Review: Oldboy (2003)

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.

Review: Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (2014)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (or “Dawn” for simplicity) is that rare smart summer blockbuster, but I won’t talk much about the the actual movie other than it is a great and satisfying experience and you should go see it. What I’m gonna talk about is what I think “Dawn” is to Hollywood. It’s an interesting movie, but it also brings out A LOT of interesting points about modern blockbuster landscape in general. Which is, I might say, a sign of an even better–and possibly transformative–movie. 

Being both a sequel (to “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”) and a prequel (to the general franchise), “Dawn” lands itself in a very weird and difficult spot. Sequels too frequently feel like a “been there done that” exercise, especially if the sequel refuses to stray away from whatever formula that succeeded in the first installment. And prequels, by definition, are predestined journeys and generally don’t leave enough room for surprises. Matt Reeves (director) smartly chose to set “Dawn” 10 years after the events of “Rise”, which means: skipping the viral outbreak entirely, making the apes the main characters instead of the humans, and shying as far away from previous movie’s James Franco’s character as possible. In other words, a completely different movie than “Rise”. 

He, however, could not set “Dawn” completely free from the trappings of a prequel. We know that apes would eventually rule the world. Intelligently, we (and Reeves) knew. In fact, plotwise, “Dawn” is not much of a surprise. Some humans want peace, some want war. Some apes want peace, some want war. Several confusions, betrayals, and bad timings later, war ensues. But “Dawn” made itself not necessarily about what happens, but how it happens. It is a journey of emotions, and boy, did “Dawn” pack up some real emotions. The moment we see Caesar’s son’s (Nick Thurston) eyes stared blankly at the person who killed his friend is the exact moment we weep. We’ve long reconciled with the fact that humans are hateful and unsalvageable, but now we see a brand new species pick up on that hatred and ran with it with apparent ease. It is shocking, it is jarring, and it is exactly how it should make us feel. 

All of that emotion is conveyed largely by CGI and motion capture, which is an incredible feat in itself. All praises should go to Weta that worked on the effect, and also Andy Serkis and all the motion capture actors. Yep, I mentioned them as actors, which is what they should be recognized as. It only takes a quick minute to peek into the behind-the-scenes and see the kind of emotionality and physicality that they bring into the characters. 

(BONUS: Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes motion capture clip)

Tangentially, internet listed “Dawn”’s budget as $120 mill which is not at all surprising or that big (or even downright cheap) for a summer blockbuster with heavy effects. Hmm, I’ll just let that sink in for future reference. The very good news is, “Dawn” is a success critics-wise and box-office-wise. It gained an impressive $70 mill in the first weekend (overperforming previous predictions and knocking out Transformers 4 from first place), which means that audience are ready for and apparently like a nontraditional, smart movie. 

Why, nontraditional, you might ask? The general preconception of Hollywood blockbuster (especially for the more fantastical stories) is that general audience need a surrogate. Like Alice in Wonderland, we just need Alice as that normal character that acts as a filtering window to the strange world. That’s why we have Jake Sully of Avatar, Neo of The Matrix, Bella of Twilight, heck, even Frodo of The Lord of The Rings (who is considerably more normal than wizards and elves). That’s why, in almost every fantastical or alienesque world, there’s always a human (or at least human-like) character. There’s a human character in “Dawn”, alright, but if there’s any surrogate it’s not Malcolm the human (Jason Clarke). It’s Caesar the leader of the apes (Andy Serkis). He is the first character we saw, and it is through him we view and feel the ape community. Granted, he is the most human-like of them all (being the one ape who lived so long with a human. But one could argue that Koba (Toby Kebbel) is also human-like in a different fashion), but the preconception that audience couldn’t relate with what isn’t human? Gone with this movie.

Also, maybe half of the movie is practically mute. Granted, there are sign languages and subtitles but Hollywood execs thought that audience hate subtitles too. Who would’ve thought that wild moves like these ones would pay off and audience would relate to the characters no problem? Filmmakers who don’t underestimate the audience and refuse to bow down to the lowest common denominator, that’s who. Hopefully future filmmakers will learn from this movie and succeed even more. 

TL;DR To sum up, “Dawn” is not only a good movie but also a breath of fresh air, because it is what happens if filmmakers respect their audience and try to tell an interesting story instead of hitting bulletpoints.

Review: Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

I've never really admit it before but I've always loved kid-becomes-spy movies like Spy Kids (2001), Agent Cody Banks (2003), and Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker (2006), even if quality is sometimes secondary. For me they're the ultimate wish-fulfillment: to be young with a very cool secret, gadgets, weapons, the ability to kick ass and escape from our boring lives, and maybe even get a pretty girlfriend along the way. And in Kingsman: The Secret Service, we could be very, very British too—which is always a code for being damn classy.

Before we start, although I did mention the (family-friendly) movies above, I have to remind some audiences that Kingsman is in fact closer to Wanted (2008) and Kick-Ass (2010) (fun fact: all three were based on Mark Millar's graphic novels but I won't open that can of worms), with the latter also directed by Kingsman's and X-Men: First Class (2011)'s director, Matthew Vaughn. If you are not familiar with those films, basically what they have in common is that they all have genuinely fun, inventive—borderline wacky but definitely cathartic—action and violence. It's not overly bloody or anything (most of them consist of quick-cuts or scenes that are so stylized they're beautiful) but it does require you to at least crack a smile when people's heads are blown off, otherwise you're missing half the fun. But don't worry, they're the bad guys.

The kid in question is Gary or Eggsy (Taron Egerton), whose father trained to become Kingsman but died when he was little. Agent Galahad (Colin Firth) is grateful of Eggsy's father for saving his life and wanted to return the favor by taking Eggsy into Kingsman too. And hence began young Eggsy's training to become a proper British spy.

And when I say British, I really do mean British. I don't know what it is about England (maybe a leftover from the popularity of James Bond), but the best fictional spies are frequently from that side of the pond. With Kingsman it's easy to see why. There's something reassuring (and effortlessly cool) that our hidden saviors are good-mannered gentlemen in exquisite suits with respect for top-shelf bourbon and impeccable gunwork. They have Arthurian code-names and weapons disguised as umbrellas, it doesn't get much more British than that. Colin Firth, our resident dapper Englishman, is surprisingly badass as Agent Galahad. Egerton is also brilliant as a working class kid trying to survive in the streets of London—also quintessentially British, in another way. 

The movie (and Matthew Vaughn himself) states its love to "old" spy movies before the dark, grim, and gritty era: back when those movies actually had fun and less tortured, complete with its trademark crazy villains with crazier plans. The villain in this movie is Samuel L. Jackson with a lisp and name like Richmond Valentine, accompanied always by his false-legged killer butler/bodyguard. If that's not an old-Bond movie logic, I don't know what is. While expressing its love to old movies, Kingsman always felt new and shiny. It doesn't bow down to tropes and it really is a testament to the strength of the script that I never once felt like anyone is save, ever (and people do die in this movie). The action sequences are as exciting as they are beautiful, and they also have good use of music in action scenes, not unlike Kick-Ass whose soundtrack I loved.

TL;DR All in all, if you like good action movie, or just plain fun movie, you owe it to yourself to see this film. Just look at those gifs (or trailer). They're glorious.

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

Review: Doraemon: Stand By Me (2014)

Rating: 7.8 of 10

Doraemon was a long running children's manga and anime series (first published in 1969!) that had been accompanying the lives of children all over the world. Doraemon was everywhere, on every lazy Sunday morning, everyone loved him, and there's just no way to review this film without nostalgia glasses of a former 6 year-old. It's just physically impossible. That said, here it is.

The movie started at the very beginning, from the first time Doraemon popped out of that desk drawer and introduced himself to Nobita. It was just such a thrill to see the whole thing from Doraemon's perspective and it doesn't count as a spoiler because it literally happened in the first 5 minutes)! The rest, for the ones who are familiar with the weekly premise of a Doraemon show, is history. Nobita found himself in some kind of trouble, cried for Doraemon's help, Doraemon gave him some advanced 22nd century gadget, Nobita exceled for a while but ended up in another kind of trouble. It is also no secret that the film ends with Doraemon having to say goodbye to Nobita and yes, there were tearjerking moments. I was sad for a while.

I have however, some issues with the movie, with time being the main one. In summing four decades of show history into just 90 minutes, there'll always be some things missing. Of course, the basic story of Doraemon was always deceivingly short and simple, but we grew up with him week-in and week-out for years and it's hard to beat that kind of familiarity. We were friends with Doraemon for 45 years, but Nobita (in this film) had just met him so why did he care? The gadgets and characters were familiar but there were just not enough time to explore the full extent of their friendship, and not enough time to soak it in, that the whole thing just felt rushed. Doraemon never felt like part of friends or family (Nobita's parents' reaction when they found out Doraemon had to go was basically, "Oh? OK."), and that is not good. Secondly, I don't think the character development was clear enough. Of course I don't want Nobita to suddenly turn into Dekisugi, but in the end I'm not even sure if Nobita learned anything at all because a lot of things revert back to status-quo. And the last thing (possibly nitpicking), I found the whole make-Shizuka-likes-Nobita mission is just a liiiiiiitle bit creepy. Just a little bit. I swear.

TL;DR But all in all it was fun, full of familiar characters and gadgets, undeniably heartfelt, and rightfully tearjerking. It was a shame that it felt so rushed.

Afterthought 1: The new 3D animation is only weird for 45 seconds. You'll get used to it.

Afterthought 2: I just find it refreshing to have time-travelling story with absolutely no paradox. Having seen plenty of time-travel movies, most of them have some issue with paradox, but not in Doraemon world!

Afterthought 3: I really, really wish this movie would skip the introduction part and begin right at the end (Pacific Rim-style) when Nobita and Doraemon have been friends for years. I think that would solve most of the problems this movie had, but I'm not a movie director for a reason.

Afterthought 4: The only reason I didn't cry during this movie was because I tried hard not to.

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: 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: Predestination (2015)

Rating: 8.8/10

Sometimes science fiction delves deep into what it means to be human, sometimes it's just a healthy mindfuck, and that's okay. Predestination is a time-travel tale based on Robert A. Heinlein's story "All You Zombies." I quite lament the fact that they dropped the book's title because I like how tangential it is but I understand that the title is kind of vague for a movie. It did, however, got referenced the film. (FYI I've never actually read the book but I fully intend to after this.)

This movie was directed by Spierig Brothers who also made post-human, vampire-society movie Daybreakers with Ethan Hawke. With Predestination, I came for Ethan Hawke (he never really stood out for me in his acting, but he does make interesting choices in his acting career in the likes of Daybreakers and Gattacca) but I stayed for newcomer Sarah Snook. Snook was ah-ma-zing. She played a central character called Jane, and also the male version of the character. She was the hook of the movie and the reason the movie worked at all. The big premise of the movie is about a time-travelling agent sent to investigate a terrorist, but in its heart Predestination truly is about a heartbroken little girl. Snook completely sold this emotional part of the film, telling stories of her insane life experiences to a random bartender. She had this silent rage as a man, and dejecting brilliance as a girl. Everything the first act of the movie was, worked because of Sarah Snook.

That's not to say Ethan Hawke was bad, he did brilliant job with an understated and underrated character. Maybe that's why he never stood out for me, he tends to be understated and grounded in all of his characters. I need to pay more attention to Ethan Hawke in the future.

It's hard to explain anything about this movie without resorting into spoilers, because everything that's special about it came from the plot (aside from Sarah Snook, but we've covered that). With a brief 97 minutes, Predestination is basically a plot machine (Heinlein actually wrote All You Zombies in a single day as a proof-of-concept that he can write the closed-est closed-loop time-travel story of them all), but TL;DR it is a brilliant plot machine with a very strong emotional core. Right now, you just have to take my word that this is an awesome movie. I might also have to add that that does not mean Predestination is empty or devoid of meaning. Far from it, it provides a study of how home, a sense of purpose and belonging, and gender identity tend to define us all.

That said, Predestination is not perfect. I called out the major plot twist early on, up to the point where I was surprised when I realized they were still treating it as a mystery. But it didn't matter because the movie handled everything very smoothly. And anyway, with time-travelling stories some things just came with the territory. But strangely, with all of its mindfuckery, Predestination didn't feel particularly groundbreaking and there's an interesting theory of why: the fact that the movie was fitted into a thriller mold to make it more contemporary and audience-friendly, in the way that the book wasn't. It certainly broaden its appeal to a wider audience, but for me that's what makes Predestination is still one step away from reaching a cult status. But that's okay, I can live with it. Not every movie had to be Primer.

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: 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.