fly-metojupiter

Latest Posts by fly-metojupiter

Review: Black Panther (2018)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

At first, I wasn't that impressed with Black Panther. Now, I am happy to tell you that I was wrong.

I think the reason I was initially underwhelmed by Black Panther is because I struggled to grasp both the big picture and all the nuances that Black Panther has to offer. I thought it was a mere origin story*, but in truth it is deeper than that.

While the production is excellent through-and-through, I thought the movie was a bit aimless at the start and only begin to find its direction after Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is revealed. But in retrospect, it actually all work with the theme. At first, T'Challa (the titular Black Panther, played by Chadwick Boseman) really is aimless. He just lost his father in a violent and traumatic event, and he struggled to find out the kind of King he wants to be.

One undisputable good thing about this movie is the characters and the actors who play them. Chadwick Boseman is as captivating as T'Challa/Black Panther when he was first introduced to us in Captain America: Civil War. Letitia Wright is the clear breakout star of this movie, as she displays equal level of intelligence and playfulness as T'Challa's little sister, Shuri. Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, and Angela Bassett all excellently play strong, confident women. And don't forget Michael B. Jordan, Winston Duke, Forest Whitaker, Martin Freeman, and Daniel Kaluuya who each believably play characters of their own convictions and believes.

It all get very interesting once we realize how the characters mirror or parallel each other. Most obviously, Killmonger is the opposite of T'Challa, but perhaps purely by circumstances. T'Challa grows up in the safe haven of Wakanda, while Erik Killmonger grows up in Oakland (one of the most dangerous US cities) knowing that his father's home country abandoned them. T'Challa has supportive family and community that includes strong, intelligent women, while Erik grows up without any role model to speak of. As good as Nakia's (Lupita Nyong'o) character is, she still disagrees with T'Challa and Okoye (Danai Gurira) on some level, and also has similarities with Killmonger's worldview. Shuri's youth scares M'Baku (Winston Duke) whose tribe fear that their technology could destroy them some day. I would not discuss the intricacies of the characters and their relationships at length (because there are already a lot of articles written about them by people more informed on the matter than me), but there are a lot of nuances and subtleties that speak not only of the fictional universe but also of our world, now. Story-wise--like I said before--Black Panther is not that impressive if we break it down beat-by-beat, but becomes infinitely more interesting once we consider the interactions between all of the characters.

The other best thing about Black Panther is its worldbuilding. Ryan Coogler (director) and his team had to create a new culture from the ground up--free of our inherent perception of what an African culture and nation should look like. In Marvel universe, Wakanda is the most technologically advanced nation in the world, hidden and untouched by the outside world including by collonialism. Visibly supported by a lot of research and care, Black Panther movie succeeded in showing us how that world would look like in the visuals that are fresh, believable and empowering.

TL;DR Worth to see Wakanda realized on-screen alone, Black Panther is a movie proud of its black heritage and filled with interesting, well-rounded characters.

-

*Yes, the character Black Panther first appeared in Captain America: Civil War, but for all intents and purposes the Black Panther movie is his origin story. In Black Panther, his entire worldview changes and his experiences in it shape who he is as a superhero and as a person for the rest of his life.

Review: Filosofi Kopi 2: Ben & Jody (2017)

Rating: 8.3 of 10

After two years of running traveling coffee shop, Ben (Chicco Jerikho) and Jody (Rio Dewanto) return and re-open Filosofi Kopi in Jakarta. An investor, Tarra (Luna Maya), and new employees bring new opportunities and new challenges.

I really like Filosofi Kopi 2. It’s is a good piece of Indonesian filmmaking, and while I do have some minor criticism towards it, ultimately Filosofi Kopi 2 succeeds in telling a satisfying story.

The biggest and most important part of Filosofi Kopi 2 is the cast. Chicco Jerikho and Rio Dewanto not only brought their A-game in acting, they also infused a lot of personality into their characters. Although the movie did have some efforts in developing Ben and Jody’s characters, the biggest part of their characters come from the physicality that both Chicco Jerikho and Rio Dewanto brought into screen. They really embody their characters perfectly.

But for me, the highlight is Luna Maya’s character. Tarra really surprises me–I often find female characters in Indonesian movies to be lackluster–but she is far from any female stereotype. Tarra is independent, eager to prove her worth to herself, doesn’t care what anyone thinks about her and doesn’t take shit from anyone. As the movie progresses, Luna Maya’s performance really sold Tarra’s depth as a character and she became probably one of my favorite parts of the movie.

Filosofi Kopi 2 also did excellent about the supporting casts. The supporting casts were carefully chosen, providing a lot of personality even for the small, tiny roles. It was clear that the director had a solid vision, and he constructed every little thing to support it. The music, supervised by legendary Indonesian musician Glenn Fredly, had a life on its own and enhances the moviegoing experience. Even the costuming and set design was on point and made the movie more alive.

However, Filosofi Kopi 2 is not without its flaws. It struggled at establishing the characters at first. The plot coasted a bit in the second act. There were also some rough editing moments, and some tiny details that I felt were a bit forced/out of character. However, they did not detract from nor betray the story and ultimately they were paid off by a strong third act.

TL;DR Filosofi Kopi 2 made a compelling story out of good characters with a boat load of personality.

Review: Crimson Peak (2015)

Rating: 8.5 of 10

In its barest bones, Crimson Peak is about a young American woman, Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska), who falls in love with a British aristocrat, Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston), with his own complicated relationship with his sister (Jessica Chastain) and mysterious heritage. Things aren't as straightforward as it seems, of course, and in Crimson Peak, it involves secrets and ghosts in the opulent house of Allerdale Hall.

Crimson Peak is gorgeous. Del Toro's (Pacific Rim, Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) movies are always exquisite in its visual, but Crimson Peak is the most outright beautiful. Rich in color and complex in its texture, the whole of Crimson Peak is a marvel to behold, most notably is their costume and the house of Allerdale Hall. The house itself (a three-storied house, built in a full 7 months, and has 2 complete sets of furniture of varying sizes depending on which scenes they shoot) is a real set built in Canada specifically for the film, and the little details put into it are mindblowing.

All that trouble paid off, thankfully (tenfold, if you ask me). The house has a deep, haunting atmosphere--magnifying its macabre. Despite not being a proper horror movie, Crimson Peak has imageries that haunt you for days if not for how eerie it was, then for how beautiful, or both. Honestly, it’s more than I can say for most horror movies.

One major flaw of Crimson Peak is that it’s not a horror movie, despite the fact that it looks like one and is marketed like one. Instead, it’s a love story that is not particularly scary, but is definitely on the creepy side.

Tom Hiddleston is effortless in playing the many sides of Thomas Sharpe--the dazzling lover, the struggling business man, and the ominous villain. I’m not usually a fan of Wasikowska, but here she is a perfect blend of everything Edith represents and I wouldn’t have her any other way. I was, however, underwhelmed by Jessica Chastain performance for most of the movie excepting maybe the final act. She’s the only chip on my shoulder that makes Crimson Peak isn’t perfect for me, but she doesn’t negate all the things the movie got right. In short, I honestly don’t get why people don’t seem to love it as much as I think it deserves.

TL;DR Creepy and weirdly sensual, Crimson Peak is a hauntingly beautiful piece of art.

Review: Nocturnal Animals (2016)

Rating: 7.0 of 10

Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) is a rich, successful gallery owner who is unhappy with her life and marriage, who suddenly receives an unpublished manuscript dedicated to her from her writer ex-husband, Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal). Nocturnal Animals tells the paralelling naratives between Susan and the lead character Tony Hastings (also played by Jake Gyllenhaal) in the novel.

Visually, Nocturnal Animals is achingly beautiful. Everything is minimalist but decadent, and at times shot not unlike a perfume commercial. At least, the parts with Amy Adams, because she does live in “that” world. The parts with Jake Gyllenhaal, however, is more grounded and mostly set in the desert or in a police station, and is more traditionally shot but not without its visual moments.

But story-wise, things are less... good. What is the movie trying to say? Honestly, I don't know. What purpose does the book storyline hold for the main story? What is Edward trying to say by sending Susan the book? During the movie we're left grasping at straws to figure out what it all means, and then the answer never comes. Don't get me wrong, a good movie does not have to spell out everything for its viewer, but it has to give us something to hold on to, and Nocturnal Animals give us nothing.

Amy Adams' character is cold and the environment is sterile, making it hard for us to relate. Jake Gyllenhaal’s performance is absolutely magnetic and his storyline affecting, but his character is rendered moot because he is only a character in a book. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is chillingly scary and is also a standout in this film, but he is a bad guy and does not help us to relate to our protagonists.

But the main thing that makes it so hard for us to relate for the characters is that because there's also no arc to speak of of the characters. Amy Adams' character stays constant throughout the whole movie (seriously, if 80% her scenes consist of her laying in bed or taking a bath, how much character growth do you expect) with maaaaybe a hint of change at the last 5 minutes, but then-cut to black! Due to the nature of his story, a lot of things happen to Jake Gyllenhaal's character as Tony but he has absolutely no agency in the story. 

To sum it up simply, in Nocturnal Animals there's no overarching theme, no character arc, there's not even an ending. Honestly, why should we care?

Okay, I lied, I could think of a couple themes about the movie, but none of it is well developed. One possible running theme is about loss, regret, and revenge, but it's not framed cohesively enough. Another possible theme is about wealth and decadence versus suffering for integrity, but then again, is woefully lacking in execution.

One nice thing I could say is that Tom Fords direction is exquisite, and I don't mean that just visually. He is able to build emotional moments and suspense, and bring out everything from Jake Gyllenhaal and Aaron Taylor-Johnson's performance (and they give a lot in their performances).

TL;DR But like I said, everything else in Nocturnal Animals is just... there. Even with its emotional moments, somehow all of it doesn't mean anything.

Review: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

So, if you live on Planet Earth, you have probably read reviews/heard from other people about how amazing Thor: Ragnarok is.

I’m not gonna be one of those people.

Alright, I don’t think it’s terrible either. I just think Ragnarok is okay, and somewhat on par with other “okay” Marvel’s Cinematic Universe (*cough* Ant-Man *cough*).

I could say that the one great thing about Ragnarok is that it has a lot of personality. The sin of previous Thor movies were that they were not only forgettable, they felt “cookie-cutter”. They felt like you’ve seen them before, and in fact you definitely have. Meanwhile, Ragnarok is definitely its own beast, and that is for sure thanks to Taika Waititi’s clear vision as director. His vision in infusing fun and humor is definitely something that Thor sorely needs. And that proved to work, as evidenced by its success both critically and commercially.

However, Taika’s brand of humor is not my brand of humor. Because the story is quite thin, Ragnarok definitely hinges a lot on its humor. So if you like Taika (see What We Do In The Shadows) then I guess you’ll like it, but if you don’t get the laughs then you won’t enjoy it as much. I’ve always said that Marvel movies are always unexpectedly funny, but although there were laughs, they were not usually at the expense of the characters. However, Taika likes to make fun of his characters, to the point that he makes them look quite foolish. He probably was trying to make them more “relatable” or something, but for me, they just make me respect our heroes less.

The villain is played by none other than Cate Blanchett. Cate Blanchett just has that enormous movie presence that makes every movie better, but her character Hela was not given the gravity it deserves. Given that Hela is Thor and Loki’s sister (and given what happened to their father Odin), Ragnarok is ripe for a real, emotional family story. But Ragnarok failed on that front. Sure, Ragnarok touches on that in one or two scenes, but they definitely were not enough. An emotional core like that should be ingrained in its story, but instead it just felt tacked on. Just because Ragnarok is a funny movie, that doesn’t excuse the lack of heart in this film. Just look at Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2. That movie was funny as hell, but the emotional content of that movie was through the roof. Sadly Ragnarok couldn’t do anything like that, instead Hela just felt like another Malekith (villain from Thor: The Dark World, if you don’t remember, who was not that good of a villain to begin with).

Ragnarok, though, definitely plays on Chris Hemsworth’s strength. Hemsworth is an incredible comedic actor, and he fits right in this new tone. I couldn’t grasp much of Hulk/Bruce Banner’s character in this movie, mainly because in-universe we have not seen him for 2 years. He has changed a lot but we were not given time to revisit his character more. Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie though, is really great! She is badass and memorable, and is definitely a worthy addition to MCU family. About Loki… I can’t believe I’m gonna say this, but I do think that Loki’s character has definitely run its course. Unless something happens to the character that changes him, I can’t see how Loki could add value to future Marvel movies.

TL;DR If you need some laughs, or you have 2 hours to kill, Thor: Ragnarok is definitely a great movie. But if you’re looking for something more emotionally profound, you’re not gonna get it here.

Mini-Review and Rant: Monsters University, Anti-femininity, and Some Other Stuff

So, this time I am going to have a little rant. I always think that feminism is important, but I usually try not to hit my readers over the head about it. But not today. Because oh boy, I have a lot to say about Monsters University.

I am not sure why Monsters University particularly irritated me. Probably because it’s Pixar, and I do expect better from them. Pixar is famous for producing high-quality, critically acclaimed children’s animation movies, some of which are my absolute favorites. They are also usually excellent at handling femininity and masculinity, and the majority of their movies are non-gendered (neither a girl’s film or a boy’s film). The second reason is probably because I just finished Pop Culture Detective’s thoughtful video essay about “The Complicity of Geek Masculinity on the Big Bang Theory”, so the topic about masculinity and femininity is fresh in my mind.

Anyway, let’s review Monsters University! (Includes spoilers for Monsters University and Monsters Inc.)

Monsters University (or MU for simplicity in this review/rant) is a prequel to Pixar’s Monsters Inc. (or simply Inc). MU tells the story about how Mike Wazowski and James P. “Sulley” Sullivan met in university, way before they worked for Monsters Inc. In MU, Mike is not a scary monster, but he is determined to be a Scarer and works hard for it. Sulley, on the other hand, is a preternaturally gifted Scarer and serves as Mike’s rival for most part of the film.

MU, on its own, is a good film. It has good set up, a definite arc, and satisfying conclusion. It has characters we care about, and it’s pretty funny too. But it’s when we think beyond the scope of the film that things start to get… shakey. First of all, the story arc of MU is immediately undermined by Inc. MU is about how Mike works to achieve his dream to be a Scarer in the company, but we know in Inc that Mike does not even get to be a Scarer. In Inc, Mike serves as Sulley’s partner, which is basically an assistant. So during MU’s runtime, we already know that all of Mike’s hard work in MU eventually will never pay off and he will forever live in Sulley’s shadow.

Also, Inc’s whole premise is about how Mike and Sulley revolutionize their industry by retiring Scream Energy and switching to Laugh Energy instead, because they met Boo. But instead, all of MU is about glorifying the act of scaring. I know, the events in Inc happens after MU, so Laugh Energy is not a thing yet, but there are ways to incorporate a more cohesive theme throughout the two movies. Probably one of their friends from Oozma Kappa could make an off-hand remark about how they wish there’s another energy source other than children’s scream–just something to foreshadow what will happen in Inc. But there’s no such thing in MU, instead MU is laser-focused at idolizing the scaring industry. Which, again, is fitting when we think about Mike’s arc in just MU, but completely falls apart once we consider the broader theme from Inc. 

And that’s all I can say about MU, from the filmmaking standpoint. From here on out, I want to discuss about the representation of social themes in MU. Let the rant begin!

Our protagonist is Mike. Kind, small, with big round eyes, and is underappreciated for his whole life. While the antagonists, the fraternity brothers of Roar Omega Roar or ROR (pictured above)--and also Sulley to a certain degree--are big and muscular, cocky, aggressive, and intimidating. I think it’s safe to assume that ROR is meant to represent the ultimate form of masculinity (they’re fraternity bros, for starters), and, as a consequence Mike and the Oozma Kappas (pictured below) represent a more feminine form of masculinity. You might accuse me of “reading too much into it”, which I think is fair assessment if every other little thing does not reinforce my point.

I also know what you’re thinking: Isn’t it a good thing for feminism, that our protagonists (Mike and the Oozma Kappas) are the more feminine of the bunch? Not in MU, because their whole arc is that they really, really want to be like Sulley and ROR. Also, the movie is relentless at making fun of characters for their femininity. In fact, baking and hospitality, which is usually viewed as a part of femininity, was literally spelled out loud as “L-A-M-E” by the movie. When the movie wants to make fun of a character, they used glitter, flowers, stuffed animals, heart signs, and dream journals with unicorn and golden stars.

The message of Monsters University is clear: masculinity is coveted, while femininity is viewed as lesser and deserves to be made fun of.

I think it’s no coincidence that there’s no notable female character in MU, aside from Dean Hardscrabble. Hardscrabble is one of the good things in MU–she’s legitimately scary, firm, but kind. Other smaller female roles are Squishy’s mother (who is mostly used as comic relief), and sorority groups HSS (the goth one, pronounced “hiss”, who I don’t even think has any speaking role) and PNK (pronounced “pink”, because they’re girls. GET IT??). PNK consists of six non-descript, identical cheerleader-type girls, because…. GURRLS, am I right?

In a comedy movie, it’s important to ask ourselves, “Who do we laugh at and, and who do we laugh with?” Answer: We laugh at the Oozma Kappas. Always. So eventhough Oozma Kappa eventually wins the Scare Games, the takeaway is that they won despite their more feminine form of masculinity, not because of it.

Which is a shame, because none of that animosity towards femininity exist in Inc. No character in Inc is outright masculine or feminine, except the ultra-feminine and flirty Celia (Mike’s girlfriend) but she’s never shown in a particularly negative light. Sulley in Inc is not even particularly masculine. In fact, his defining characteristics in Inc are his kindness and his paternal relationship with Boo.

And I want to emphasize that even though I am here to talk about the portrayal of femininity in MU, it is not about the women. It is about the men. With MU as example, it is clear that feminism is not just a woman’s fight–it’s everybody’s fight. Look at how miserable Mike’s life is in MU. Even though he is kind, smart, and works hard, he is belittled because he does not fit the standard definition of masculinity. Mike is only miserable because of the arbitrary societal rule of “how men should be like". So it is clear that misogyny not only affects women, it affects men too. As Emma Watson once wisely said (paraphrased) about feminism, we can only be truly free if women are allowed to be strong and men are allowed to be sensitive. But even in the end of MU, Mike and the Oozma Kappas still end up conforming to the idea of toxic masculinity.

There’s another thing that I want to discuss about MU. I did point out that the entire plot of MU is about glorifying the scaring industry, which is fine in itself because it fits Mike’s arc (a Scarer is not a real career choice anyway). But the movie also goes out of its way to depict other geekier career choices like scream-can architect, or more creative ones like dancer, as–for lack of better word–lame. So MU basically teaches children who watches the movie that a career in STEM and in Arts is neither an important nor fulfilling career choice (Direct quote from the Dean, “Scariness is a true measure of a monster. If you’re not scary, what kind of a monster are you?”). That’s totally not cool, Monsters University, not cool. (I could add a paragraph’s worth of rant about how MU depicted Scarer as an ultimate “masculine” career choice, but I digress. The article is as long as it is.)

So… yeah. This rant/review is all over the place because I have a lot of things to say, but I hope this will give you a new perspective. Pixar, you could do better.

Review: Jennifer's Body (2009)

Rating: 8.9 of 10

Jennifer (Megan Fox) is the most beautiful girl in Devil’s Kettle High School, while her best friend Anita “Needy” (Amanda Seyfried) is a frumpy, simple girl. Needy have been loyal to Jennifer for all of her life, but she just might have to fight Jennifer when she turned evil–not just “high school evil”, but “evil, evil.”

Let me say this: Jennifer’s Body is really good, but sadly it flopped at the box office (and received only lukewarm, some might even say negative, response from the critics), because nobody knew what to expect. The somewhat tacky poster gives the impression of a hormone infused B-movie, the demonic premise implies a scary movie, and the “comedy” label tacked-on on promotional pieces lead people to expect more laugh-out-loud moments. Instead, Jennifer’s Body is none of that–or all of that and more, depending on your point of view.

I would say the best way to describe Jennifer’s Body is that it’s a teen drama movie, with some horror/supernatural stuff mixed in. Think Mean Girls, but with actual murder. Both Jennifer’s Body and Mean Girls have the same wit, the same commentary on high-school female friendship dynamics, and the same emotional resonance between the two lead girls. Okay, Jennifer’s Body is not as funny as Mean Girls and not nearly as quotable, but I don’t think it was ever meant to be as funny as Mean Girls (I meant it when I said Jennifer’s Body barely qualifies as a comedy, but I do think Jennifer’s Body and Mean Girls have the same spirit). The horror stuff are an integral part of the story, but they’re clearly not meant to shock or scare you “just because”. It's pretty funny, but not at the expense of its story. It’s also sexy, but in the way that serves the story. At the core, Jennifer’s Body is just a drama between two friends–and a very effective one at that. It’s also worth noting that Jennifer’s Body is written and directed by women, and that makes Jennifer’s Body a uniquely female horror movie. I understand that not everybody’s gonna understand what Jennifer’s Body is trying to do, but I definitely enjoyed it. 

I also believe, it flopped because audiences have rock-bottom expectations of Megan Fox. Megan Fox has been the poster girl of bad movies and bad characters (although not nearly half of it are her fault), that people just assume that Jennifer’s Body will be terrible and not go see it. But after Amanda Seyfried’s flawless performance as Needy, Megan Fox is actually one of the highlights of the movie. Yes, her character Jennifer is shallow, promiscuous, and manipulative, but Fox played her with such degree of self-awareness that it’s a delight to see.

TL;DR If you’re looking for a fun, sexy horror movie with emotional weight, Jennifer’s Body might be the one for you.

TV Shoutout: Killjoys

What it is about: Bounty hunters Dutch (Hannah John Kamen) and John Jaqobis (Aaron Ashmore) are the best Killjoys working at their side of the galaxy. But a warrant involving John’s brother, D’avin (Luke Macfarlane), lead them to new adventures.

Why you should watch it: Killjoys, contrary to what the name might suggest, is just so much fun. Killjoys never take themselves too seriously, but they never, ever insult your intelligence. It’s just the perfect blend of action, humor, crazy stories, and great characters.

No kidding, Dutch is my favorite female character in TV, ever. She’s the baddest of all badasses–and nobody is gonna argue her for that. She’s strong and tough and soft in the way that I rarely see from other badass female characters.

Her relationship with John is also one of my favorites. They have extremely strong bond as working partners, which serves as the heart of the show. Their relationship is platonic, but extremely warm. Also, John is a badass nerd, so I automatically like him anyway.

Also, set in a somewhat far future, the worldbuilding in Killjoys is amazing. The world feels otherwordly, worn, and lived-in–and most importantly, alive. Believe me, sexy monks is a thing in Killjoys, but they absolutely don't feel out of place. Interplanetary politics, space monk, warlord bartender, killer harem–all of it are in Killjoys, and they all make excellent ingredients to make entertaining stories.

Who should watch it: Anyone who wants fun TV with badass characters! And obviously, sci-fi/space opera fans who yearns for something fresh.

Where you should start: Honestly I think you’re gonna be fine watching any episode because they’re gonna be so much fun you wouldn’t mind if you don’t understand a few things, but like anything worth watching, for best experience start from the first episode for the characters. I guarantee you won’t regret it.

Status: Season 3 ongoing.

Review: War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

15 years after the breakout of Simian Flu (in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, or “Rise” for simplicity)--which leaves most of human population dead and the apes’ intelligence uplifted, the ape society that Caesar (Andy Serkis) lead is forced to hide in the forest after Koba’s--Caesar’s former frenemy--fateful attempt to wage war against humans (in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, reviewed here). In War for the Planet of the Apes, Caesar still tries to prove that the apes meant no harm. But then, one particularly vicious attack changed him forever.

Based on the title, I fully expected for the movie to be about an all out war between the apes and humans, but I was definitely wrong. In fact, “War” is basically the complete opposite of that. Although the scene began with a brutal attack between apes and humans, the rest of “War” is a very quiet, introspective movie of Caesar’s conflicted mind, and somehow the titular war is actually between two factions of human groups. But I figured thematically it makes sense, since “Dawn” was all about the war between two factions of the apes.

Science fiction is the best when it explores humanity through a new lense, and “War” is definitely one of those instances. We see apes dealing with every kind of human emotion, and we see the humans coping with the rise of new intelligent species and possible extinction. “War” is a very interesting study of human and humanity, although I must say it’s not the most fun movie, to say the least.

If there’s any flaw about the movie, it’s the extremely bleak view of humanity, to the point that it feels forced. Colonel’s (Woody Harrelson) faction of humans are basically the living embodiment of the worst side of humanity, while Caesar continues to make worse and worse decisions. Which is a shame, because “Dawn” used to have a much more nuanced discussion of the matter. I mean, “War” work extremely well as a grand study of humanity, but I do find myself wishing the movie would have chosen a slightly different perspective. 

TL;DR It does make for an excellent sci-fi and a moving movie experience, but I did walk away from the cinema feeling incredibly sorrowful, instead of hopeful for a new day. But it definitely speaks of the strength of the movie that it could move me so much. I still would definitely recommend this movie, although maybe, get the tissues ready.

Review: Cek Toko Sebelah (2016)

Rating: 7.0 out of 10

Cek Toko Sebelah is the second feature film from Ernest Prakasa, an Indonesian stand-up comedian turned writer/actor/director. Cek Toko Sebelah tells the story of Erwin (Ernest Prakasa), a succesful young man on the verge of a promotion, his screw-up brother Yohan (Dion Wiyoko), and their father Koh Afuk (Chew Kin Wah) who leaves Erwin with his small business.

Cek Toko Sebelah has a simple but powerful premise, and it has a promising start. It establishes characters pretty well, filled with witty dialogue including some laugh-out-loud moments, but everything seems to go downhill from there. Ultimately, Cek Toko Sebelah is a typical Indonesian movie, played out in a typical Indonesian fashion: very linear, unimaginative storyline with one dimensional characters. In Cek Toko Sebelah, the story writes itself, and not in a good way. Everything plays out basically exactly like you'd expect with little to no surprises, especially during the first and second act. The characters' storyline does not intertwine in any meaningful way, with minimal character development. The movie does offer good laughs, but everything else is not enough for me. Fortunately on the third act, things started to get a little more exciting, and it does slightly redeems itself.

What's frustrating is, Cek Toko Sebelah has the potential to be an extremely good character-based family drama/comedy. Instead, it only reaches for the easy low hanging fruit, and is either unwilling, or unable to aim higher. Erwin's character is ripe for conflict, but ultimately, he has given nothing to lose. The writer thinks that everything that's being thrown at Erwin is conflict, but Erwin is not given time to process it--and neither was the audience--so ultimately they did not become conflict. They were just stuff. Stuff that happens. Cek Toko Sebelah is a film that does not dare to hurt the characters, therefore it becomes a relatively uncompelling viewing experience. Yohan's dark past is hinted, but is wholly unexplored, and the movie is afraid to put obstacles in front of him. Natalie (Gisella Anastasia), Erwin's girlfriend, has exactly one purpose in the movie (being the nagging girlfriend), and the only attempt to give Ayu (Adinia Wirasti), Yohan's wife, a dimension besides being, y'know, "Yohan's wife", falls flat. The only compelling character is Koh Afuk, largely because of Chew Kin Wah nuanced portrayal. This father figure is not perfect: reserved, cynical, stubborn, but he cares deeply about his family and his employees. He does not say much, but Kin Wah was able to carry it all with authenticity and wit, that we could not help but to fall in love with his character.

Aside from family, there's another theme explored in this movie: living as a Chinese-Indonesian in Indonesia. On that account, Cek Toko Sebelah is very successful in showing the nuances of their everyday lives. Ernest Prakasa himself is Chinese-Indonesian, and he frequently talks about it back from his stand-up comedy days, so it's not surprising. Diversity overall, is a win here. But there are also some problematic social treatments in this movie. I was really hoping that this movie would be above resorting to male gaze for jokes, but with how the males treat Anita's (Yeyen Lidya) character repeatedly, apparently not. In general, the female characters in this movie are uninspired at best. It also features typical Indonesian representation of an LGBT character (a comic relief that other characters laugh at), which while it is funny, only cements the stereotype.

I hope I do not come across as mean or nitpicking, or unsupportive of local films. I really, really do hope for quality filmmaking in Indonesia and this is my way of supporting it. TL;DR Cek Toko Sebelah offers good diversity, some pretty funny moments, but serviceable characters.

Web Shoutout: Off Camera with Sam Jones

Welcome to Web Shoutout, a series highlighting interesting places in the interwebs about movies and filmmaking! (Check out the previous Web Shoutout here).

Off Camera is a show, podcast, and magazine hosted by photographer Sam Jones. It is an amazing interview show, with various guests from the entertainment industry--mostly from actors.

Off Camera always provides a fascinating look inside their heads. Sam Jones is a brilliant host--naturally inquisitive, respectful, and is always well-researched--and with his help, we are able to truly understand his guests as a human being: what drives them, what influenced them, what makes them tick. His guests include Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jake Gyllenhall, Andrew Garfield, Ellen Paige, Krysten Ritter, Aaron Paul, Cindy Crawford, Aubrey Plaza, Matt Damon, Tatiana Maslany, Imogen Poots, and a lot of others.

If you remember the Actors on Actors interviews that I mentioned a while back, it’s a bit hard to pinpoint the difference between the two because themes vary with each conversations. But if I can summarize, Actors on Actors usually talk about their craft and how they do it, while Off Camera talks about their experiences as a person and why they do what they do. Either way, both are fascinating interviews, and Off Camera is well worth checking out.

Off Camera is a show on DirecTV and U-verse, and is also fully available on their website to watch with a fee. Short excerpts are available on Youtube, but sadly not the full interview. Five of the seven seasons are also available as a full audio interview on Soundcloud.

1. Kristen Bell: "I Grew Up Thinking The World Was Black and White"

2. Dax Shepard Shares Painful Relationship with His Dad

3. What No One Told Ethan Hawke About Being Famous

4. Olivia Wilde Knew She'd Be an Actress

5. Tony Hawk on Talent vs. Motivation

Web Shoutout: Actors on Actors

Welcome to Web Shoutout, a series highlighting interesting places in the interwebs about movies and filmmaking! (Check out the previous Web Shoutout here).

This time I want to talk about Variety’s Actors on Actors series on Youtube. These days, I think most people seem to forget that acting is an art--and a very challenging one at that. It’s easy for us to forget about that and get lost in the glitz-and-glam part of a celebrity life, because they don’t really get to talk much about the craft of acting. Most interviews that we see are either promotional interviews or a 5-minute conversation in a talk show (that undoubtedly will include a cute random trivia). Which, they’re not inherently bad but they always leave me wanting more

Distinguishing itself from those kinds of interviews, I find Actors on Actors incredibly delightful to see, if only because it brings me so much joy to see a conversation between two people that relate and respect one another. Obviously, we also get to hear in-depth stories about their experiences as an actor, the roles that they picked, and how they do their craft. I’ll just leave you a with several videos to enjoy, and also don’t forget to take a look at their channel and Actors on Actors playlist.

1. Ryan Reynolds and Taraji P Henson - Full Conversation

2. Andrew Garfield and Amy Adams - Why Playing Spider-Man Broke Andrew Garfield’s Heart

3. Octavia Spencer and Dev Patel - Full Conversation

4. Benedict Cumberbatch and Edward Norton - Full Conversation

Subscribe to Variety’s channel.

Review: Arrival (2016)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

When aliens come to earth, how do we talk to them? Arrival tries to answer the question with Amy Adams starring as Dr. Louise Banks, an American expert linguist. When 12 spaceships landed on earth for no apparent reason, she and a team that includes theoretical phycisist, Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner), had been assigned with the difficult task to determine whether those aliens meant peace or harm.

Amy Adams plays Louise with restraint, but full of determination and no less affecting. Louise Banks is the heart and soul of this film, as she not only acts as our eyes and ears, but is also responsible for the tone of their whole mission. Unsurprisingly, governments want to attack as soon as possible for fear of invasion, but as the people around her grow more wary and anxious, her equanimity convinces them to remain peaceful--to keep communicating.

Arrival is a quiet film whose real action only comes in the form of a single explosion, but it is by no means devoid of tension. The first few minutes, as we and Louise found out about the alien landing was absolutely chilling, and more and more pressure is felt as Louise is forced to create results. Arrival is a story about big ideas, but it is especially moving because ultimately, it’s a story about Louise and her experiences. However, there are bits and pieces that feel superfluous at first, but ultimately they pay off wonderfully at the end.

Arrival's imagery is the kind that will stay with you. It's visual strikingly beautiful, sometimes interposed with dreamlike flashbacks--accompanied with atmospheric score by Jóhann Jóhannsson. There is an ethereal quality about the film, without forgetting how to ground the characters and how to create tension when there need be. Some of the film's memorable imagery comes from the oval spaceship floating above green pasture, surrounded only with open air that is both calming and threatening.  It's directing (by Denis Villeneuve) is calculated but tender, creating a seamless journey from beginning to end. Arrival proves that no matter how a story ends, there is a journey worth taking.

Review: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2017)

Rating: 9.8 of 10

We all know how it ends. Princess Leia got ahold of the plans to the Death Star, a moon-sized weapon capable of destroying an entire planet, which she then give to R2-D2 at the beginning of Star Wars: A New Hope. This is a story of that first victory of the Rebels.

While the Star Wars trilogies focus on the Force-wielding people, Rogue One is the story of the struggle of the ordinary people. The closest thing to a “Chosen One” character is Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), daughter to Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen), a high-ranking officer of the Empire. But while his father had sympathy for the Rebel’s cause, Jyn has grown apathetic since she was left abandoned at 16 years old. She has connections, but it was her choice to help the Rebels that determines her character.

Other characters include Captain Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), a true believer of the Rebel’s cause with willingness to do anything for it; K2SO (Alan Tudyk), an unlikely friend in the form of reprogrammed Imperial droid; Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen) and Baze Malbus (Jiang Wen), a couple of warrior monks and sworn protector of the Kyber Crystals; and Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed), a defecting Imperial cargo pilot.

This is Star Wars, like you can live and breathe in it. Rogue One is definitely grittier than the trilogies, more grounded–less quip from the likes of Han Solo, no flashy lightsaber fights, or even the cuteness of a BB-8. It’s street-level Star Wars, but Rogue One does have lighter moments too (’I’M BLIND!’ is definitely the best line the movie IMO), and it is most definitely not without hope.

Hope, after all, is the stuff that Star Wars is made of. These people do not need to have the Force, or be the best of anything, they are just willing to do what it takes to make a difference and change the galaxy for the better. Nothing is going to be easy, and maybe not everyone is going to make it until the end, and yet, somehow it’s all going to be worth it. Devoid of Jedis or a Chosen One, Rogue One only has characters distinguished by their believes and their choices, and that’s okay. That’s kinda the point.

Rogue One did excellently to introduce us to all these new characters, and we fall in love with each of them effortlessly, each for different reasons. Most importantly, Rogue One succeeded in accomplishing what prequels and spin-offs should always do: make the universe feel bigger, more fleshed out. In it, we get to see the different corners of the galaxy and the people who inhabit it–the people who built and lived by it. I found Saw Gerrera (Forest Whitaker), an almost Vader-like rebel extremist leader, to be a very interesting part of Star Wars history (We'll get to see more of him in Star Wars: Rebels series!).

Rogue One had to do so many things for it to succeed. It had to live up to the legacy of the original and prequel trilogies, not to mention The Force Awakens; fit the timeline and canon; and tell a compelling story with entirely new characters. It succeeded in all accounts. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story maybe is not a perfect movie (because nothing is), but to me it is a perfect Star Wars story.

Review: Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them (2016)

Rating: 8.8 of 10

Five years after the last Harry Potter movie, and fifteen years after the first, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is the first cinematic continuation of the universe that does not directly include Harry Potter himself.

In the center of the movie is Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, a mild-mannered beasts expert from the British Ministry of Magic. He has this demeanor about him—a little hunched back, soft spoken, never really look at people straight on—that is so endearing you’d never want to take your eyes of him whenever he’s on screen. He befriends Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), a wide eyed No-Maj who dreams of something bigger; Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), a quirky yet determined MACUSA employee; and Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol), Tina’s sister and coworker and a bubbly mind-reader. Fantastic Beasts is full of fun and memorable secondary characters that help make the universe felt so rich. 

Also, we get to see the culture of wizardry in the US and the workings of MACUSA  (US’s version of Ministry of Magic), that includes an Auror played by Colin Farrell (he is unexpectedly perfect as a wizard, and also has the coolest outfit. Although I may or may not want to steal everybody’s wardrobe from this movie). The titular wild creatures are also infinitely weird, cute, and strangely endearing. 

Fantastic Beasts is not a perfect movie, but honestly, you won’t really care. The second act should feel draggy and aimless, but the whole time you’d be too busy being mesmerized by all the wonders and charm the movie, the beasts, and the characters had to offer. By all means, Fantastic Beasts will definitely fill that Harry Potter-shaped void in your heart.

There are 2 major plots in Fantastic Beasts: Plot A is about Newt and his friends running throughout New York to find his missing beasts, while Plot B is about Grindelwald and the Second Salem movement that will eventually tie into the rise of Voldemort in later years. They both have very different atmostphere about them, and it’s pretty amazing that they didn’t feel disjointed at all. Newt’s subplot with the creatures and his friends is cute and charming, while the Second Salem goes way, way darker than you’d expect.

Ultimately, Fantastic Beasts is a fluff piece. It’s cute and light and whimsical (when it’s not directly tied to Grindelwald) but I wouldn’t have it any other way. As of now, there are talks for sequels that will focus further into the story of Grindelwald, and less into Newt Scamander. That makes me sad, really, because it’ll be a shame to say goodbye to these lovable characters and creatures.

TLDR; Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is as whimsical as you'd expect from Harry Potter universe, and indeed, fantastic. (I regret nothing writing that.)

Review: Doctor Strange (2016)

Rating: 8.5 out of 10

Benedict Cumberbatch is Stephen Strange, a hot-shot neurosurgeon turned master of sorcery, in this latest installment of Marvel Cinematic Universe.

While Thor was being coy about magic and claiming that science and magic are the same in his Thor movies, Doctor Strange (the movie, not the character) never argues about it. Yes, Stephen Strange is a doctor and a skeptic, first and foremost, but as he became a believer, so did we as the audience. From that moment onward, magic was never questioned. And boy, what a pretty magic they were.

Remember Inception? Remember the mind-trippingly iconic manipulation of cities and buildings in that movie? Crank those images you have in your mind to 11, and you'd get something resembling the pure beauty of magic in Doctor Strange. They're gorgeous, dynamic, and intensely mesmerizing. Even when Strange is not running from buildings rolling down the street, or running up in the ceiling, the visualization of magic in Doctor Strange is just breathtaking--and especially, unique.

The cast is also a huge part of why the movie works. Benedict Cumberbatch is subdued enough, but with enough levity and charisma to be an iconic Marvel superhero. (And the fact that he looks almost exactly like the comic book character doesn't hurt either). Chiwetel Ejiofor and Benedict Wong are the perfect sidekicks, and Rachel McAdams is the perfect grounding character. I’m not too pleased with how they leave her character, but McAdams is great. Mads Mikkelsen and his sinister kind of charisma makes a memorable villain, even if he doesn't talk much. Forgetting the controversy around the casting of The Ancient One, Tilda Swinton is reliably splendid as the mystical character.

But while it has pretty solid characterization and plot, enjoyment of Doctor Strange depends mostly on visually immersive experience. For me, the story itself almost felt like a TV pilot. It's basically 100% set up, with teasers of what he might be like as a full-fledged Marvel superhero in the future. Doctor Strange is not a bad standalone movie at all, it's just almost meaningless if you don't take into account that we'll be seeing him again in future installments. However, I don’t mind much because I really do think Doctor Strange is a new stepping stone in MCU, in terms of accepting magic. It has an excellent world-building that doesn’t detach itself from the rest of franchise, and the visual is worth every penny.

I suggest you to see it either in 3D (if you like 3D movies at all, although maybe beware with motion sickness if you’re sensitive) because I think it'll be gorgeous, or at least see it in a good middle seat in your trusty cinema to get the most immersive experience. I saw it in cinema with crappy sound, and I really, really wish I had a different experience.

TL;DR Full of magical visual, Doctor Strange is one more solid Marvel origin story.

Review: The Nice Guys (2016)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

From director Shane Black, comes The Nice Guys, a tale about private investigators, Holland March (Ryan Gosling) and Jackson Healy (Russel Crowe), who comes together to solve a mystery.

If you’re familiar with a Shane Black film, then you’d know that he is a master at black humor and action-comedy, and this film is no exception. Most of you probably has seen his characteristic blend in Iron Man 3, but the project that resembles most to The Nice Guys is definitely his cult-favorite directorial debut, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (that incredibly fun film starring Robert Downey Jr, Val Kilmer, and Michelle Monaghan).

Instead of RDJ and Val Kilmer as the central pair, this time we have Ryan Gosling and Russel Crowe, who both owned their characters. Just when I thought Ryan Gosling probably doesn’t have much range outside of being a stoic or a ladies man, here he’s amazingly perfect as March, a mildly competent private investigator and somewhat terrible father. Russel Crowe also nailed his character as Healy, a straight-to-business kind of guy without being too serious. Teen actress Angourie Rice (also set to appear in the next Spider Man movie, Homecoming) is pitch perfect as March’s daughter. In fact, she serves as the hero of the film as she provides a much needed heart of the film--not just through her relationship with her father but also with her new friendship with Healy.

The strength of this film is definitely in the chemistry between the characters, although the movie doesn’t delve much into their background, which is a bit of a bummer. Plot is amazingly bizarre, but if you’ve seen Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, probably isn’t too surprising. In fact, one criticism I could say for The Nice Guys is that it feels too similar to (and couldn’t surpass) Kiss Kiss Bang Bang--although that probably isn’t a bad comparison for any movie to have. The Nice Guys does have a certain flair to it because of its period setting, but I have to say, The Nice Guys is not nearly as quotable as Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

TL;DR The Nice Guys is a solid dark comedy-slash-action movie with great (not necessarily likable, but relatable) characters.

Review: 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

10 Cloverfield Lane is about 3 people, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Howard (John Goodman), and Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), who are trapped in a bunker because of some mysterious attacks that poison the air above ground.

If the title sounds a bit familiar, it’s because 10 Cloverfield Lane is named after 2008 film, Cloverfield. But wait! It’s not a sequel or prequel, instead 10 Cloverfield is a “spiritual successor” or “blood relative” of Cloverfield, according to producer JJ Abrams. Honestly, that sounds incredibly confusing and pretentious–usually jargons like those are red flags–but trust me when I say 10 Cloverfield Lane is good. In fact, it’s a great movie and it’s one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in recent years.

I was skeptical when I heard this “Cloverfield 2″ project was happening because while I loved Cloverfield, it had too many gimmicks (the found-footage format, viral marketing, always-on-the-corner-of-your-eye monsters) for it to work the second time. I’m happy to tell you that 10 Cloverfield is nothing like the original Cloverfield. It’s a whole new story and setting, with a set of new characters. So if you wanted a Cloverfield sequel then you need to adjust your expectations, but that also mean those of you who hated 2008′s Cloverfield with a passion (or have never seen that movie and couldn’t care less) can see 10 Cloverfield without reservation.

I WON’T tell you anything about the story in 10 Cloverfield Lane. The best thing you can do is to go in blind, and experience the ride you’re going to have without any spoilers. Don’t read any spoiler-filled review, don’t look up any interview, don’t watch the trailers on Youtube. Just go off the internet and watch this movie as soon as you can. In fact, just in case you need a small taste of the movie to convince you that you need to see this movie (it’s also worth noting that this movie currently sits at 90% in Rotten Tomatoes), I’ll share you this teaser trailer–and only this. Don’t look up any other trailers, because  the other trailers still reveal too much.

10 Cloverfield Lane sets up an unsettling vibe from the very beginning, that you could never quite shake off even when the movie gives you a warm, cuddly scene. In a movie that is set in claustrophobic bunker, the movie never goes to places you expect. There are so many twists and turns, and then there’s the ending. The ending has a MAJOR twist, that frankly, some people might think is too jarring. I, for one, loved the twist. In fact, that’s why I love this movie so much. It gives an excellent dramatic payoff that lines itself quite nicely with the franchise, and it brings an added perspective into an already layered story.

Was the threat chemical? Nuclear? Was it human? Monsters? Aliens? Throughout the movie you’d keep guessing, and the best thing about 10 Cloverfield Lane is that whatever answer you have in your head, you’d still be surprised. 10 Cloverfield Lane also tend to give you hints and not straight answers, and that is one of the reason the movie has so much depth than you’d expect.

TL;DR Crafted with masterful writing, acting, and direction, 10 Cloverfield Lane is an intense thriller that you don’t want to miss.

Review: Finding Dory (2016)

Rating: 9.4 of 10

The forgetful blue fish from the critically acclaimed Finding Nemo is back, now in her own feature film called Finding Dory.

I have to say that I've been conditioned to hate on unwanted sequels--a symbol of lack of creativity in Hollywood. Franchises are one thing, but to have a completely self-contained story that someone decided to make more of it out of the blue because of, well, money, doesn't sit well with me. Of course, Pixar did make Toy Story 2 and 3 which were excellent, but they also made Cars 2. So I was most surprised at myself that when I walked out of the theater, I quickly decided that Finding Dory might be one of my favorite Pixar film. As someone who didn't love Finding Nemo (it was good, but not special), it was a big deal.

Finding Dory's premise is familiar, but with a twist. Instead of father, Marlin (Albert Brooks), looking for his son Nemo (Hayden Rolence) in the original movie, in this movie Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) looks for her parents who she can only remember fleetingly. Dory's short term memory loss was used mostly as comic relief in Finding Nemo, but her disability is the main focus and theme in Finding Dory .

Finding Nemo had hints of it from the start. Nemo had an unusually small fin--which was almost never addressed, nor did it ever become a hindrance for him, which I liked. But Finding Dory managed to delve into the idea of dealing with your disability much, much more deeply. Having a comedic protagonist with short term memory loss syndrome might sound limiting and frustrating, but Finding Dory handled it with care, sensitivity, and wit that it actually becomes thoughtful and poignant--more than any kids movie have any right to be, even by Pixar's standards. Naturally, the movie presented all the unique ways Dory overcome her unique condition, but it goes deeper than Dory herself. Basically all the other supporting characters has limitations one way or another; from the octopus with only 7 limbs, the near-sighted white whale, to the beluga with echolocation problems, and some others. Finding Dory is a world without perfection, and that's okay.

The plot itself bears resemblance maybe mostly to Toy Story, aside from obviously Finding Nemo. It relies on Dory's loss of memory and remembrance a whole lot, but it still works because of its fast pace and enormous heart. The script itself is masterfully deviced. It uses flashbacks most effectively, but most notably, it pulls details from the original movie then proceed to turn them around on their head.

Finding Dory might not be filled with perfection, but it's definitely gorgeous. I especially loved whenever we're showed the big stretches of ocean because they always look exactly like how I imagine the ocean would be; big, scary, and beautiful. 

Maybe the reason I connected with Finding Dory much more than Finding Nemo is simply because I relate to being a daughter better than being a parent (I'm not a parent yet here). Also, Dory's frantic energy definitely is a plus for me (as opposed to Marlin's neuroticism in 'Nemo), because of the sense of urgency it gives to the movie. But the one true superpower of Finding Dory is indeed its ability to elevate Dory from a thinly written supporting character into a compelling protagonist.

TL;DR A movie full of heart-racing and heart-pulling moments, Finding Dory is a fun yet poignant movie about accepting yourself and pushing your limits.

Review: Room (2015)

Rating: 9.3 of 10

Room is the whole world. At least that's how it is for Jack (Jacob Tremblay) who was born to his mother Ma (Brie Larson), in the whole 5 years of his life. They are, of course, held captive in a 10 ft. by 10 ft. space but Jack doesn't know that. What he knows is that Room is the whole world, there is him and his mother, and then there are the TV planets, and that's it.

Room guides us in the first half of the movie, as we see how exactly Ma and Jack live their bizarre lives, day to day, while Ma tries to give her son a sense of normalcy. Jack greets their furniture every morning as they are the only friends he has--in tight close-ups that almost feels claustrophobic, but also, in a sense, comforting. In Room, Ma is the one pillar of normalcy that Jack has, and Jack is the only thing left worth fighting for in her life. Brie Larson is amazing in this, continuously displaying strength, desperation, and sadness that a mother should have. She eventually won Best Actress in Academy Awards 2016 for her performance.

After a chilling escape (it's not really a spoiler, it's in the trailers), we finally see how Jack and Ma adjust themselves to the real world. The movie handles this part sensitively and with respectful ambiguity, as we and the characters realize that being free doesn't mean instant happiness. (How okay could you be after 7 years of captivity?) There’s the inevitable media circus, the happy and apprehensive family members, and a real question of whether or not Jack and Ma will ever be able to lead normal lives, and so on. But even so, there's a palpable sense of hope, and an unbreakable sense of love living between the mother and the son.

Unmistakably, Room selects incredible talent from director Lenny Abrahamson (Frank: reviewed here); writer Emma Donoghue (who also wrote the original best-selling book); cinematographer Danny Cohen (The Danish Girl); and also actors Brie Larson (Short Term 12: reviewed here, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Joan Allen (the Bourne series), and last but not least, Jacob Tremblay. Jacob Tremblay as Jack displays incredible nuance to his character: wide-eyed, scared, and confused, but exudes hope and innocence. His acting is a bit of an incredible thing to witness, especially remembering he is such a young actor. All of those talents combined in one film, really makes an outstanding, fearless movie with deceptively light touch of the matter at hand.

TL;DR A drama with an unmistakable sense of honesty, Room is the kind of movie that will stay with you for days.

Review: Hail Caesar! (2016)

Rating: 7.9 of 10

The latest film by producer-writer-director duo, Ethan and Joel Coen (The Big Lebowsky, No Country For Old Men, Inside Llewyn Davis), Hail, Caesar! is not an easy film to explain at first glance. It doesn't have a clear, definable premise, except maybe this decidedly vague description in its synopsis: Hail, Caesar! follows a single day in the life of a studio fixer who is presented with plenty of problems to fix.

I may warn you now that this review is written by someone who's not a fan of Coen Brothers work--but I'd also remind you that I always, always try to see movies objectively. Their movies are always artistically and narratively outstanding, but I always find their movies to be a tad too uncomfortable for my taste. There's actually an excellent video essay (by Every Frame a Painting, watch it here) on exactly how Coen Brothers’ shots differ from “standard” filmmaking, which actually made me feel relieved because it turned out there's an actual cinematographical reason on why I don't like to see their films despite them being of high quality.

But Coen Brothers don't really care about making things "commercial" or "accessible", they just do what they want to do--and in result they always succeed in making one-of-a-kind movies with singularly unique voice. They are experts in what they do so it’s no wonder that the critics love them, and in a lot of ways, The Coen Brothers are the guardians of the art of filmmaking.

Now back to the actual movie. Set in the 1950s, the leads are played by Josh Brolin as studio man Eddie Mannix, and George Clooney-in-silly-haircut as actor Baird Whitlock. There are also a number of cameos from big stars like Scarlett Johansson, Tilda Swinton, Ralph Fiennes, Channing Tatum (in a scene that included singing and tap dancing), Jonah Hill, and more. If that sounds a bit sporadic, it’s because Hail Caesar! is indeed somewhat sporadic, if only because of the nature of the story. The crux of the story is about George Clooney’s character who is kidnapped, but there are a lot of things going at once that are only connected by the end of the film. However, with a lot of things going on, they do not feel jumbled or overstuffed at all. Especially with how gleefully absurd those cameos are, you don’t really mind because they really do make the soul of the movie.

There are a lot of talents involved in this movie, but there are definitely some standouts worth mentioning such as Alden Ehrenreich (soon to be young Han Solo in upcoming Star Wars prequel movie), Veronica Osorio, Channing Tatum, and Tilda Swinton who are just charming in each of their roles. In midst of deadpan hilarity and caricatured characters, Coen Brothers also managed to sneak-in a few commentary/satire on things like religion and Christianity, capitalism, communism, and even on the movie industry--which lend some weight to the movie instead of being just another well-made absurd comedy. 

TL;DR While it’s not the best movie that the Coen Brothers had ever made, Hail Caesar! is an excellent film, although for me, it’s just refreshing to see something as blatantly original as Hail Caesar!. But if you’re a fan of the Coen Brothers--or a fan of something that I can only describe as uncomfortable comedy--then this movie is definitely for you.

Web Shoutout: Academy Originals

Welcome to Web Shoutout, a series highlighting interesting places in the interwebs about movies and filmmaking! (Check out the previous Web Shoutout here)

This episode, I’m going to talk about Academy Originals, a Youtube channel of video series produced by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, of the Academy Awards (or might be best known as The Oscars) fame. For all the problems existing inside The Academy Awards, almost surprisingly, Academy Originals consistently puts out extremely sincere and inspiring videos about people working in the industry. They usually feature dedicated, extremely talented people of professions closely linked to filmmaking--sometimes even professions you might have never heard about or thought about. They talk about why they do what they do, and how they do it, and they always leave me inspired (and makes me wish I can be that person). For anyone who loves to find love in filmmaking processes, this channel would certainly feed your soul every Monday.

Just check out these videos, hand-picked from the channel!

1. “Credited As: Creature Performer” -  Tom Woodruff (Aliens, Jumanji, Zookeeper)

2. “ Academy Close-Up: Conservators” - Conservation team of Academy's Margaret Herrick Library

3. “Creative Spark: Theodore Shapiro” -  Theodore Shapiro, Composer (The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Tropic Thunder, The Devil Wears Prada)

4. Questions: What Was The First Movie That Scared You?

Subscribe to Academy Originals.

Review: Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? 2 (2016)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

The first Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? (2002) told the unlikely teenage love story between the literary junkie, anti-establishment, mysterious Rangga (Nicholas Saputra), and the “it-girl” of her high school, Cinta (Dian Sastrowardoyo). A movie full of romantic poems and je ne sais quoi chemistry between the two leads (think Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles in 10 Things I Hate About You (1999)), AADC was a historic hit in Indonesian film industry, and 14 years later, we finally get to see what happens next.

Cinta and Rangga are now adults, and 10 years had passed without any contact from one another. Rangga now lives in New York, US and Cinta is engaged to be married to Trian (Ario Bayu), but one faithful day brought them together again in Yogyakarta.

True to its spirit, of course, Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? 2 also brought back Maura (Titi Kamal), Karmen (Adinia Wirasti), and Milly (Sissy Prescillia) as Cinta’s BFF (Alya’s disappearance is addressed in the movie, if you’re wondering). They do still have distinct personality--Maura is girly, Karmen is protective, and Milly is the slow-one--but I’m relieved to say that they do not adhere to their stereotypes too much, which is a flaw I found in the first AADC. Surprisingly, Milly is an excellent ice-breaker and comic relief, and she actually ended being one of my favorite characters, along with her husband and fellow former AADC co-star, Mamet (Dennis Adishwara). Karmen is the only one to show any sign of passage-of-time in her character, although a lot of times her signs of growth conveniently goes away when its not related to plot.

But why are we back if it’s not for Rangga and Cinta, anyway? A true definition of a whirlwind romance in its first movie, AADC2 managed to update their story into a grown-up world. 10 years of feelings dumped into a few hours, AADC2 is filled with love, heartache, and nostalgia. But oddly, AADC2 is very understated in each approach, as if to say that “Yep, we’ve grown up, alright”. In fact, instead of its own predecessor, AADC2 reminds me a lot of Before Sunset (2004) instead (which is not a bad thing at all), especially when AADC2 walks us though all these different faces of Yogyakarta that we don’t often see. Rangga is also a little bit different in this movie--less standoffish, more loving--which makes sense for the character, although unfortunately we get to see much less of his subplot than Cinta’s. However, Cinta is every bit as how we remember her last time, and all of it ultimately paid off with a sweet, although somewhat clunky, ending.

TL;DR With a more adult approach to love, Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? 2 is a worthy continuation of the story of Cinta and Rangga.

Review: Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Rating: 9.5 out of 10

2016 is indeed the year of superhero battles. So I can’t really do this review without first mentioning Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice (reviewed here), which was previously released this year, because one is a masterclass of what not to do, while the other is a prime example of how to do it right. While BvS shat all over the characters in an overwrought and boring plot, Captain America: Civil War let all 12 of the characters shine and treated them with the utmost respect.

Respect is one thing that jumped to me the most. While having major disagreement in their opinion, Steve Rogers (a.k.a Captain America, played by Chris Evans) respects Tony Stark (a.k.a. Iron Man, played by Robert Downey Jr.) so much, and vice versa. Differences aside, they and the rest of their team genuinely considers each other as friends, and it pains them that they’re not on the same side. It’s a difficult situation to be in, and as unlikely as it may sound, Civil War succeeded not just as pandering of epic fight sequences; it’s also a character-based drama.

Civil War does have its trademark Marvel quick quips and fun moments, but for the most part, it’s an emotionally heavy film. I was almost emotionally exhausted after the end of the film–but for good reason, it was something you only feel after a really good film. Avengers movies (let’s be honest, Civil War is practically an Avengers movie) have always had big stakes, but they always had lighter feel to it, primarily because they usually have clear-cut victories. Civil War, though, typical for these “versus” kind of films, have a largely Pyrrhic victory that leaves both sides kinda broken. I repeat, which is a good thing, because that means the filmmakers treated the story with the gravity it deserves. Hat-tip to Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely as writers, and Russo Brothers as directors (all also worked in Captain America: The Winter Soldier), my favorite MCU film.

If I made it sound like it was an excruciating movie, I’m sorry, it really is not! It was still a really fun film that made me laughed out loud quite a few times. Spider-Man especially was one of the highlight of the movie. While I was initially unsure with the decision to de-age Peter Parker and the casting of Tom Holland, eventually it worked so well within the movie. The amateurish vibe of Spider-Man contrasted so well against our veteran heroes who carry the weight of the world on their shoulder. Also, the comments that come out to and from Spider-Man are just gold (”Remember that really old movie Empire Strikes Back?”). Black Panther also made memorable first appearance. In the limited screentime that he has, Chadwick Boseman played the character with such grace, dignity, and power definitely fit for a prince and a superhero–with enough glimpse of his backstory to get us excited for his upcoming solo movie.

The fight scenes are downright amazing. Its street fights are as amazing and as inventive as the ones in The Winter Soldier, but the superhero fights are on another level. Remember the ballet-like final fight in The Avengers? Civil War definitely rival that with 100% more excitement because they’re not fighting faceless minions, they’re fighting each other with each of their own “gimmick” and style.

But as much as Marvel tries to make each movie accessible to new filmgoers, Civil War is definitely more geared towards the people who’ve followed Marvel Cinematic Universe (particularly the Captain America and The Avengers movies) for a while. New viewers definitely would understand the plot, but they wouldn’t necessarily understand the gravity and details of the whole situation.

The plot is as simple and as difficult as you make it to be. The backbone of the story is simple: after the destruction of the town Sokovia (in The Avengers: Age of Ultron), United Nations wants to take lead of The Avengers because they deem the heroes dangerous if they go unchecked. Some of The Avengers agrees, some don’t. Even now, I’m not sure who I’m siding with, and the movie itself does not tell you which side is right one. Honestly, as much as I love Steve Rogers as a character, I’m more inclined to siding Stark (though I’m sure it’ll backfire one way or another in the future), and it pains me so much that Rogers couldn’t agree with him. Also, I’ve been wanting to tell you about a specific scene, I might as well put it here: In a scene that mirrors his first appearance in Captain America: The First Avenger, with the last of his strength, Rogers stood up from the ground against Iron Man–all in his Captain America glory–and says, “I could do this all day.” (If you’ve watched the first Captain America, you’d understand the significance.) It was a heartbreaking scene that floored me, but that’s a testament of how much the filmmakers understand the characters that they created.

TL;DR Not your run-of-the-mill superhero movie, Captain America: Civil War is a dense character-based drama with a whole lot of action. Heads up though, while this is a Captain America film, due to the nature of the story it really has an equal screentime between Rogers and Tony Stark, in case you have different expectations about it.

Review: Black Sheep (2006)

Rating: 8.5 of 10

Let me explain you this lightly; Black Sheep is a sheep zombie movie (and in case you're wondering, yes the movie's from New Zealand). If that doesn't sound like something you'd like then stay clear, but if it sounds interesting to you then definitely go for it.

In this story, Henry Oldfield (Nathan Meister) comes home to family farm, Glenholden Station, after years of living in the city, only to find out there's more sinister things going on involving genetically engineered sheep.

Black Sheep is a gory, survival horror movie--one that plays off of a bizzarely unusual premise. But it works! It plays off entirely straight, especially at the beginning, but slowly and surely it sucks you in into its absurdity, sprinkled with a healthy amount of dark comedy. It's ultimately a B-movie, that's for sure, but Black Sheep has way more dignity than it has any right to be. It has charming and relatable lead characters, beautiful cinematography, and legitimately good score throughout. It's an unexpectedly competent, ridiculously insane movie.

Also, it has a way better special effects than you'd expect (that still looks good even 10 years later), with both believable animals and gore. It even has a transformation scene reminiscent of that classic werewolf transformation scene in An American Werewolf In London (although not as lengthy), which is not a bad thing at all. Believe me, sheep in this movie are absolutely terrifying.

TL;DR Fully embracing its gleefully absurd, blood-soaked story, Black Sheep is definitely a movie worthy of a cult attention.

Bonus: Trailer for Black Sheep! (viewer discretion is advised, so is for the movie)

Review: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Rating: 4.0 of 10.0

I have to be honest, and I’m going to drop the bomb this early in the article: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is the single most boring movie I’ve ever watched in the theater in a long time–and I’ve endured A Good Day To Die Hard. Even that movie still wins favors from me for being a quick 90-minute movie with an earnest desire to be as simple and as loud as possible. BvS, on the other hand, is 2 and a half hours long and the studio themselves proudly stated that (I paraphrase, but I kid you not it’s true) “there will be no jokes in this movie”. They lied, by the way. There were a couple of jokes, maybe 3, but none of them were remotely funny. Maybe that’s what they meant. Of course not every movie should be witty–but when a movie is bad and you can’t even laugh, that’s when a movie-going experience becomes a torture.

BvS, actually, had a promising beginning. It still insisted to have a scene of the Wayne’s parents death and of little Bruce’s fall into the cave, which I am so tired of. Okay, I get it. Bruce’s parents were murdered in front of him as a child and that’s his origin story, but that’s how it’s been in every iteration of Batman. We don’t need to be retold the same story all over again, particularly because this version of Batman had been around the streets for 20 years. But if you must have the scene for the simple fact that your movie has Batman in it, I made peace with it. The next scene though, was quite excellent and actually gave me hope that this would be a great movie (I was wrong). It was of Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), in the exact moment of Man of Steel’s final battle when Superman (Henry Cavill) and General Zod (Michael Shannon) destroyed half the city–and apparently, a Wayne building. To see the effects of the battle from a pedestrian perspective was genuinely terrifying, and that created an understandable motive for Bruce Wayne to hate on Superman.

In fact, Batman is the only decent thing to come out of this movie. Ben Affleck actually makes a pretty good Batman, at least as good as the movie lets him be. Admittedly his motive on hating Superman might not be the most logical (after all Superman is the person who saved them all, city-wide destruction notwithstanding), but experiencing that much destruction in front of your eyes might do something to you. Honestly though, Batman is kind of insane in this movie. He has repeating nonsensical nightmares, is fixated on killing Superman on an unhealthy level, and brands criminals with his logo for no apparent reason. But, his solo fighting sequence is the only interesting one compared to the rest, and the simple fact that Ben Affleck is a better actor than Henry Cavill makes him the better half of the bunch.

Superman is where it all falters. First, I’d like to point out that I actually kinda liked Man of Steel, which is the prequel to BvS. Zack Snyder, who directed both movies, takes the idea of Superman, an all-American hero, and turned it on its head with MoS. What if, he asks, Superman is not regarded as a hero but as an alien threat instead? It was a compelling question, and one he began to answer in MoS. But in order for MoS to work (which is an origin story), it has to be followed by a rather traditional Superman movie, otherwise MoS would be pointless. Instead with BvS, Snyder continues to try to subvert the idea of Superman, but he hasn’t earned any of it. BvS tries to discuss the dichotomy between “Superman as a savior” vs “Superman as a monster”, without first establishing the savior part of Superman at all (neither in MoS or BvS). The result is a gritty Superman movie that both rings hollow and violates the very idea of Superman itself.

The messages telegraphed about Superman in this movie is all over the place. Alfred (Jeremy Irons) spouts two opposing opinions on Superman at two different times. Also, at one time Clark Kent/Superman talks about how he wants to do good and save people to honor his father, while in my recollection Pa Kent basically told him in MoS (I exaggerate, but still), “Don’t save the humans, they don’t deserve it.” It’s clear that the movie itself isn’t sure on how to handle Superman. Also, Henry Cavill’s acting that only ranges from brooding to grimacing (coupled with Snyder’s obsession of having Superman suspended mid air to hammer-in the idea that he is a god), just worsens it all.

How about other characters? Jessie Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor, that one I can’t understand. The less I can say about him the better, so I’m actually gonna chalk it out to taste. Perhaps, his Lex Luthor just isn’t my taste. One thing I know for sure though, his character is as annoying and as perplexing as he appeared in the trailers, so if you hate him there you’ll want to burn him in the actual movie.

I don’t have any special thing to say about Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot). She doesn’t have much to do in BvS (yet. She’s having her own movie and she’ll also appear in upcoming Justice League movie) and doesn’t have much time to build her character, so I can’t say anything worthwhile yet. I’m not fond of her costume from practical perspective, but that’s hardly the worst thing in BvS.

Alright, maybe you’re thinking, what if I only want to watch the movie only for the action? I’d just warn you that any kind of action only begins halfway into the movie (probably maybe even way into the third act), and the ride leading to it was excruciating. Even the titular fight between Batman and Superman is wildly lackluster, purely because of the fact that you just know how stupid it is. When you want to avoid a fight, definitely the first thing you do won’t be throwing your supposed opponent 10-feet into a building. When you don’t have time to talk, then you shouldn’t have time to keep saying you don’t have time to talk. The conclusion of the fight is also pretty stupid ("Martha," anyone?). To tell you the truth, the titular fight really is boring. The final fight, featuring Wonder Woman, is slightly better, but only if you like those kinds of heavily CGI’d fight.

The story itself is incomprehensible. Fortunately there’s something resembling a plot, but it has no apparent arc aside from the obvious question the writers ask themselves: HOW DO WE GET BATMAN TO FIGHT SUPERMAN. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is not what a good writer should do. Obviously, there’s a certain kind of art about a movie that builds quite and slow suspense that leads to a satisfying climax. Some movies though, just draaaaags, and BvS is the latter. I’m not a person with the shortest attention span and I certainly don’t need an explosion every 5 minutes to keep me engaged, but I just couldn’t care for BvS and I was bored. out. of. my. mind. With clunky pacing, disjointed edits, and worthless dream sequences, BvS is basically an incoherent rambling of Zack Snyder.

While we’re here, let’s talk about the title. “Batman v Superman” doesn’t really mean anything outside the court of law, which certainly has nothing to do with the movie. Even “Dawn of Justice” is kinda meaningless unless if you think it’s a clever enough pun for Justice League. And since the movie does not talk about the actual justice itself, and certainly doesn’t end in any way that implies justice is served, it simply is a misnomer. Basically the title was just a collection of things that Snyder thinks would sound cool, which ironically is a fitting description of the entire movie.

Honestly, the only thing I liked about this movie is the fact that practically anybody could figure out who Superman is; because when your disguise is a pair of glasses, then you’re not really trying to fool anyone.

My TL;DR is this: Do yourself a favor and skip this movie. Just watch literally anything else; Kung Fu Panda 3, Nolan’s Batman Trilogy, Supergirl, your high school graduation video, anything. Treat yourself with a decent lunch. Just don’t pay for this movie, unless you’re prepared to be disappointed.

Music Shoutout: Unique Sounds Worth Checking Out Vol. 1

There are good bands, and there are bands that makes you go, "Whoa, this is something that I've never heard before."

In no particular order and with no particular reason, these are somewhat unique sounds worth checking out. A few of these bands are actually already quite well-known in the indie world, but as with any alternative genre, fame is always relative.

1. Alt-J ( @altjband on tumblr ) In the sea of indie rock, Alt-J is really something else. I won't even try to describe their sound because I'll just fail miserably, but the mix of their nasally voice, weird lyrics, and layered arrangements really pulled everything together in the most distinct way. Their debut album "An Awesome Wave" reached quite the critical and commercial success. Their follow-up album, "This Is All Yours" has a more introspective approach, but is every bit as unique as the single-friendly Wave.

Honorable mention: Glass Animals. I heard Glass Animals being compared to Alt-J a lot by fans, for some reason. I tend to disagree because they don't sound remotely alike and I'm not even sure they belong to the same subgenre, but they do have similar spirit--at the very least, in their refusal to be ordinary. At any rate, they're worth checking out too. Click here to listen to Glass Animal’s “Black Mambo”.

2. Twenty One Pilots ( @twentyonepilots on tumblr ) Rap + indie rock. Their debut album, "Vessel", was cute enough. It was new, it was different, and basically it was a proof-of-concept that such odd pairing can work. "Blurryface" album though, was a piece of art.

3. The Cat Empire Okay, maybe I'm biased because they have "Cat" in their name. I'll also admit that I don't know much of their discography besides of their self-titled album which was released in 2003 (I also heard their newer albums aren't as good, at least a bit different). But with its fusion of ska, jazz, and Latin, damn if "The Cat Empire" isn't one of the most fun albums I've heard in a long time.

4. Wild Belle ( @wildbellemusic on tumblr ) If reggae is your jam, Wild Belle might be for you. Wild Belle is composed of siblings Natalie and Elliot Bergman. Natalie's beautiful thinly voice, along with reggae influences is the focus of their debut album, "Isles". But based on their newest single, it seems like their to-be-released sophomore album will be much different--I guess we'll just see. Recently they also had a collaboration with Major Lazer in "Be Together".

5. Milky Chance 'Stoner song' might be the best way to describe Milky Chance's sound. But don't let that description fool you, Milky Chance's songs aren't stupid nor simple--they're just damn delectable.

I hope you’ll like these bands! If you have any suggestions, I’m open to it. Meanwhile, visit a few of my curated music collection, and follow me for Unique Sounds Worth Checking Out Vol. 2!

Disclaimer: All videos embed and linked above are for promotional purposes only. Please support the artist legally!

Review: Frank (2014)

Rating: 9.2 of 10

What do you do when you cast Michael Fassbender in your film? Not cover his face for the entirety of the film, unless your film is Frank.

Frank follows the story of an amateur keyboardist, Jon (Domhnall Gleeson), as he becomes the newest member of experimental rock band The Soronprfbs, lead by titular character Frank (Michael Fassbender) who wears a fake big head and never takes it off.

It's a bizzare concept to begin with (which was actually inspired by a true “big head” musician), but the movie, somehow, felt normal. Despite its heavily unusual premise, Frank isn't avant garde at all--it's just a drama about a few weird people intermixed with a few weird songs, and basically that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. Frank is honest, a little disarming, but an ultimately charming film. In a weird way, Frank is about what it feels like to be a mediocre artist--and in another way, about how it’s like to be with the mentally ill.

The most important thing to be discussed about Frank, for me, is the acting and/or casting. Domhnall Gleeson is cast quite often as an "everyman" type of character, and for good reason. He's not only got the range, he also is able to infuse unexpected shades of personality into his characters. Jon is wide-eyed as he is misguided, a visionaire as he is a cynic, and hopeful as he is selfish.

But Michael Fassbender as Frank, is definitely something special. We can't see his face, but we emote to him instantly. With every way he stands, sits, talks, and twitch his hands, you'd never once at lost as to how he is feeling. It's a beautiful performance that we almost never think twice about, which is a hard feat considering he wears a literal fake giant head. But my favorite part of him is (mild spoiler alert) actually how his demeanor changes when he doesn't wear the head. It's subtle acting that definitely makes a movie. Even Maggie Gyllenhaal is kind of restrained in her role as the troublemaking band member, Clara.

But acting isn't the only thing that works in this film. Its score was a delight, especially in the early part of the film which sounds so whimsical and airy--almost kid adventure-like--sending Jon off into his journey. In general, the movie Frank is filled with restrained but effective directorial choices, without trying too hard or being too muted (which for me, is the case with a lot of indie films). It’s a wonderful film to watch.

"Road to fame" band films are a dime in a dozen, but TL;DR Frank, with the help of few amazing performances from its actors, brings a new twist worth seeing.

Review: Deadpool (2016)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

I've been meaning to write a review for Deadpool weeks ago, but life took over... Anyhow, here's my review.

Deadpool has a tricky history in the big screen. He is a Marvel character who’s mainly characterized as a foul-mouthed mercenary/anti-hero, with accelerated healing power and a habit of breaking the fourth wall. He was once thought as an unfilmable character (considering his ultra-violence and less-than-morally-acceptable commentaries) that when he showed up in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, not only he was unrecognizable, he was exactly the opposite of what he supposed to be. The 'Merc with a Mouth' had become literally mouthless (pictured below). It took 7 years and a climate chance in the superhero film industry, for Deadpool to become Deadpool in the movies.

Ryan Reynolds is Deadpool (again, as he also played him in Wolverine), and surprisingly to me, he completely inhabit his role. Deadpool, in the hands of a wrong actor, would become a completely insufferable character, but Reynolds nailed everything on the head. The tone, the comedic timing, the look--everything.

Basically what makes Deadpool such a good a movie is the tone. For me, its action is almost unquestionable. Marvel has always had good action sequences, so it's almost a, "Yeah duh, of course it will have great action." Plot is good 'though true and tested (although it does a new spin with flashbacks). Characters are fun; Colossus is a perfect antidote to Deadpool, and Negasonic Teenage Warhead doesn't have much to do but is very memorable. BUT the tone is amazing. I'm not talking about it being R-rated, but I'm talking about it being purely a Deadpool movie. Self-deprecation, fourth-wall breaking, and its refusal to not knock down everything and anything in its sight (including a diss about Green Lantern's awful CGI suit and X-Men's messed-up timeline), makes a tonally unique movie.

Deadpool isn't the best movie Marvel ever created, it’s not the most daring (Guardians of the Galaxy still wins that crown), and it's definitely not the best movie ever. Honestly, Deadpool isn't even the best R-rated superhero film. 2010′s Kick-Ass still excelled Deadpool for me (primarily because Kick-Ass' soundtrack really elevated the whole movie). TL;DR However, Deadpool was a lot of fun and if you're looking for a faithful Deadpool movie, you can't go better than this one.

More cast photos should be like this