Come to the dark side, I have cookies.

Because I’m only working part-time, I finally have space to live my life at a healthier pace. I’ve been using this time to do personal errands I’ve long put off—dealing with banks, opening new accounts, transferring branches, settling credit cards, and learning how taxes and government benefits like SSS and Pag-IBIG actually work. For the first time, I get to decide where my money goes and how my systems are set up, instead of adjusting everything around a company’s standards. It’s effortful, but deeply empowering, and I know it will be worth it in the long run.

I’ve also had more time for basic life things: house chores, finishing films and books, exercising, walking more, and spending quality time with my dogs, my sisters, and my family. I’m sleeping better, eating better, and finally moving my body again. I get to wake up without rushing. I can take a proper bath without being interrupted. I can do my skincare, eat on time, and move through my routines without constantly feeling behind. By 7 PM, my chores are usually done, and the rest of the night is free for reading, arts and crafts, or just resting.

I didn’t think much of ’25 when it started. Our trip to Dubai ended at the early part of the year, and I thought the fun would end there. I saw the Louvre, slept a night in Atlantis, rode a camel in the sand dunes, smoked my first hookah under the Middle Eastern stars. Nothing could top that, I thought. Little did I know that a lot could still happen in the many parts of my life.

"The power of God, the ambition of men."

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

I am a huge fan of the film directed by Edward Berger. I recently discovered that it was originally a book, and I've never finished reading a religious-themed story so fast. I even listened to the soundtrack everytime I had a reading session to get the full feel of it. This book still sent me reeling even if I already knew how the story would go. But reading all the extra details beyond the film was a whole other experience. I honestly felt validated by many of the points in the story as a devout Catholic.

I loved the familiarity I felt with this world—the rituals, the music, the symbols. It's wonderful seeing Catholicism in its full glory. But I also loved the irony in seeing the most important religious leaders argue over worldly matters, in the heart of the Church, in the eyes of St. Peter. The character diversity was an important factor in the story: how leaders from different countries/ethnicities, all with cultural differences, have undeniably both divided and strengthened the Church.

Most of all, I loved seeing a Filipino take the lead as the underdog Cardinal. This is representation at its finest. Even more, his biological situation (and wholehearted acceptance of it) has beautifully illustrated what it truly means to be a Child of God.

“I am what God made me” is a line I'll keep forever. This transcends everything that we limit ourselves to.

This book is a great read for Catholics who sometimes doubt—not in God, but in the Church.

It will also be interesting for non-believers; because a significant part of the Conclave works to protect inclusivity and embrace changes in society. This book shows how the Church is far from perfect, but is also not as out of touch as many assume.

Overall, it is a great reminder that faith goes beyond rules, laws, and doctrines—that loving, serving, and representing God is actually very simple; we just get caught up in the worldly nuances of it.

Materialists was a beautifully shot, beautifully directed film. Watching it gave me a sense of comfort that I haven't felt from a romantic comedy in a long time. I loved how Celine pieced everything together — from the setting, to the outfits, to the script and the bombass soundtrack. The three main leads were all gorgeous and enjoyable to watch. It was a beautiful film, period — but rather, mostly only visually.

I had very high expectations for this movie. I loved Celine's work with Past Lives, so when talks about Materialists started, I immediately looked out for it — and waited quite a long time, actually. So it pains me to say that I had a lot of trouble with the overall message, and I believe it fell a bit flat. I understood her point and what she was trying to tell the audience — it just didn't hit the landing for me.

The core of the film

Whatever thoughts the public had about it, to me, the heart of Materialists lies in the last scene. It was so adorable and heart-warming, it almost made me forget that the second half of the film was almost intolerable. Nonetheless, it was like when Ted asked to marry Tracy on a Thursday (How I Met Your Mother), or when Tim asked for Mary's hand while she was in bed (About Time). Or Lorelai asking Luke to have the wedding at home, the night before the real event (Gilmore Girls). Seeing John give Lucy a dainty ring in a park on a regular day, eating halal on a bench, but with a heart full of love and gratitude, was a beautiful thing to see and pretty much is what love should be all about. It's simplicity and rawness.

I realized that this film is not really about the rich guy vs. the poor guy. It’s about how, even when the choice seems obvious, you can’t shake why you love a certain person. Love can’t always be rationalized — you just love someone, (good times, bad times, what have you) and for some people, that’s all they need.

I'm not saying I disagree with that — I actually do believe love should transcend the superficial. But in this economy? That’s a very risky message to send. For a film that was supposed to be grounded to realism, it felt a bit out of touch.

Harry's wasted character

One thing that didn’t sit well with me is how the film gave us almost nothing real between Harry and Lucy. He was perfect. Too perfect. He had no real flaws. He had no other likeable traits other than that he was rich and comfortable. He had nothing else of real depth and that did so much of a disservice to him as a character, which had so much potential. I would've expected the film to add more complexity to his personality but it didn't, other than that he was insecure with his height and his lifestyle made it difficult for him to find true, genuine love (who isn't?!). It felt like they did that on purpose — to make it easier for the audience (who are supposed to choose love over money) to root for John. I want to be clear: I’m not a materialistic person. I believe money isn’t everything. In fact, when promos for the movie came, I wanted her to end up with John. But the way it was handled just wasn’t convincing.

John always had a headstart

At the near end of the film, after she discovers that she didn't love Harry (and has this huge realization that they both see each other as more transactional, even after that amazing dinner date scene where they proved they were anything but), Lucy chooses John. But then why would she expect anything meaningful from her relationship with Harry, when they never gave each other the chance to go beyond surface-level intimacy? It's not fair to compare a new lover to a long-term ex-boyfriend. I'm not sure with the timeline of this film, but it definitely seemed like they were on the early stages of dating. All they did was sleep together and go on expensive dinner dates. No scenes of meeting each other’s friends or families. No instances of involving the other in their respective worlds (life or work). No emotional depth. The movie could have explored this more to give us a realistic view of why Lucy had to discern between the two men. As it was, the choice didn’t even feel hard — but also felt incomplete.

John and Lucy were built on familiarity

I don't understand why they found it groundbreaking for her to easily feel comfortable with him after so long. Of course it’s easy for her to run back to him — he’s the ex. They’ve been through everything together and shared a long history, so naturally, he has the emotional advantage over Harry. What was so special between their bond was their familiarity, something she could have had with Harry if they were given more time to explore their relationship. And yes, John was generally supportive and available, but everytime she had concerns, she ran to him (an ex) instead of her own boyfriend. With that chosen dynamic, how can you expect anything real from Harry when he's never aware nor informed about any of her concerns? She never gave him that chance to see her as a human being and to let him be a partner.

John loved her best, but deserved her least

And he knew that as well! I loved John, mostly because Chris Evans did his character so well. And though I tend to root for the underdog, this time I didn't. In all honesty, he rarely did anything to deserve her. And it's NOT just because of money, but mostly because of how his character poorly treated her until it was too late. For one, if a man forgets about our 5-year anniversary, and fights with me the whole car ride with a problem HE caused, telling me "I'm so difficult to please", that would be enough disrespect for me to deal with and I would not bother associating with him again. Even in present day, you could still see familiar patterns on bad worth ethics and immaturity. Her coming back to him, regardless if he's changed or not, felt excruciating to watch. It’s been a while since they broke up, and very little has improved from his life. Lucy pulled herself up, established a career, was able to sustain herself, and though her journey was nowhere near perfect, at least there was a lot of growth. But John? He stayed mostly the same. And what was insulting to me is it took Lucy to show up again for him to wake himself up and decide to do better. And there were a lot of words, but they all felt like empty promises. The film's job was to show us WHY he is worth coming back to but I think they focused too much on subtlety and ambiguousness that they failed to do so. At the wedding reception, he says the most genuine words to her, that "he'll love her no matter what". Beautiful words, true, but what are those without real actions? Her deciding to come back to all of that mess didn't feel romantic, but honestly felt like self-sabotage. The only reason that felt valid to me was that John's efforts/sacrifices felt more real than Harry's, since he never came from a silver spoon and had to work his ass off to survive day by day. But then again, what can you expect from Harry when they chose to make the character too boring to even prove himself? Anyways. This is a film. And this is Lucy's story so all I can do is standby and watch.

There was nothing challenging about her dilemma

Why? Because both men were not worth any of this confusion. In fact, I hoped she didn't end up with anyone. I almost thought she'd matchmake Sophie with John. Anything to make this film unpredictable. But clearly none of that happened. It was just A or B, nothing special about it. Either you choose the broke, troubled ex who disrespects/resents you or the rich, well-put new boyfriend who doesn't love you. Either way it's suicide. But hey at least the ex loves her right?

There was a real opportunity for the movie to explore that tension — to show Lucy wrestling with not just who she loves, but why she loves him, and whether that’s enough for the real world. Sometimes, love can be enough. And sometimes it’s beautiful to love someone regardless of circumstances. But shouldn’t the return on that emotional investment at least be worth the suffering? This is what When Life Gives You Tangerines did so well with the "love over money" narrative. Ae-Sun was very materialistic out of trauma, and Gwan-Sik, knowing he can't give her the material things she's always wanted, made sure she was constantly supplied with more intangible things instead: his love and constant support. He did all of that without complaining nor making Ae-Sun feel bad for wanting more, in the long years they were together. He just did real active work to make her happy, even if it wasn't necessarily on material things, enough to make her realize that his love was worth more than anything this world could buy. And he pulled none of the shit John (Chris Evans) pulled in Materialists. That's a man I'd choose over and over again, in a hundred different lifetimes. Personally, in John and Lucy's case, it wasn’t worth throwing everything you believed in for. But then again we all have different needs and wants and I think that was the point. I'm happy they found a common ground and did the necessary shifts in their mindsets for them to get there, but one thing's for sure, after this film I realized I would never put myself in that same situation because I have too much self-respect.

Her core beliefs changed too soon

Here’s a woman who completely restuctured her life and made it clear that she didn’t want to marry broke — that she wanted stability and comfort. Which is totally fine. It's okay to set a standard. So for her to suddenly change her mindset and throw all that away felt off. Yes, people can change — but this shift felt way too quick and unearned. John barely did anything significant to earn her back, other than being a good listener and always being there for her (which is the bare minimum!). And while those are good traits, Harry could’ve done the same for her if he had just been given the chance. But the film seemed set on deliberately making their relationship feel shallow and stale, which wasn't fair to the character.

Their characters weren’t as complex as I thought they'd be. Past Lives did this so well. You could totally understand why it was difficult for the protagonist to choose — both men offered something genuinely wonderful. In Materialists, Harry was clearly everything Lucy needed. If their relationship had been given more depth, he would’ve been perfect. But they didn't show this at all, so John would be the easy, obvious choice if you looked at this film in a "love over money" perspective. If you had a moral code, of course you'd choose love over financial stability. But the film rarely showed the realistic nuances of this. In a way, The Notebook executed this better, and that's saying a lot because I can't stand that film.

There's so much they could've done

This trope has been a tale as old as time. I love it when the girl chooses the poor guy — but only if he proves himself enough to deserve her and earn that spot back again in her life. A perfect example of this, for me, is Jess Mariano (Gilmore Girls). He was a deadbeat teenager, sure, but he came around as he got older. And no, he didn’t have to drive a sports car or go to Yale to be worthy of Rory — he just obviously did the work. He pursued what he loved without sacrificing who he was. Without disturbing Rory. In fact, he became her guiding light in a very difficult time. And although he's not the richest man in Rory's circle, his developed character arc proved that he was capable of getting his life together. Meanwhile, John had years to change. He had so much time to prove he’d gotten better. He's in his 40's! But he was still stuck in the same apartment, with the same job, in the same situation. And now, I'm not saying that people who follow their passion and didn't easily make it to their success don't deserve love, but I wish that while he was on his way to fulfilling his dreams, he didn't have to sacrifice her well-being too. It didn’t make sense to me that Lucy was willing to give up everything she’d built for him after everything. And seeing her come back to him, I could already tell how that relationship would go (the same way it ended), but that's another story.

They sold Lucy's character short

I get that her shift in mindset made her want less, and that gave John an edge for the relationship to work. But once again — that’s exactly why it's a dangerous message to send to our generation. Because it comes off as if things can only work between two people if one of them decides to want less. It says a lot how men enjoyed this film more than women. The idea feels cheap, and sets women back to years and years of progress. In the big year of 2025, I'm still watching beautiful, amazing female characters settle for a man who is leagues below her and now we get to have men bringing up this movie so they can make excuses for their shortcomings. We don't want that!

Conclusion

At the end of the film, although YES, it made me believe that love conquers all, (and that does work for some people), it felt like it was also telling the audience that wanting financial security in your relationships makes you materialistic, and you're doing love wrong. If you grew up without money and never had to struggle a day in your life to survive, you'd know that it's not just black and white. I've seen the discourse around this film, and everytime somebody disagrees with it, they're immediately labelled as "mAtErialisTic" or "sUpeRficiaL" which is a really weird take. I feel like modern western dating has distorted people's views on love and romance so much that as a Filipino woman, it surprises me how Americans found the "the numbers don't matter!!!!" idea so groundbreaking. My country is so poor and our options are very little, so this "lesson" is not new to us. That's probably why I found it so difficult to relate to the film because my culture hasn't gone that far into materialism that some would pay a person thousands to find love for them. In my country, you have no right to be picky, at least for superficial aspects, because none of us have a choice when you're not part of the upperclass! The closest thing we probably have to that is online dating, and that's not even that welcomed yet. Western dating on the other hand has the illusion of choice way too much and it's distorted the current generation's ideas of love. Seeing that montage of men and women listing down their requirements was so odd to watch and was pretty much unfamiliar territory. In short, the lesson here is not groundbreaking for my background, but at the same time, I'm very sick of that narrative. Wanting a comfortable life now feels like it's a personality problem. Try living in a 3rd world country then. I think I just wasn't the target market here.

It just really bothered me how the movie felt like there are only two extremes: to marry rich or poor, and there's no third other option where you just don't have to choose from either. Why can't I try to find both? Why can't I just stay single and not find my value in relationships? Lucy had her whole life ahead of her. New York is SO big. Did she really have to choose to settle with an ex-lover who clearly disrespected her multiple times?

This film wasn't completely bad, but there's definitely a lot if it that doesn't align with my core values, hence my strong opinions about it. It saddens me when people say that those who didn’t like this movie simply “didn’t get it,” and that we’re being boxed as being materialistic. As someone from a middle-class family, working with a minimum wage, paying monthly bills for basic needs, I'm never embarrassed for wanting financial stability in my life, and expecting it from a partner. It's not a requirement to have it all together immediately, but you have to at least show that you're capable of taking care of yourself. Is that bad? Is that a sin? Does that make me a shallow materialist? I don't think so.

The message wasn't really difficult to understand. And no, a good majority disagreeing with it doesn't mean we have "no media literacy". The truth is — we did get it. It was just executed poorly.

Nobody really cares, but after doing a lot of research, here’s my super unpopular opinion about the Mount Pulag fiasco—as read by someone who's just trying her best to care for the environment, little by little:

Part I. General Thoughts on the Matter

I have read and heard the opinions on both sides of the story. And as much as I understand the bond and emotional connection people have with Pugal, I also know and believe that protecting the environment should always come first. This online debacle could have been a chance for us to learn how non-native species affect ecosystems, but instead, people used it as an opportunity to shame someone who was only trying to share facts and advocate for conservation. And I think that’s really harmful to the work people have been doing for climate action. It concerns me how the public reactions aren’t grounded in science or facts. And honestly, this kind of response—even for a small issue like this—can set us back years in terms of biodiversity protection.

At the same time, I do hope efforts like this can be done with more empathy. There are more humane ways to protect wildlife while still acknowledging the locals’ emotional ties with Pugal. The original post could’ve been worded differently, since it’s clear that Pugal was very loved by many. The least we could've done is handle its removal with more grace and care, and not treat it like its the villain in this story. We can still honor Pugal's impact on the mountain, in many humane ways:

To educate rather than enforce. Pugal was a cat that was so loved by the locals and sought after by a lot of travellers, so it should not be surprising that his removal would cause a big reaction. Before conducting this so soon, an explanation showing ecological evidences and long term conservation goals for the area could have been well appreciated (and not in a self-righteous, I'm-smater-than-you kind of manner). Most people do not understand how complex the purpose for this is, so they could have been more careful and empathetic about the decision.

Proper rehoming. I think this has already been done based on the latest updates, but at this point, let's hope the feline will be well taken care of and is in the right hands, now that it's been removed from the area. The least we could do for it is give it the right circumstances (proper love, care, and shelter from the right owners) and allow it to transition easily, whatever works best, after living in the mountains for so long.

Creating a photo booth corner/exhibit for visitors so they can still see it without it being a threat to biodiveristy. That way, the beloved creature can still be honored and remembered.

On both ends, sometimes the intentions are good—but too much of any good thing can still be harmful. The way we communicate our advocacies matters. It can either invite support or drive people away, whether you’re fighting for conservation or animal welfare. No need for torches and pitchforks—just more sympathy for each other, and then real, informed action.

Part II. Debunking the arguments:

“Cats are part of nature too.”

Yes, cats are animals, but Pugal is not a lion or a tiger. It comes from a long line of felines bred specifically for domestication, not the wild. Pugal is not part of Mount Pulag’s ecosystem, no matter how long it’s lived there. And yes, while cats can be part of a food chain, this particular cat is not part of this ecosystem. If it encourages more people to welcome domesticated animals in the area, and if they breed/reproduce, it could harm or even wipe out local wildlife, or on worse scenarios, a whole species. That’s not just a theory—it’s happened countless times globally, in history. Invasive species can have lasting effects on our biodiversity and it's not so difficult to look it up (Check here or here).

“Humans are disturbing wildlife too.”

Yes, hikers, campers, poachers, and hunters can and do harm wildlife. They should absolutely be held accountable. But here’s the difference: humans can be educated, regulated, and penalized. You can’t give seminars to animals nor can you detain them. They can’t be controlled in the same way. So yes, address all threats, but don’t ignore one threat just because another exists. It just doesn't make sense.

Part III. The Conclusion

If we truly care about Mount Pulag, we should protect it completely—even if it makes us uncomfortable or emotional. We need to see the bigger picture above all else.

On the other hand, if we truly care about our pets, we need to give them safer, more stable homes. Leaving them to survive as strays in protected ecosystems isn’t care—it’s neglect disguised as kindness.

Real care means doing what’s best for both.

(If there's anything said that needs to be corrected, please do inform me. I'd like to hear more about this issue and keep the discussion going. David Attenborough, I hope you’re proud of me. LOL.)