Review: Ant-Man (2015)

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.

Rant: Being A Good Person On TV

Being a superhero is hard, but everybody knows that. They've got tons of people to save, friends to protect, and villains to defeat--all while maintaining secret identity and a full-time day job. Considering how evil and able their enemies tend to be, it's not hard to comprehend that sometimes they might be tempted to go down to less than noble means--whether that means killing, cheating, lying or whatever. I sometimes imagine that maybe, in their position, I'm gonna be more "creative" too, but that's not the case with the heroes I'm gonna talk about in this post.

Particularly, Barry Allen of The Flash, and Scott McCall of Teen Wolf.

(It's easy for me to talk about The Flash with some degree of dignity--since the show was well received by critics and fans, but I'm actually a bit nervous to talk about Teen Wolf. Yes, that remake of a failed old movie that nobody asked for, that has "Teen" on its title, airs on MTV that no longer stands for “Music”, and its entire existence probably piggybacked on the popularity of the tween-monstrosity called Twilight. And I assure you now, it's legitimately good.)

We live in a cynical world, especially in entertainment. Morally-grey and morally-ambiguous protagonists aren't only numerous but seems to be a trend that only gets stronger: most popularly started with The Sopranos and cemented today with the likes of Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Girls, Scandal, and Game of Thrones, people seemed to devour their stories and it's easy to see why. People love relatability, and people always want a good redemption story (whether it's earned or not). We like to see characters that don't always do good, or don't always do evil, because we know we sometimes do both. People were always drawn to flawed characters (case in point, Hamlet), because we know that we are flawed too.

A hero who's perfect is boring, because we always know what that person would choose in any given time. That is like an unspoken mantra of TV and film, and I used to firmly believed in it. Superman would never work on screen, they say, because he’s too good. But after watching and enjoying Teen Wolf and The Flash for years, I know that that’s not the case anymore.

In stark contrast to it's sister show Arrow, The Flash had decidedly different tone: it was fun, lighter, and more optimistic. Barry Allen (Grant Gustin), its central character, also had one determining characteristic that set him apart from Oliver Queen (Stephen Amell) from Arrow: that Barry is the kind of hero that always find another way (in Felicity's words). Whenever things get tough and the only solution in sight is to kill or let someone get killed or hurt, Barry would always try to find another way to save the day, sometimes in no regard of his own safety. Actually, Oliver would usually eventually get there too, but more than often not, it was only after much deliberation and plea from his friends and colleagues. But Barry is such an inherently a good person who just would NOT compromise to evil, a rarity among the Batmans, Daredevils, even Man of Steel’s Supermans of today, and other bunch characters--superheroes or not. And obviously the show’s formula works extremely well too, because The Flash quickly became CW’s most popular show (even surpassing its parent show), earned hardcore fanbase, received critical praise, and concluded its first and current season with a satisfying finale.

Similar thing could also be said about Scott McCall of Teen Wolf. His defining character is that he wants to save everyone and everything (even his enemies), and he trusts basically everyone (even his enemies). He is a good person almost to a fault, and I believe he is actually the better example of the two regarding the point I'm trying to say, because of 2 things: One, Teen Wolf has been going for 5 seasons and is a living example that it's not only possible to make compelling show (excepting the terrible season 4. Ugh.) out of a genuinely decent character, but it's also sustainable. Two, for its dark overall tone. It's easy to think Barry's shameless optimism is due to the fact that The Flash is an light-toned show, but Teen Wolf isn't particularly light (it's a horror series) and most times it has a general sense of looming dread. So tone shouldn't be a hindrance to having a goody-two-shoes lead protagonist.

We don’t really know the direction that The Flash is going with its second season--maybe Barry's belief would evolve into something more morally grey, we don’t know. But with Teen Wolf, I think, it’s save to say that an honorable lead character is doable. The show handled it the right way, too. They made Scott’s goodness not only central to the heart of the show, but also to the plot (with him being a True Alpha). We also get to see how he influences the people around him, and how he consistently made his friends become better persons. And Scott’s not even the extent of a “good” character on the show: ordinary people such as Sheriff Stilinski can be relentlessly good too. And that’s the important message, I believe, that we can be good if we try. It doesn’t get more uplifting than that.

I’m sorry that this rant is a bit vague if you’ve never seen the shows because I don’t have enough memory to spit out any specific examples (I’m terrible at remembering plot) but the point is, being a good person isn't boring. Actually, being a good person is fuckin' hard. Have you ever tried to do exactly zero bad thing in a day--no lying, no running over the red light, no badmouthing your coworkers and overtiming your lunch break, no using work’s copy machine for personal use, no sneering at that bum across the road, and no disturbing that sleeping kitten? It’s effin’ hard. But if you have time-traveling impostor or body-altering supernatural doctors chasing after you? I bet that’d be an extra, extra hard thing to do and the struggle they go through to just not give in is worth a watch.

My point is, I think it’s time to abandon the long held belief that good people are boring. On the contrary, in my opinion, how they can stay noble regardless of obstacle is a journey worth seeing.

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: Whiplash (2014)

Rating: 9.8 of 10

A story about how one young ambitious jazz drummer Andrew Neyman (Miles Teller), captured the attention, and then some, of a talented but ruthless teacher Terence Fletcher (JK Simmons), Whiplash is one of the most electric and intense film about music.

Partly inspired by its writer and director's, Damien Chazelle, own experiences as a jazz drummer at school, the movie defies every stereotype one might expect from such film. Pursuit of greatness is such a prevalent theme in movies about music/dance/sports/whatever to the extent that the trope becomes boring, but Whiplash managed to find a fresh new angle to the trope with refreshing complexity. As we see Fletcher barking orders to his scared students, and as we see him encouraging a little girl to keep playing music; as we see Andrew practicing his beats over and over again through the night, and as we see him having dinner with his loving but unappreciative father, we understand them better as we see different sides of them, and we appreciate them as morally grey characters that they are. JK Simmons stole the show as Fletcher--but with every smirk, every twinkle, and every glance, Miles Teller successfully conveyed Andrew's drive, his humiliation, and his ambition through silence. He also played a convincing drum on screen (for non-drummer like me) too, which always help elevate a movie.

Whiplash is also an extremely intense movie, like you wouldn't believe. With tight shots, sweat, blood, pure determination, strive for perfection and no tolerance for anything less, watching Whiplash is like an endurance sport for your heart. TL;DR Filled with more thrill than any of recent action movies combined (okay, maybe not Mad Max: Fury Road), Whiplash is an experience like no other--and with good jazz music, too? You can't lose.

Review: Beck (2010)

Rating: 7.5 of 10

Yukio "Koyuki" Tanaka's (Takeru Sato) was an ordinary—somewhat a loser — high school student but his life soon changed when he met Ryusuke Minami (Hiro Mizushima), a fellow teenager determined to build a band and make it in the rock world. Beck, also the name of the band (after Ryusuke's dog), follows the band’s story and their rise to fame.

Beck is a live action adaptation of a critically acclaimed and highly popular manga and anime series of the same name. In case you pay attention to the actor's name above, I won't lie that partly the reason I'm interested in it was because it also had Takeru Sato who I loved in Rurouni Kenshin. The other reason, was because my boyfriend recommended me the story many times but I had never made up my mind which version I'd go into first. The actor just tipped the scale a bit into the live action.

That said, while I thought Sato was cute as the shy Koyuki (and I definitely see proto-Kenshin in his character), I found the other actors inhabit their characters much more fully. Mizushima had his swagger dead-on as the charismatic but volatile guitarist Ryusuke (with almost perfect English, too), Osamu Mukai as the cool blooded bassist Taira, Aoi Nakamura as happy-go-lucky Saku, Kenta Kiritani as the unsheathed Chiba, and Shiori Kutsuna as the somewhat-annoyed-but-supportive sister Maho. And from the images I saw, they actually look a lot like their manga and anime counterparts too, which is always a big bonus. They also have incredible chemistry with each other, and immediately felt like brothers from the get go.

The first part of the film felt a little bit clunky as it tries to accommodate both Koyuki's and Ryusuke's sides of life, but immediately gelled after the band formed. It really was a delight to see the band coming and playing together, and it wasn't only because of their chemistry but also because their music was genuinely good (especially for movies). The storyline could be more focused as it tries to fit in various subplots, as is often the case with a lot of adaptation from serialized material, but that is pretty minor.

But the biggest mistake, in my opinion, is having KOYUKI NOT SING AT ALL. Koyuki was billed as the one with angelic voice, capable of silencing thousands of people with awe in their shows, but the movie actually muted him out focusing instead on the instruments. I understand the director's decision to make him not actually sing because whatever they showed might not be on par with what we imagine, but for me it was downright annoying. If you're not familiar with "Chekhov's gun" rule, it is basically a "rule" in storytelling in which, for example, if you introduce a gun in the first act, then by the third act you really should have made them go off. Don't make promises or teases something you can't keep. In my opinion Koyuki really is worse than Chekhov's gun! Especially once I found out that Sato actually did some singing in the past, but like that mattered anyway. They could've easily hire a proper singer to do the singing part if he were not up to par. The movie actually ended in a pretty satisfying climax with the band performing in front of a big crowd, but with Koyuki not singing it was quite hard to not feel at least a bit disappointed. This "little" detail is actually what brought the movie down from a possible 8.0 into a 7.5 for me.

TL;DR In conclusion, Beck is a pretty charming, pretty benign live adaptation —if you could get over from the absence of singing in Koyuki's part.

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.

Music Shoutout: The Libertines - Anthems For Doomed Youth

First, Let Me Tell You About The Libertines...

(TL;DR If you only want to read about their new album, scroll way, way down below until the next section, below the horizontal line.)

Generally, Music Shoutout is a place where I talk about relatively unknown or (in my humble opinion) underrated bands, and while The Libertines isn’t exactly unknown–even downright legendary, depending on who you ask–they aren’t as famous as one diehard indie rock-fan would like to think. Their names weren’t as recognizable outside the UK, and in my home country Indonesia, you’d be better off talking about These New Puritans or something (meaning: nobody’s really heard of them both, but you’d be hard-pressed to explain how big The Libs’ influence was). So I’m writing this Shoutout as a primer (sort of) for those who aren’t familiar with them, because their heyday was 11 years ago anyway so you were maybe like, 4 years old at the time. 

In honesty I feel a bit unequipped to be talking about The Libertines, because there are already so many articles about them written by actual music journalists who, of course, could form words far more eloquently than I do. But now, obviously, is the perfect time to talk about them since they had just released their third album (!), Anthems For Doomed Youth, after a decade-long hiatus. 

The Libertines is a British indie-rock band, composed of lead frontmen/songwriters/vocalists/guitarists/best friends Carl Barat and Pete Doherty (middle-left and middle-right, respectively, in the first group picture above), bassist John Hassall (far-right), and drummer Gary Powell (far-left). They were formed in 1997 and released their first studio album “Up The Bracket” in 2002, reached critical praise and commercial success, released sophomore album self-titled “The Libertines” as a candid account on the mostly-love-but-also-hate relationship between the two frontmen Pete and Carl, and the band dissolved soon afterwards. Their time was short but eventful–with enough history to fill up tabloids full of gossip and several documentaries–but to summarize, it included drugs and betrayal:

“The Libertines legend is action-packed. The full story involves inter-band burglary, toe-curling TV documentaries, Thai monasteries and EastEnders’ Dot Cotton, but the basic facts are thus: group form in 1997, around the fraternal friendship of Doherty and Barât (along with bassist John Hassall and drummer Gary Powell); write songs indebted to both the Clash and Chas and Dave; break down the barriers between artists and fans like no British group since punk; then fall apart when Doherty’s drug intake becomes too much to handle; Barât boots his best friend out of the band until he cleans up his act; the ensuing drama (involving burglary, jail and more drugs) captivates fans until they begin to realise that the Libertines story was all over before it had even begun.” The Guardian.

They were somewhat notorious-and/or-famous in the UK--and while they weren’t quite as much a phenomenon outside of UK, for those initiated, The Libertines made a lasting impression. With startlingly new(-ish, because they certainly had influences from way back) and shocking sound at the time, the band captivated critics and fans alike. They quickly earned massive and extremely dedicated fanbase, while both of their albums routinely listed in Best Albums Of 2000s lists, if not Of All Time, in various publications. Think Oasis, if only a notch below. They had lasting legacy too, with bands like Arctic Monkeys and Franz Ferdinand would not reach the charts without The Libertines (in a similar way, US’ The Strokes paved the way for The Libertines itself).

To the untrained ear, their music might sound like a mess. They are a mess, so to speak, because of their deliberately rough-edged sound, but if one really listens they’d find great lyrical poetry and beautiful melodies beneath the band’s veil of chaos. (watch: Can’t Stand Me Now, and France). And when fans dubbed Pete as true poet, they aren’t joking. He is actually a published poet, and according to one trivia, at age 16 won a poetry competition and went on a tour to Russia for it. Carl is also a literary fan and frequently cited authors as his influences. (the band’s name is taken from Marquis de Sade’s Lust of the Libertines. The song Narcissist is also inspired by Oscar Wilde’s Dorian Gray). Along with British-style wit, self-deprecating charm, and blue-collar worker spirit, that juxtaposition connected with and enlightened sparks of life inside a whole generation of music listeners; most especially the hardened British middle-class worker ones. (watch: Time For Heroes, based on London May Day Riot of 2000)

“It’s like they say: Oasis is the sound of a council estate singing its heart out, and the Libertines is the sound of someone just put in the rubbish chute at the back of the estate, trying to work out what day it was.” Pete Doherty trying to explain their sound.

But judging The Libertines from their published recordings alone is only ill-advised. The band was defined by their adventures almost as well as their music, if not more. They are one of the bands that pioneered using the internet (in the pre-Twitter world) for directly communicating with fans and built a community around it--and they are also the kind of band that used to brand loyal fans with tattoos, played gigs in their own house that once resulted in police interference and sang through it with The Clash cover like it was just another day (watch that old gig), and also gladly sang through a stage-breaking fan like it was, also, another day (watch The Boy Looked At Johnny live performance with one overenthusiastic fan). In true Libertines spirit, of course, they haven’t stopped. They still do, to this day, play “guerilla” gigs--small, intimate, and mostly impromptu gigs--in teeny-tiny clubs, and most recently deviced a pop-up store and a week-long shenanigans with the band (including pub quiz!) for fans to welcome their newest album. From the start, it was clear The Libertines had their own special presence in the music industry, and they had always brought fans-slash-friends along for the ride.

It’s easy to see why fans felt exceptionally strong bond with the band, but it’s also quite hard to explain exactly the allure of The Libertines to the people who’ve never heard or seen them, and especially hard to explain to those who don’t really understand the appeal of the dirty side of rock n’ roll. Not that I imply that The Libertines is the pinnacle of dirty rock ‘n roll–they clearly aren’t–but they don’t try to be “hardcore” or anything like that, and therefore in my eyes, makes them really, really are. My point is, The Libertines’ charm isn’t quantifiable or even explainable, they’re just something that you believe in. To this day, fans would do pilgrimage to staple places of the band’s history (such as Albion Rooms–Pete and Carl’s old flat in which they sometimes held said gig–or a London alley from Up The Bracket’s music video (watch) in which fans would still inscribe drawings or quotes on the wall). The band’s live performances, of course, are always pure, frantic, and kind of unhinged that the fans will always know that their watching the bands’ true self.

“Other groups sold out bigger venues, had more hits and made better albums – but no other band gave music fans something to believe in quite like the Libertines.” The Guardian. 

In their own way, The Libertines would frequently remind you of a fiendishly fierce whirlwind romance, because maybe they are one. Pete and Carl’s relationship is hard to explain except maybe in one word: soulmates. In an interview talking about how they met, Pete said about Carl, “I was fascinated by ideas he had about himself and the country. I’d never met anyone like him. It was - what’s the word when you can’t take your eyes off someone? …Yes, it was riveting. Despite everything, you knew there was goodness there. Something to believe in. Something which is good, pure and untainted by anything.” And Carl said, “I think I felt a bit trapped before I met Pete. Have you seen The Lavender Hill Mob? Alec Guinness plays this wonderful, colourful person who locks it all up and goes through the motions. I always felt a bit like that. But then I met the Pigman (ed: nickname for Pete) and he said, ‘You can actually knock that on the head and get out.’ So we threw ourselves into eternity. And it worked.” While they most assuredly aren’t couples or lovers (because love comes in more than one kind, we aren’t five year-olds), their relationship was indeed like “first love, and all the jealousy and obsessiveness that comes with that”. Their mutual love and respect continued, even when they were apart and hated each other, and it is that fuel that burns the band. They’re one of the greatest pairing in modern musical world–always bouncing off to one another on stage and have a habit of singing on a single microphone. They’re the ultimate bros, on stage and off stage, and it’s that bond that captivated listeners too.  

An Anthem For Doomed Youth...

A third The Libertines album might sound so far-fetched not even a year ago, but here we are, rejoicing its release and finally listening to their newest album Anthems For Doomed Youth. More than a decade have passed by and no one stayed the same after 11 years, and so didn’t The Libertines. I didn’t really follow Pete’s music during the hiatus (he did have a really good solo album, though), but through Carl’s wildly different stuff throughout the years (Dirty Pretty Things, solo album, Carl Barat and The Jackals) it was clear that no one could stay the same. So The Libertines have evolved, and considering how much of their spirit relied on the chaos of youth--and they aren’t exactly young anymore, that’s good.

The album might sound uncharacteristically clean at first, but every bit of The Libertines is still there--if a little bit more mature, for lack of better word. The album might lack a sense of urgent charm that their albums used to have, but they make it up with a more competent, sympathetic, and introspective touch around their usual themes: intermittent self-aggrandizing and self-pity, lament of lost innocence, and full-on romanticism. Maybe the most stark difference can be felt through You’re My Waterloo, an old track (an ode from Pete to Carl) from the band’s back catalogue. Never been officially released but frequently played, this piano-heavy version have a sweeter, gentler vibe throughout the song that we maybe would not get from the old Libertines. 

Treading the line between glories past and present, Anthems of Doomed Youth is definitely an older, wiser version of The Libertines, but they’re still the likely lads that we knew.. And for new listeners: just sit back and enjoy, it’ll be a good ride.

Review: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Finally, it's time for Star Wars: The Force Awakens (TFA for short)! I'll try to keep this review vague because I don't want to delve into any spoiler, but first, let's talk about how this is an actual NEW Star Wars movie! I was meh for the prequels (and did not see them on the theaters either), and wasn't alive yet for the original trilogy so I never experienced what the hype felt like. When I went for TFA, I couldn’t shake a jarring feeling when the theater darkened, the stars and the title font appeared, then the crawl text came into view and I read it and it's a text I haven't read before. My mind couldn’t comprehend that it was a new Star Wars movie I was watching, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who felt that way, so it goes to show how important it was for this movie to be good (arguably we could also say that about the prequels, and we lived through them, so take that as you will). Of course, there were the Expanded Universe and animated series, and while they're good (I particularly kept hearing about how good The Clone Wars was), they're not the same. This time, it's a cinematic movie, and everyone is excited.

One thing I could say about TFA is that it's definitely a Star Wars movie. It wasn't like how JJ Abrams tried to "translate" Star Trek from the 60's to 00's; TFA is Star Wars. It's more Star Wars than what the prequels ever hoped to be. I might even go as far as saying that it does have all the good, but also bad, of the originals, but for the most part it's a very entertaining and well-executed movie.

TFA is basically a homage to the originals, and that's the only way for any Star Wars sequel can be done, honestly. The cast and crew are fans too, and they can't just ignore the huge legacy of the franchise. And they did it brilliantly, I say. In TFA, Jedi had evolved into a myth, in the same way that Star Wars had lived and grown in cultural conciousness throught these years. However, TFA very obviously drew its DNA from the original trilogy. Depending on the person, it could be a good thing or a bad thing. Nostalgia is abound (not in a bad way) and you could basically pin point which traits in each new characters are like Han, Luke, Anakin, etc. I myself didn't mind, because it wasn't like A New Hope (or as some others would call it, simply Star Wars) had the most original story ever. But what’s most important for me, all the visual spectacle and world building that made the franchise so famous, were there too. The various aliens, the lived-in technology, the dog fights, the visually cool villains--even down to the cantina, and also the appearance of sand (not Tatooine), and ice (not Hoth), and green (not Endor) planet. There's a shot that I particularly liked; it was about the first time we see new character Rey (Daisy Ridley), in a long shot near a spaceship wreckage, and it was both beautiful and had amazing sense of scale. It was the moment I knew the movie wouldn't disappoint me for being Star Wars.

Rey, Finn (John Boyega), and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) are the new additions to this movie, and viewers won't have problem falling in love with them. Kylo Ren is especially interesting, psychologically, and I'd like to know more about him. The old characters too, namely Luke Skywalker, now General Leia Organa, and Han Solo are also worthy and natural addition to the story. And BB-8! I was a fan of R2-D2 and BB-8 is an excellent progeny of R2-D2, and an even cuter one. And oh, the movie is extremely funny. It had great comedic timing that don't interfere with the actual movie and it's very fun.

TL;DR A fun, hearty movie with great worldbuilding unique to Star Wars, this movie won't disappoint newly introduced viewers or old fans.

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.