Review: Jennifer's Body (2009)

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: 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: Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

In terms of Marvel’s universe, Avengers: Age of Ultron is pretty decent. Because Marvel has been pulling things off left and right throughout these years, any small dip downward will always be felt like a dip. For me unfortunately, Age of Ultron could not reach the heights that was Iron Man, The Avengers, or Captain America: The Winter Soldier, although thankfully it did not rise low like Thor or Iron Man 2.

In Avengers: Age of Ultron, after the fall of SHIELD, Avengers Initiative was continued by Maria Hill under the wings of Tony Stark. They were looking high and low for Loki's Sceptre that was left on earth, and found it in a HYDRA base in Sokovia. They attempted to retrieve it, but they also faced something more: two "enhanced" people, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch (although no one's calling them that). But wait, they're not the villain! The villain was an Artifical Intelligence called Ultron, almost unknowingly built by Tony Stark, who was hellbent on destroying the world like how ultrasmart AI sometimes do.

The movie was fun and exciting, for sure. There were plenty of action to be found in this film, as you would guess from a movie that has Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye together. After all, you can't really accuse a movie that had Hulk vs Iron Man's Hulkbuster Armor to be lacking action. The sequences were big and beautiful as always, and one thing I particularly liked was how determined the heroes were to keep civilians as far as possible. I even liked how they protrayed Scarlet Witch's mind-altering powers visually, she never looked out of place at all.

Despite all that, the movie's strong suit was always when the action stopped. The personal moments were incredibly the best in this film. Hawkeye, who was mostly mind-controlled in the first Avengers, had a lot of screentime dedicated to him and his (surprise) family, and it was sweet. We got to see a whole new side of Natasha and Bruce Banner as they found solace in each other. And Tony Stark? We found out that he was still an arrogant and a genius, as expected. It was always fun to see them hangout over nothing too, like how they did in the party with Thor's hammer (not a euphemism).

Unfortunately, I found the villain kinda meh. Ultron was a very powerful villain, and his very existence was supposed to change the world or something, but he was too strong, too fast, and too vague that it was hard to feel any particular emotion towards him. Mostly I was like, "What's with this guy?" wondering why he got so crazy and ended up with no satisfying answer other than a single Tony Stark's off-handed remark. Ultron was an underdeveloped villain, but the movie itself was already clocking at 2,5 hours that it was an understandable decision. The Vision was pretty cool, though!

And I am excited for the new generation of Avengers!

TL;DR With serviceable villain, Age of Ultron could not be an instant Marvel classic, but it was a spectacle like none other with excellent dramatic moments.

Review: Locke (2014)

Rating: 9.0/10

I'm not usually the one for end of the year reviews and all that (or start of the year, as the case may be now), that's why I've been avoiding doing that kind of stuff until now. But I'm in the mood to post something and I just thought, why not write a review on (IMO) the best film of 2014?

Locke is a prime example in the defense of a small-world storytelling. In the age of blockbusters in which somehow all movies seem to have the whole world, or the entirety of humankind, or all levels of reality in danger, here comes Locke. In Locke, the stakes couldn't have been smaller: It was just a matter of a man's job, a man's relationship, and a man's father. All of that happened in a single night in a car. No explosions. No one died. And it couldn't have been more riveting.

No questions barred, the whole movie hinges on the performance of Tom Hardy. He was beautiful and on point all the time, and he deserved all of the praise that he received with this performance and maybe more. His voice alone could carry a movie. But for me, a special shoutout is needed to be made to Steven Knight as director and his team. The nightscene, accompanied with lingering music, felt like a whole language in itself. It sealed us in and let our hearts get immersed in the story. No one suspects it, but Ivan Locke is an unsung hero in today's storytelling.

Note: A version of this review originally appeared on my old site here.

Review: The Nice Guys (2016)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surprisingly dark and layered, 2003′s underrated Peter Pan movie is my favorite Pan story. Please read and watch the movie (instead of the awful 2015′s Pan ;) )!

The best Peter Pan film is the one you’ve forgotten about

Look even a little past the surface, and Peter Pan is revealed as the tragic figure he is at heart. Yet only one version of the story has really acknowledged this. Not coincidentally, it’s by far the best one: P.J. Hogan’s 2003 film Peter Pan.

The Peter Pan of this film (Jeremy Sumpter) is a wounded creature. Like many troubled children, he reacts with hostility and violence when attacked, though the dangers that set him off here aren’t the physical kind posed by Captain Hook, but emotional ones that are threatening in their adultness. The film sees through his familiar traits, revealing his trademark cockiness and mischievousness as masks over underlying pain. When claims he wants only to be a boy and have fun, Wendy calls bullshit: “I think it is your biggest pretend.”

Remember that Pan’s ability to fly is contingent on not just fairy dust, but optimism; if he lets unhappy thoughts into his head, he will quite literally fall. This doesn’t result in a joyful character, but one in denial. When he plays a kind of word association game, pairing “jealousy” with Tinker Bell and “anger” with Hook, he claims ignorance at the word “love,” hissing that “the sound of it offends me.” While it’s never underlined in close-up, there’s a scar running across Sumpter’s heart.

Full story at avclub.com

TV Review: Patriot

Today is a rather special TV Shoutout, featuring Indonesia’s miniseries Patriot. This time, it’ll be more of a review.

What it is about: Patriot follows the story of 5 special ops soldiers tasked to rescue a village attacked and taken over by an international drug cartel.

What I have to say about it:

First of all, I have to give an overview about the state of Indonesian storied television. Basically, it’s atrocious, and I’m not even talking about CSI: Cyber or CW’s Beauty and the Beast level of atrocity. Our scripted series are almost completely consist of soap operas (our so-called “sinetron”) with complete disregard of any storytelling or technical principles that they’re so painful to watch (just try and watch this). Some stuff has been okay, but there’s been a recent surge in true serialized storytelling, particularly spearheaded by new channel NET. that hosted Patriot. Being a movie and TV aficionado that I am, of course I have to try see and support our local TV.

Seeing Patriot, it’s a definite massive improvement from typical Indonesia’s TV series. Patriot has a lot of things going for it. For instance, it has a great production value, beautiful scenery, and is almost movie-like in its approach. It still have traces of Indonesia’s trademark habit of over-relying on music to create emotions, but at least the soundtrack itself is pretty good and effective so I shouldn’t complain too much.

Each of the main cast are believable as soldiers, the bad guys as bad guys, even the villagers and extras are spot on. My personal pet peeve in Indonesian films is that a lot of times, the acting ability of the extras (the ones that speak for 5 seconds) are so horrendous they’d take you right of the film, but I don’t really have that problem with this series. I also rather enjoyed the villains. Panglima Timur (Aqi Singgih) is slightly deranged and borderline wacky, and the arrow-wielding Bunian (why can’t I find the actor’s name on the internet???) has this comic-book villain quality about him.

As for the story, Patriot immediately built pretty strong emotional basis for each of the soldiers, and they each are pretty badass. The plot itself throughout the series is rather simplistic and very linear, but it’s also a pretty breezy 7-episode miniseries so it still works. I would love to see the workings of the cartel more, I hope they’re saving it for potential season 2. The personal drama, however, maybe with the exception of Charles (Maruli Tampubolon) and his father (Dorman Borisman), are very typical. The drama of Samuel (Dallas Pratama) and his cardboard-personality girlfriend is particularly uninspired with terrible handling of the issue. The inclusion of veteran soldier Kapten Rustam is a very nice touch, though.

I have to say I’m a bit underwhelmed with the female characters in this show. Laras (Ranggani Puspandya), wife of Kolonel Bayu (Rizky Hanggono), has a special brand of feminine strength but her story is very limited, and the less I write about Karin, Samuel’s girlfriend, the better. I liked Indah, the villager of Mapu, but is disappointed with the treatment of her character. She is a strong, assertive female character when she’s on her own or with other women and children, but completely lost her assertive quality when she’s in the same scene with other male characters--or worse, became a walking plot device, especially with her attempted rape story.

I just want to point out this important thing: RAPE STORY IS (almost) ALWAYS A NOPE. Especially flirting after attempted rape? DOUBLE NOPE. No thank you. I want to tell every writer that rape is a lazy storytelling device, but that's another rant. (But seriously writers or wannabe writers, please read this, this, and this article to give you some perspective before you attempt to write any rape scene). 

Where you can watch it: The whole series is in its official Youtube channel, but is in Indonesian with no English subtitle.

Status: The 7-episode miniseries is already completed, and no official word if there’s going to be any season 2.

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.