Spellbound

Aside from Alan Rickman's Snape sharing a striking resemblance to Trent Reznor (circa 94's Self-Destruct tour), Celia Rodriguez and Joey De Leon's genetic offspring, the rest of the final movie installment for JK Rowling's titular wizard had plenty of other visual spectacles that tops all the other films in the series. Understandably so because as far as endings go, the second part of The Deathly Hallows ends with a bang.


The movie starts off immediately following the events of Part 1. Voldemort retrieving the Elder Wand and the protagonist trio on the quest to find and destroy the remaining horcruxes (items where Voldemort hid pieces of his soul) to have a fighting chance against their enemy. There was always an impending sense of doom one can feel while watching, like someone or something was lurking in every corner out to make another famous character disappear from the series forever. 

This is, after all, the second part of one story (and the last act of an entire series, at that). If there's anything to be gleaned about storytelling is that the boring part usually happens at the first act and it's all hyperkinetic pacing and climax at the end. At least when done properly. And David Yates and the screenplay by Steve Kloves handle the tale with just the right amount of precision and pathos to make even non-fans of the series appreciate what the characters are going through.


The cast members could practically do their respective roles in their sleep. But it was Alan Rickman's portrayal of Snape that got the most reactions from people. Especially so for those who had not read the books and got the surprise revelation about his role on the entire story. It was one of the most heart-rending vindication ever captured on film since Darth Vader came to his son's rescue and threw the Emperor to his death.


It's one of those things that make watching movies on the cinema worthwhile.

Fag--er, Fangs

A part of my religious upbringing as a Catholic probably stemmed from my childhood fears of everything that has to do with the devil and any known creature of the night who did his bidding. I believe I was in the pre-school stage when I first heard the term 'Vampire' from my father. The way he described the creature---a supernatural being with superhuman abilities that has a nasty predilection for human blood; with oversized canines for puncturing the victim's jugular and an aberration to Roman Catholic trinkets, sunlight, and garlic. That, and they slept in coffins as well. He mentioned someone called Count Dracula and showed me a magazine with a black and white photo of a tall, gaunt-looking man in a flowing black cape (Christopher Lee, actually) glaring at the camera. The information, the way Dracula looked and what happens to you if a vampire kills you was terrifying, specially when you're a child. There was even a time when I thought everyone in Transylvania were bloodsuckers.

And that's the way vampires should be. Something that sparks some deep-seated terror from people. Not sexy or romantic like the recent films of yesteryears and today's brain-dead pop culture are advocating. (Digression:I have a suspicion that it's another Catholic construct meant to inspire devotion among its congregation. How come it's never mentioned they're afraid of the Star of David, or the Koran, or Jerry Falwell? Interesting.).

This new politically-correct/scientific approach at portraying the entire vampire genre and repackaging it as other than a horror fare is abysmally lame. Anne Rice started it with injecting homoerotic undertones and short of (in my opinion) actually declaring vamprisim as a metaphor for homosexuality; and then you get films like Blade and Underworld that repackaged them as superheroes and mutants. And Buffy The Vampire Slayer. And here comes Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series that turned two titans of horror (Vampire, Werewolf) into characters straight from Sweet Valley High, One Tree Hill and Dawson's Creek. Although yes, everyone has a right to take any material and reinvent it to whatever packaging the author chooses it to be, but something tells me the entire genre has gone downhill since 100-year old vampires who look 17 became the embodiment of a romantic Don Juan who sweeps every pre-pubescent/teenage girls off their feet. I wonder why those so-called guardians of morality kept mum at the very obvious glorification of pedophilia in these series and cried foul when Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita was published or shown (see Stanley Kubrick).

With that said, here are a few Vampire films/reading materials I found to be very entertaining and satisfying:

1. Dracula (Bram Stoker) - still the best book about vampires. period.

2. Salem's Lot (Stephen King) - masterful storytelling. horrifying with occasional bursts of humor. one of king's best. scout for the made for tv movie as well. equally terrifying.

3. Near Dark (f) dir. Kathryn Bigelow - shows a nomadic group of vampires. instead of tall clean looking aristocrats, these were gruesome hobos who bathed in their victim's blood.

Near Dark

4. Fright Night (f) dir. Tom Holland - another favorite. features the late great roddy mcdowall as a phoney vampire killer and chris sarandon as the elegant but humorous vampire neighbor of teenager william ragsdale.

5. I Am Legend (Richard Matheson) - not to be confused with the crap Will Smith adaptation of an outbreak turning humans into mutants with vampiric attributes. stick to the book. million times better.

6. The Horror Of Dracula (f) dir. Terence Fisher - christopher lee's first foray into the role that made him famous. a loose adaptation of stoker's famous novel about the transylvanian count still contains genuine moments of creepiness even by today's standards.

7. Nosferatu (f) dir. FW Murnau - the lack of sound and max schreck's unique portrayal of count orlock added to the general creepiness that pervades the entire film.

8. Dracula (f) dir. Tod Browning - another dracula icon in the person of actor bela lugosi. he, along with lee practically hogged the general appearance of the infamous count.

9. Vampires (f) dir. John Carpenter - decent action/horror film from john carpenter. james woods looks more dangerous than the lead vampire though.

Minus hubris

Everyone wants to be rich. That's a fact. No matter how often you hear people say "money is the root of all evil" or "I'm not interested in money" or the most common "I'm contented with what i have. i can't ask for more."

I'm guilty of the last statement myself. But it really is just rationalizing why i don't want to get up and do something. 

I've just finished Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad Poor Dad--the best selling book about "financial intelligence" that's supposedly taken the entire financial world by surprise because of its pragmatic and accurate insights on how rich and poor people differ in their approach when it comes to money. What made the book so engaging was that it had deflated my ego as a member of the wage slaves and crushed all my preconceived notions about how wealthy people's attitudes about money. Direct and oftentimes brutally honest (especially on the despicable money habits people like me are guilty of.), it was nonetheless a delight to read as it does not wander off into the Dale Carnegie-school of sermonizing.

I think the poor and middle class have a deep envy of the wealthy that is of course no one will admit to. So we invent excuses of all types to cover up that deep insecurity of not having enough. Oftentimes it's in the guise of our very own intellectual vanity. Snide remarks are not uncommon, especially when the subjects in question are two contrasting individuals: a highly educated employee versus a high school dropout tycoon.

Those Rolling R's

Going to bookstores offers a different and amusing respite from my day to day routine. Specially high-end ones like Powerbooks with its browser-friendly lounges and mini coffee shops and nearby record store (Tower Records in Megamall) where most so-called bibliophiles and audiophiles swarm. Most people find the place spectacular because of the amenities and reader-friendly comfort i just mentioned, however those are not the reasons why I find the place so amusing.


My work like any regular office jobs, starts at Ten AM and I leave the office at Six Thirty. Sometimes, when my girlfriend and I decide to meet after hours I loiter around powerbooks to wait for her until 8 pm as she's in the graveyard shift for a call center in Ortigas, where I also work. So I usually spend my waiting time reading something that had its protective plastic cover torn out of it by some overeager browser---which I am also guilty of from time to time especially when it comes to comic books. 

It's usually when i'm already within a quarter of the book/magazine that I am reading when I usually hear it. Anybody would have heard it too, every time one goes there or any other bookstores in some other business center. At first it would be just some random comment about this or that book; or how this author stinks and how the other one is brilliant. Commentaries like that are often voiced out in that unmistakable burgis-just-came-back-from-d-isteyts twang with a hint of boredom as if what the speaker is voicing out is already common knowledge. You'd hear cerebral comments like: "My god! How come there's a lot of books about Hitler?! Don't the publishers know the gravity of their actions?!" to "Hillary Clinton? She's a bitch. But I like her."


Susmaryosep.


Sometimes you'd be lucky (or unlucky depending on your point of view) to catch a group of artistes sitting around a large table in the center of the store discussing art and all sorts of pseudo-intellectual masturbatory aides at the top of their lungs. They're not yelling, but they see to it that everyone gets to hear what they say. You can actually feel the self-congratulatory pat in the back everytime someone blurts out a comment or critique about a certain film/book/music. I swear, hearing those exchanges make Roger Ebert seem like an amateur. The way they voice out criticisms in their discussion you'd feel like they'd do a better job than the hapless author they choose to eviscerate in their little soiree. Oh, and the discussion is, of course, in English. with a dash of taglish every now and then for that token coño effect. Because, as you can see, intellectuals in the philippines voice out their opinions in perfect, American english. So there.


Now that's entertainment you can't buy.