Web Shoutout: Off Camera With Sam Jones

Review: Inside Out (2015)

Rating: 8.5 of 10

Have you ever wondered what’s going on in a person’s mind? Why do they feel sad, or happy, or bored, or elated? In the case of Inside Out, you don’t need to wonder anymore.

In Inside Out, our protagonists are the tiny workers inside Riley’s head. We have Joy, Sadness, Disgust, Fear, and Anger all work alongside each other, each representing one emotion that Riley feels, depending on who’s taking the lead.  It’s a pretty simple premise--and one that allows for a pretty powerful emotional impact.

An emotional movie about emotions? It’s almost a given, if you ask me, but Inside Out wrapped it all tightly with Riley’s journey. In that delicate age of 11, Riley’s loving-but-busy father had to move his family to another town. Away from the town that she loves, she has to move to a less-than-perfect home and go to a new school without her old friends. It’s a coming of age story that feels so real and intimate, because it’s the one that many of us had to live through at some point in our lives--and it hit us hard. My favorite moment is the scene in which Riley’s mother had a talk with her when she tucked her in, and I imagine it’s also the hardest hitting moment for parents and children alike.

But Inside Out isn’t as novel as some reviews led me to believe, mainly because I think Wreck-It Ralph did it first. Inside Out visualizes the workings of the human brain, just like Wreck-It Ralph did it with arcade games. Inside Out has Imagination Land and Dream Production Company, while Wreck-It Ralph had Sugar Rush and Hero’s Duty. Even the end lesson is basically the same; Joy can’t be meaningful without Sadness, in the same way heroes need villains. But both are great films, and it’s great we get to see such nuanced themes discussed in family movies.

TL;DR It’s not Pixar’s best (Wall-E, Up, Toy Story, and The Incredibles still take the cake), but it’s still a pretty powerful movie that may leave you needing for tissue.

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(Amy Adams) is a rich, successful gallery owner who is unhappy with her life and marriage, who suddenly receives an unpublished manuscript dedicated to her from her writer ex-husband, Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal).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: Rise Of The Guardians (2012)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

From Dreamworks and the group of people who brought How To Train Your Dragon to life (according to the poster), here comes another animated tale called Rise Of The Guardians. And it was just as brilliant.

Jack Frost (voiced by Chris Pine), is a menace. He is a far cry from Santa Claus a.k.a. North (Alec Baldwin), Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman), Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher), and Sandman who each did hardwork and vowed to protect and care for the children for ever. But somehow, when a new threat in the form of Pitch “Boogeyman” Black (Jude Law) came into town, Jack Frost was picked to help the rest of The Guardians.

The premise is not exactly new, and the choice of characters are definitely not new. Santa? Easter Bunny? They each have been portrayed in stories hundreds of times before (or thousands in the case of Santa Claus), but not quite like this. Santa, or North as the movie calls him, is two-parts Russian/one part biker/one part pirate/one part handicraftsman. Bunny is the ultimate macho-man, Tooth is a woman-bird-dragonfly hybrid with tiny little helpers, and Sandman is the cutest mute sandy being of all time. Jack Frost is a punk, and Pitch Black is a skeevy, slithery villain in black robe who turns dreams into nightmares (I’m amused that he’s Jude Law, in a role I always imagined him to be). Every hero (yes, because they’re basically superheroes protecting the children) and villain is definitely fully inspired by the myth and lore we are familiar with, but with clear enough twist to make the universe felt new, exciting, and lived in. Did you know that Yeti, not elves, is the one that makes toys for Santa? 

And more importantly, they built on the characters. Each of the characters have their own backstory but when you realize that each of the Guardians used to be living, breathing humans it all became that much more poignant. 

Leaving out of the theater, I started to think that maybe the biggest message from the film is not for the kids but for the adults. Sure it teaches kids that the world is full of wonder and possibilities, or that bad things might exist but we need not fear them—it even teaches self-worth and sense of duty. But we, the adults, are also reminded that the world is a magical place and we need that wide-eyed attitude in life. When North told Jack about his Matryoshka doll, or Tooth explained why she always collects children’s teeth, you start to understand the importance of childhood. Hence, it is not a coincidence that this movie is one of the most magical children’s movie I’ve ever seen.

The genius thing is, while Rise of The Guardians is not a properly holiday movie (unless you count Easter as a proper holiday—I don’t) it felt absolutely festive. It has genuinely exciting action sequences too, and in general the animation is absolutely beautiful. We slide and fly along with the Guardians and it gets ever more exciting each time. Yes it does not have an absolutely unique storyline (it follows the general trajectory of a “rise to a hero” story), but it pays its existence with a genuine heart, a sense of wonder, and believable characters.

TL;DR With its plentiful action sequences and a hint of darkness it imparted at some places, Rise of The Guardians is a magical ride perfectly suited for bigger and more cynical kids—kids, being “real” kids and the kids inside all of you.

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.

TV Shoutout: Orphan Black

Of course I had to do a Shoutout for Orphan Black, I don't know why I haven't done it yet!

What it is about: A streetwise con-artist, Sarah (Tatiana Maslany), witnessed a woman who looked exactly like her committing a suicide, and subsequently stole her identity as an opportunity to get away from her own life. (And it turns out, the woman was her clone. Oops.)

Why you should watch it: Tatiana Maslany, Tatiana Maslany, Tatiana Maslany, Tatiana Maslany. Seriously.

As already stated, Tatiana Maslany plays the central character, Sarah, who was just one among a set of clones, all also played by her. She was able to play so many different women in one or separate screens, and still be instantly recognizable as different, consistent characters with their own personality and personal lives. There really is no way to accurately explain the kind of acting that she does, other than: just watch her performance. She would, on consistent basis, make you forget that basically half of the regular cast were played by a single actress because each of them were all just that different. Fun fact: Maslany's mother, at one time, actually verbally asked the crew, "When is Tatiana coming back?" all the while watching her daughter filming as another character. She, literally, didn't recognize her own daughter in front of her eyes while acting. That's the kind of acting that Maslany does.

(This is actually a behind-the-scenes video, but I think you can get a pretty good grasp of Maslany as the 3 main clones: Sarah, Alison, Cosima. It's also a very interesting to see the technicality behind it.)

The fun really starts when you see her playing a clone pretending to be another clone (for example, Sarah pretending to be Alison). You can clearly see it was not Alison, but rather Sarah trying her best to be Alison—which is really an almost impossible feat considering they look exactly alike. Really, by that time, you might think that she's just showing off (and you'd still be totally impressed).

Enough about Maslany, now about the actual story. If you're intimidated by the word "clone", don't. The clone thing is just a setting, but the core is really about sisters and family. After accepting their unique bond and condition, they found solace in each other and ended up protecting each other at all costs. Orphan Black is indeed a very suspenseful show as the clones were hunted and monitored, but it is also a very fun one. Characters like Felix, Vic, Donnie, even suburban-mom Alison give plenty of comic relief—not to mention Helena's neverending quirkiness. It's actually a little bit cheesy and soap-opera-esque (in the best way), but it's also suspenseful as heck with a good amount of action and detective work. In short, Orphan Black is the best of both worlds, in terms of (the absurd) masculine vs. feminine dichotomy on TV.

Who should watch it: Due to its inclusion of many genres, I think everyone, men and women will enjoy it, but maybe not for kids because there were some, sparse partial nudity.

Where you should start: If you don't mind missing things out, you basically can start anywhere. Otherwise, you should start from the beginning because it's fun anyway.

Status: Season 3 running.

(all the Felix gifs! Because why not!)

Review: Attack The Block (2011)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Once you've reeled yourself from Star Wars: The Force Awakens fever, let's take a moment to look at a previous starring role by one of its star, John Boyega (or Finn in The Force Awakens), in 2011′s Attack The Block.

Alternatively, you could also check out the incredible movie in which General Hux (Domhnall Gleeson) and Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) got to hang around with their very own droid (pun very much intended) in Ex Machina, reviewed previously here at 9.0 rating (I tell ya, these are all awesome films).

(John Boyega in Attack The Block, and Domhnall Gleeson and Oscar Isaac in Ex Machina, respectively)

But now here’s the review for Attack The Block. Can I say enough good things about Attack the Block? No I can't, because it's absolutely brilliant.

Attack the Block, brought to you by the guys behind Hot Fuzz, tells the story about a gang of kids in South London who suddenly find that their neighbourhood was being attacked by aliens from outer space. Then they do the only thing that they know: fight for their 'hood.

Attack The Block is awesome, there’s no need to downplay that. It’s definitely a popcorn movie, but it’s a really, really good one. Tense and breathless, Attack The Block has everything you want from an action/thriller film. Littered with bikes, baseball bats, and fireworks, it’s definitely not a conventional one--but those facts by no means reflect its adrenaline level. It has some quick bloody scenes, so viewer discretion is advised. The lead character Moses (John Boyega) was especially brilliantly acted, but the movie somehow managed to make all the characters relatable even though they were basically criminals. Almost atmospheric in their choice of neighbourhood, Attack the Block also has great soundtrack (by Basement Jaxx) and visuals, and I especially loved the simple yet effective design of the aliens.

TL;DR Intense, unpredictable and unique, this movie is a hidden gem and goes to show that big budget is not necessary to make good sci-fi action.

*a version of this review was previously posted in 2011.

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: 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: 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.

Music Shoutout: Bernhoft

Bernhoft or Bern/hoft, sometimes also known by his full name Jarle Bernhoft, is a singer and musician from Norway. He's pretty well-known in his home country and part of Europe, but trust me when I say he really should be worldwide famous. With unique musical sensibilities that is drenched in soul and funk, he's the grooviest white man you'll ever meet and you know it.

If you listen to his recorded songs and albums and think, "Eeeeeh, this guy is pretty good, I guess," wait until you see his live performances. With the help of loop machine, he plays all the instruments himself and magically always sound like he has a full band with him. (Basically, for the Orphan Black crowd, he's virtually the Tatiana Maslany of music ;) ) Honestly, it'd be a gimmick if he weren't so good at it, but he somehow makes it all seem so naturally easy.

He already had 3 irresistible solo albums: Ceramik City Chronicles, Solidarity Breaks (buy), and most recently Islander (buy). Each of them had somewhat different vibes, but equally good. Being a well-rounded musician that he is, of course, the "gimmick" isn't all that he is. If you're interested, he also published live performances that he did with orchestral companion (with album Walk With Me (buy)), and also with actual band (in the double CD, 1:Man 2:Band). All of that showed that yes, there is nothing that he could not do. Oh, and he was also nominated for the Grammy Awards for his album Islander, so there’s that.

So, check him out already!

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