be a husband to his fiancee, works  as a dental assistant to a sexually offending boss (Aniston) who manipulates him to allow her sexual advances until his marriage. Kurt Buckman (Sudeikis) was better off compared to his two friends and works as an account manager for a chemical company with a loving boss who has a cokehead son. Trouble is, his boss just died and his son now runs the company as he would an ATM machine. Dissatisfied with their bosses, the three conspires a plan to rid each other of their bosses permanently. The realization that they don't exactly know how to kill someone sparks a series of events that lead them to one disaster after another.

Hangover from Hangover

I was only so surprised to find out that the movie was not directed by Todd Philips, director of The Hangover. At the end of the movie, I was like, man that feels so much like The Hangover. Perhaps, I'll blame it on the great chemistry between Bateman, Sudeikis, and Day. The premise is completely different from The Hangover though. Here, they intend to kill their bosses, while The Hangover is merely about bachelors having fun. However, both movies have those plans ending up going awry and one thing leads to another before a very simple solution was there anyway. Comparisons aside, I can't complain much about the premise or the plot of Horrible Bosses. It's definitely funnier than Crazy, Stupid, Love, and definitely crazier and stupider.

Quick, Fast, Dirty

I don't really love Jennifer Aniston, but my goodness, she was so good in this film. I'm actually raving mad for her performance. Also, Spacey. Man, you will just hate him for being the psycho that he is in that film. Farrell was a bit on the uh huh side of town and pales compared to Spacey and Aniston, but I blame it on his screen time, it was pretty short compared to everyone else. As mentioned above, the chemistry between Sudeikis, Day, and Bateman is great. Jamie Foxx also did fantastic here and his character is one of the movie's surprising comic reliefs outside the three musketeers. That said, everyone's acting was in check and the script is witty with compliments of course to the execution.

The narrative is typical, nothing fancy. Has a narrator to begin and a narrator to end it. And speaking of endings, man, I hated the ending, albeit not completely. It was typical and kind of cliched and kind of made it fizzled, but good thing, a greater part of the ending was good, the resolution was just so-so. And also, as far as pacing is concerned, the film was actually quick in telling its story. It wouldn't really feel like a 2-hour film once the credits start rolling and you wouldn't feel that you've wasted your time watching washed up jokes. Couldn't remark anything special about the cinematography.

Apart from the typical formula for being a comedy: exaggeration, crude jokes, a stupid character who messes up everything, I also am not satisfied with how they portrayed women. In the movie, women were portrayed to be either clueless or horny or clueless and horny. So if you're dating a feminist, not a very good date movie this one. Nevertheless, it's a movie to destroy a date nor one to merit getting one into your bed.

My verdict:

A passing and recommended mark of 4/5.

Food Review: Serenitea (Updated!)

Serenitea at Eastwood

Milk Tea is all the rage these days! Remember back in the days when it was only Quickly that offered mass-commercially palatable milk tea? Those days are gone now. This means, Milk Tea is now a fad. Soon it would dissipate into the niche it once occupies once the fad turns to fade and demand dies down. For now, here is a review of one of the hotly discussed tea-serving place: Serenitea.

Note: this review has been updated since I last wrote it with new pictures and a final verdict. Updates are written in blocks of italicized text so it would be easy for those who have read this to discern which parts have been updated.

Specifics

Location: Eastwood Cybermall, imposing on the entrance door, impossible to miss (there are other locations all over Metro Manila, but this one gets my review)
Concoctions: Tea
Type of Service: Pay and Claim
Target Market: Yuppies, Tea Drinkers, Chinese
Price Range: 75 pesos to 120 pesos~

Thingamajig for getting your ordered item

The new thingamajig when I revisited. So much better. And cuter

Customer Experience
The idea behind Serenitea is to make it as authentic a tea experience as possible without having to deviate from experimenting here and there. The menu board is littered with authentic-looking tea items from various parts of Asia and some experimental ones (Exciting Yakult Tea!). Their bestseller as I was told was the Hokkaido Milk Tea. Unfortunately for me, I wanted to experiment and ordered something else. So I ordered the Large Wintermelon Milk Tea. A very tall cup sets you off 105 pesos. Not bad, considering you get a smaller size at 100 bucks in Happy Lemon and 125 in Bubble Tea (without egg pudding). The furniture and ambiance of Serenitea, is well, serene and a bit minimalist. Though this one in Eastwood is very in-your-face and out in the open, it suggests that you take your drink for a walk through the expanse of Eastwood City.

Large Wintermelon Milk Tea at 105 pesos

Open-faced store here at Eastwood

Service was quite on the slow side given that I managed to argue about Contagion with my friends and end up agreeing on disagreeing before my thingamajig buzzed. Took around 10 to 15 minutes. It also didn't help that the couple in front of me were being meticulous and at the same time clueless. At some point the people at the counter were uninstructive and very trusting of their customer's judgment of what they are ordering. You can tweak the ice and sweetness and for 105 you get add-ons to your drink like my favorite "egg pudding" or pearl. You can apparently add some toppings for no cost, but the counter person made it sound like I would need to pay something so I said no to it, to which he strongly suggested that I add some "sinkers" and I was like, OK, give me the egg pudding.


The second time I was here, service is recognizably faster--given the meticulous couple has probably been busy elsewhere that night, although I noticed how their crews remain to be apathetic. These people don't seem to love working and seem to loathe customers silently. I mean seriously, frown at me much when I have been smiling at you since I got to the cashier? Very friendly, sir. Very friendly.

I got the Wintermelon Milk Tea as mentioned above on a relatively friendly price. It was, well, throat-bustingly sweet and was more than sorry that it did not completely agree with my taste buds. Some people will like this drink but the sweetness (at the default 100% level) makes me wonder if their other teas are as sweet. Something tells me Milk Tea isn't their specialty and that specialty still belongs to Bubble Tea. The tea is also a bit on the strong side, kind of like Cha Time. But hey, it's as authentic as they promised.

For the second time I was here, I owe it to myself to order the bestseller. The Hokkaido Milk Tea is actually really good with just the proper sweetness. The tea strength is also proper, with each component (tea, milk, and caramel, etc) perfectly combining into a seamless discernibly distinct taste. If it is your first time in Serenitea, this is the drink to buy. This or the Royal Milk Tea--which is the simplest most enjoyable tea on any menu.

Cozy furniture

As I have said earlier, the fixtures and furniture used in Serenitea is classy. But what I noticed is just how badly ventilated Cyber Mall is. I could not wait to get off Serenitea, actually, because it was incredibly warm where I was seated--I was sweating loads and it didn't look like I was enjoying at all. I hope Serenitea would find time to address this as the temperature is unwelcoming.

Competition
Price point suggests that they are competing with Cha Time. What makes Serenitea more viable is that the menu board is not as unfamiliar as Cha Time. I managed to visit Cha Time three times and so far, everything I ordered is regrettable. Serenitea comes off on the safer side, and even if I got a very sweet drink, I can say people will rather order a very sweet drink than a bland one that Cha Time serves. Happy Lemon on the other hand is a different story as that one is more on the experimental and on the slushie side of things. You go there for the "fun" drinks not strictly for tea. If you want tea, your best bet is Serenitea. They have all sorts of tea at the best price.

Verdict
What to say of Serenitea? Well, mixed. The fixtures are good, but the service and store temperature is just utter crap. Not bad, utter crap. You can put up with it, though, because you're getting good value for money. I mean 105 pesos with "toppings" or sinkers as they call it on a VENTI size cup is not something you can pick up in say, Bubble Tea or Happy Lemon. They offer the most stuff for the same price compared to competitors and if I want tea, I know this is my stop. But other than that, why should I go here instead of Happy Lemon? I mean larger does not always mean better, right? Perhaps the long line? That's the only thing I can think of against Happy Lemon's favor. Not to mention, Happy Lemon offers friendlier service and has a wider range of offerings compared to Serenitea. I really think Serenitea (at least in Eastwood) can do better, and how I wish they would already.


Service - 2
Product - 4.5
Ambiance - 3


3.17 out of 5

In Review: Contagion

Contagion, Steven Sodebergh, 2011.

The Gist

Gripping, fast-paced, and told very matter-of-factly, Contagion is a social commentary hiding behind the guise of a movie with a powerhouse cast mostly gone underutilized, but mostly for good.

The Good

• good editing
• gripping and emotional amid the manner of delivery
• good acting by the cast amid little screen time for some

The Bad

• seriously underused Gwyneth Paltrow and Marion Cotillard
• Wahlberg's parts could use a little less expansion, Jude Law needed to be hated more
• too wide-scale a plot, could have used a little focus

Synopsis

Beth Emhoff (Paltrow), an executive of a multinational corporation, is on a business trip in Hong Kong for an opening of their new factory. Upon getting back to America, Emhoff showed signs of sickness and died that night after a short seizure. Soon her son displayed the same symptoms and died. Her husband, Mitch (Wahlberg) was sent to quarantine as news of an outbreak of the disease similar to his wife spread on the news like fire. Meanwhile, blogger Alan Krumwiede who tracked this disease on his blog as early as the first casualty in Hong Kong, Japan, and UK, has been approached by a pharmaceutical company to promote their drug Forsythia to his 2 million unique visitors for $4.4M. As the CDC--lead by Dr. Cheever (Fishbourne) and his team: Dr. Mears on the field (Winslet) and Dr. Hextall on the lab--and the WHO (shown to be represented by Dr. Orantes played by Cotillard) race to find a cure, society as we know it collapses, with the government unable to do anything but to mum the news and keep the panic levels down. 

It's Not a Small World After All

The synopsis I've written for this review is quite long because mostly for good, the movie is expansive and tackles several plots on how social structures respond to such cases of a deadly and contagious epidemic: Fishbourne's POV shows the government, Winslet's shows the medical workers, Wahlberg's shows the family, Cotillard's the international organizations, and Law's the media. Each of those are well-written and are, more often than not, not directly touching the other plots. Compare it to watching The Game of Thrones were there is no central characters, but instead several POV characters for you to root for. The bad thing, some of the characters feel like they can use more screentime, like, hey, Cotillard and Paltrow appeared for only 20 minutes of the movie combined. Seriously, they could've hired someone cheaper and wouldn't have made any difference. I also wanted to hate Jude Law very very much, but I couldn't. He is really evil, but they only showed a little bit. Surprisingly, it still worked. I also felt that Wahlberg's part was too much focused on in the movie--his parts were the more boring ones compared to the others. Some things can really be improved upon this movie, but it was so finely made, a tiny error in changing it could make the whole thing crumble like the society depicted in the movie.

Society Tumbles and Capitalists Win

Honestly, the movie felt more of a drama for me than a thriller as it was advertised. The great thing about it is that the drama works. It's not so forced that you would smell its fraudulence. The narrative also felt like reading a book where some details are left out or considered "already known" by deduction or common sense or details shown /  briefly mentioned en passant. For instance, Cotillard develops a Stockholm syndrome in the movie but the process as to how she got it is no longer explained; Sodebergh also avoided explicitly telling the audience that she has.

I like the pacing of the movie; it felt just right. When some parts are about to get boring (yes, I often wished we skip Wahlberg's parts), Sodebergh allows the film to shift and tell another story, relevant or not to the previous one it skipped. And it actually worked, probably because they are all dealing with the same villain, the disease, but are struggling from its different effects on their lives.

The narrative is very very dry--almost feels like watching a news cast on primetime, but the acting behind it pushes it far from the drab fest it ought to have become. If this is an organism, the narrative is the brain and the acting is the heart. Great performances, especially from Ehle, Wahlberg, and Winslet. I think that is what actually got me, Sodebergh presents everything in dry narrative and when you least expect it, BAM! There goes the tearjerkers, there goes the emotion, there goes humanity unraveling on each of the supposedly dry puppets. And it's all so sudden, it makes your eyes wet and your hearts clenched and it's kept there until there's nothing more to feel.

Cinematography is also good. I have to commend how with mere pictures, some things are explained and some sufferings are brought forward. How Sodebergh shows human sufferings in such short glimpses! It can be really sad, this movie, and for all the suspense and powerhouse screen time that it promises and does not deliver, you can forgive it just by how good the depictions are.

I could add that I was not completely satisfied with some depictions like in Jude Law's parts where he fools the whole of UK and a mere glimpse of the sufferer's POV there is only shown. He also suffers. He sees a friend die who was hoping on the cure he promised, and some more focus on that friend could have made it a bit more human, Law's side. But still wouldn't mind if that wasn't done.

Looking back, yeah, it's supposed to serve pizza, yet you get ice cream, but you won't mind. It's good ice cream.

My verdict:

A passing and recommended mark of 4.25/5.

Food Review: Jollibee's Hashbrown Burger

I love hash browns; If I can eat only one thing everyday for the rest of my life, it would be hash browns. You can imagine my delight when Jollibee launched their Hash Brown Burger just this September. Unlike KFC's Tower Burger where the hashbrown is a padding to the patty to make the burger tall, Jollibee's offering is a tad bit simpler in execution. Let's head on to the review proper, shall we?

Packaging

One thing I have liked about Jollibee is how they are moving from using plastic and styrofoam packaging into paper and cartons. For the hash brown burger, they used a simple wax paper and carton packaging as pictured above. 

Product Composition and Caloric Content

As you can see from the image above, a beef patty and a single cheese is in between two hash browns, it couldn't get any simpler than that. (I chose to have my ketchup removed as I don't really like ketchup, but by default, it has ketchup in between the Hash brown patty and the beef patty.) These hash browns are baked, so you have less to worry about cholesterol-content-wise. Calorie content-wise, as per my research, baked hash browns have more calories than a fried one, though. A baked hash brown can contain as much as 190 calories, where as a fried one has 150~. The burger patty that Jollibee used here is the same one they use for the Regular Yum products. This patty is, as per official records, 95% imported beef, with only 5% fat. At most, this accounts for 145 calories only. The cheese slice clocks in at 70 calories. Over all, the Hash brown Burger will set you off at 595 calories, give or take.

Please note that this is not at all official and based only from speculation on the general caloric content of each component found in http://caloriecount.about.com/. If you think, the calorie content is a lot more than KFC's Double Down, officially declared by KFC to have 540 calories, then I would like to point out that a single chicken fillet is around 300 calories, give or take.

Taste, Texture, Value for Money, Combination Correctness

I daresay, this is the best Jollibee product ever made ever since the Burger Steak. I would possibly get clinical depression if this gets taken off the menu board. Seriously, it's that good. It's better than your girlfriend, plus the price point, too: a definite value for money. The saltiness of each component is just right, with the hash brown acting like a proper substitute for the bun--given how starchy it is, it feels like a proper bun. The soft texture of the hash browns also plays well along with the juicy beef patty. 

The cheese is a bit of a conundrum though, but I think it has its purpose, though I haven't realized what even after three servings. Nonetheless, the combination of the ingredients make the final product still very delightful.

Price and Competition

The Hash Brown burger sits above the Regular Yum in terms of pricing and well below the Champ. For an a la carte order, the Hash Brown Burger is priced at an affordable 64 pesos. Adding a drink will set you off at 80 pesos. It is not offered with fries, because, hello, hash browns: potatoes. 

Along with the hash brown burger, Jollibee has released a side-product called "Baked Hash Brown" which is priced at 28 PhP. Looking at this pricing, the hash brown burger is really a good deal. Two hash browns are already pegged at 56 pesos. You basically pay 8 pesos for the patty and the cheese slice.

The Hash Brown burger brings to mind KFC's own hash brown sandwich offering: The Tower Burger. Between the two, I'd have to go with Jollibee's effort. For one, you barely taste the hashbrown and chicken fillet in the Tower Burger; for another, it's restrictively more expensive. The combination in the tower burger does not make much sense as compared to the Hash Brown burger.

Price point considered, the main rivals of this offering inside Jollibee are the Chicken Sandwich, priced at 39 pesos, the Regular Yum, and the Yum with TLC. Of course, it is expectable that during the first month of offering, a product will shoot high in the sales chart. For the long run, it still remains to be seen if the sales will continue to be as good. Being a rice-eating country, the hash brown burger also faces competition from the Burger Steak, which sits almost at the same price point--a la carte.

Outside Jollibee, there is little to no offering to rival it directly. It is a unique offering which is delightful enough to secure itself. Nonetheless, I fear this will become a novelty product, which will see seasonal promotion and availability like the similarly good Tuna Pie--available only during Lenten Season plus give or take three months. I wish it to be staple as it is a very good offering, so fingers crossed.

Verdict

Yay! Never haveI this been delighted about a product offering from a fast food chain that it merits a review.  Nonetheless, if I can eat only one thing for the rest of my life, it would be this. A firm 4.75 out of 5 stars. So try out the new Hash Brown burger and tell me what you think about it.