Latest Posts by fly-metojupiter - Page 3

Review: Fast & Furious 7 (2015)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Furious 7 (obviously my preferred alternate title), naturally, is the 7th installment of Fast & Furious franchise, and every ounce of it just oozes everything we have come know and love of the franchise. TL;DR Basically if you love the previous movies you'll love this one, and if you loathe those films then... why are you watching this one anyway? The franchise, which had lived for an outstanding 14 years, had the money-making formula down to a science (it had to if it wants to stay on top of box office), but still managed to scramble new things from here and there. So let me break down the formula for you.

Family Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) is all about family, a principle that he had carried from even back then in the first movie. The previous movie was quite clever at inventing a villain the exact opposite of Dom: someone that meant business and only business. In 7, the reversal was reversed again. This time, the villain Deckard Shaw (the always intimidating Jason Statham) was loyal to his family as much as Dom to his own, avenging his brother who died in the hands of our protagonist. In Dom's side, the loss of Han was palpable and a gaping hole was left, in the way that is rarely felt in an action-based movie when a brother was lost.

Insane car chases + amazing fights The theme this week is flying cars, ladies and gentlemen! Seriously, I've never seen that many cars flying in the air in any single movie, ever. It was like the writers were talking about how to make the car chase sequences exciting again, and one of them exclaimed in a half joking manner, "We make them fly!" and lightbulbs lit up in every one of them, scrambling to write ideas in their teeny tiny notebook. And every single moment of it was glorious. Was it realistic? Abso-freakin'-lutely not. But do we care? Not in the slightest.

The man-on-man (or woman, either way) combats were great too. It also includes incredible hand-to-hand combat between Vin Diesel and Jason Statham because otherwise, why the hell do you hire both of them in the same movie. And Dwayne Johnson firing machine guns to conclude things, because reasons. But my favorite moment was not even a fight, it was when Dom and Shaw goes on head to head with their car, and nobody flinched. It wasn’t only crazy, it was a great character moment too, showing how determined and relentless they both were.

The action sequences does run a bit heavy and long, leaving very little time for proper plotting or character building, but for the most part they still tread the line between excitement and overabundance pretty carefully.

Scantily clad women Some of you might be lying if you say you didn't come to watch Fast & Furious (aside for the cars, obviously)for the girls in bikinis who are not anywhere near a pool. The good news for you that do: yes, there are those girls. The good news for me and the ones that don't come for them: they were shot in such over-the-top way that I'm pretty sure they were added as a kind of mockery. It was bullsh*t and the movie knows it. Especially when there was a scene in the same movie in which Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) rescued Ramsey (Nathalie Emmanuel) after unsuccessful attempt by other guys, then Ramsey asks, "But who's gonna rescue us!?" and Letty answers in the most reassuring, "Nope, we're it." In this universe, women rule too.

Everybody's a badass It came to my attention that Fast & Furious is one of few action franchises that is truly inclusive. Everybody, not limited to race, age, and gender, can be a badass: from the furiously skilled Thai villain (Tony Jaa); a blonde, female bodyguard backed up by uniformed women in hijab; a female Spanish FBI agent; to middle-aged white guy (Kurt Russell), all had chance to shine. In a more intellectual role, there's also the English, woman-of-color hacker Ramsey. I was glad to see that Furious 7 followed the same pattern that the previous movies started.

Goodbye Paul Walker (mild spoiler) The biggest blow to the movie was the sudden death of Paul Walker who played main protagonist, Brian O'Connor. The filming was completed with the help of his brother as stand-in and CGI (yes, it was still as creepy as when Tron: Legacy tried to pull it off with CGI Jeff Bridges), but the result was a very sweet coda. Brian was shown retiring from his dangerous life to live with his happy family—his story concluded with a peaceful drive with his "brother" Dom. It was particularly heartbreaking if you realize that when Dom said he'd never say goodbye to Brian because he's his brother, probably Vin Diesel really meant it for Paul Walker too (they were really close in real life to, to my knowledge). Also heartbreaking: when they were in Han's funeral and they were all saying, "No more funerals." Damn, if only we knew.

As of now, Fast & Furious 8 might be happening in the future, even without Paul Walker. Like they said in the movie, it will be different, but hopefully it will be just as fun.

Rant: What prevented Glee from being a truly great television.

I have a love/hate relationship with Glee. It's one of my only guilty pleasure in the true guilty-feeling sense (I also love some non high-brow TV shows like Teen Wolf, but my love for them is always unashamed), but Glee is the only show which I might feel like scrubbing my brain afterwards and just pretend I didn't watch them.

I think Glee had bad reputation just because it's set in high school and it features singing pop songs (or in some cases, butchering songs) in ubiquitous environments. It just seemed so uncool for people above 20 y.o. who are finally capable of making well-reasoned decisions in life (unlike 100% of the characters in Glee), but Glee's downfall for me is not even about trademark Ryan Murphy's lightning fast nonsensical plots and antics—I've taken it as part of Glee's charm even though it is an acquired taste—but because for me Glee was always just so damn close to being truly compelling television. In its heart, Glee is about outcasts finding their way in the world, following dreams, overcoming odds, tolerance and equality. And Glee was always great at telling compelling teenage-related stories when it remembered its heart. When it’s bad it’s bad, but when it’s good it’s really good and I think a lot of people missed it because of the stigma that the show carries.

First season was generally loved by critics and fans, and it remained its best season. It was a unique blend of a teenage dream—a dream that we can all fit in, and we can reach greatness—and a brightly-lit, tounge-in-cheek satire. Rachel was the epitome of Glee: talented, driven, and misunderstood. Others fit in nicely too, from a jock who struggled to not be the mean bully that everybody expected him to be, a stuttery gothic girl, a church girl overlooked but destined for stardom, a kid in a wheelchair, a closeted gay, and even jocks and cheerleaders who eventually found home in Glee club and in each other. The interactions between the losers and the popular, and how they later overcame their differences was what Glee is all about. They felt like family and it was all that mattered. Glee was never without its more questionable aspects however, like Will's wife faking her pregnancy, but hey it's Glee we're talking about so it comes with the territory. Things got rocky later on, as second season rolled and it started to pay more attention to elaborate popular songs, and less on actual storylines. It never quite reached the heights of season 1 again, but Glee always had its moments of brilliance. And then sometimes it threw it all away, then found them again, and lost it again, then it came back—you get the gist. Glee always trailed the line between greatness and awfulness, and maybe there's no place it rather be.

Disclaimer: I do watch Glee from time to time but I am in no way religious about it, so I haven't watched every single episodes of Glee but I watched quite a lot of them. And yes, sometimes I skip some episodes on purpose because some of them are just bad and I just can't with it. And I critic because I love them, so please don't be mad at me for being passionate! These opinions are my own, and this rant is always intended to be a mere opinion piece. Also, spoilers ahead.

I have a list in my mind of things that prevented Glee from reaching its true potential. I try to keep them broad and general, because there were always a thousand plots going around Glee at any one time (good and bad) and it's just counterproductive to complain about them all. So here it is:

1. The Rachel Berry Problem. Glee loves Rachel Berry. I have no idea why. I did say that Rachel Berry is the epitome of Glee, and at certain level it was true, but it quickly went out of hand. Glee gave Rachel everything. She was selfish, and everybody shone a spotlight on her, said she was special, pat her in the back, and handed everything to her in a silver platter just because she demanded for it. It happened over and over again it was not even funny, and in the last season she was only worried about her future for a few minutes and guess what: eventually the only choice she had to make was between accepting a Broadway part that she forgot she auditioned for, or coming back to NYADA that accepted her again just because she asked for it. In the end, I don't even think Rachel learned anything at all aside from how amazing she is and how she deserves everything in life.

2. The Asian Girl Problem. I feel sorry for Tina. Remember that storyline in season 2 in which Tina wanted to be the lead but everybody's like, "Let Rachel have it. She's in senior year and she needs it more than you, you can have it next year," but guess what? The time never came. She was always sidelined in favor of the other girls until the end. It always seemed odd to me because she seemed to have, "I'm not gonna put up with your s**t," attitude. She's a true team player and the show rarely rewarded her for it. There was also rarely an episode in which her ethnicity isn't mentioned in one way or another, that you start to think that maybe it's part of why.

3. New kids of season 3: The Glee Project winners a.k.a extras. There was a show called The Glee Project and yes, I watched 2 seasons of them. It was a reality-show/competition type spin-off series that aimed to find the next star to appear on Glee. They were told that the winner would get 7 episode arc on Glee (that's A LOT) and maybe a gateway to stardom. It was not. Technically they weren't wrong, because they pointed out that the show wasn't technically a competition but rather televised casting process. And they get their prizes alright, but they never got the chance to really shine on Glee. Most of their roles involving being a walking label who spouts one or two sentences each episode and smile while other people sing. You definitely started to feel sorry for the winners because they were basically glorified extras. Other non-winner new kids on Glee were also treated barely as part of the group that it becomes useless fare to talk about them.

The reason I talked about The Glee Project was because they quite made a big fuzz about finding new kids but ended up not using them as much at all. Also, by that time I was a bit frustrated with Glee that the thought of having fresh infusion of blood excited me, but sadly I was misguided. It was such wasted opportunity.

4. Old kids of season 3: Living In New York Watching the series finale, it was pretty clear that the show was always about the original kids (unless you're Blaine, because Glee loves them Blaine too). At season 3, it wasn't extremely clear to me what the show was trying to be after the big shake-up of graduating kids. To be fair, I guess the show itself wasn't sure either. I'm pretty sure the only reason we get to NY was because the show was afraid of letting Rachel Berry go.

I think the show suffered because it tried to tell 2 stories at once: the new kids (the ones haven't graduated) and the old kids. The fact that it couldn't choose hurt its chances at telling great stories on either of them, and left me disappointed with both.

6. New kids of season 4: What's up with the triangle? Glee came back with 4 new kids: Marley, Ryder, Jake, and Kitty. Three of them were in a love triangle (or love "square" if you count Kitty's deviousness as real love), and it was unengaging. I shouldn't complain about the new kids when I crave for them in the previous season, but the problem was that these kids weren't very good characters and were downright boring by Glee's standards. I quite like Ryder (played by Blake Jenner, winner of 2nd season The Glee Project) and his dyslexia, but for the most part they were normal kids pretending to be outcasts (trapped in a boring love triangle) and they never really gelled with the show.

7. New kids of season 6: Too little too late, The disappearence of Jane Hayward, and Are we a team with The Warblers? If there was one thing that Glee season 6 pulled off, it was the new kids. They embody the wide-eyed hopes and dreams that the original kids of Glee used to have, and it was fun to watch it all unfold all over again. The only regrettable thing was that we only had such a short time with them (6th season is a shortened season of only 13 episodes, and even then the kids didn't get legitimate storyline until halfway into the season). Roderick-Spencer bromanship was nice, so was Mason's coming of age and Madison's blessing and serenity, but it was a little bit too little too late, especially when we talk about Jane! Jane started off the season with guns blazing and winds blowing: she fought her way into Dalton Academy and The Warblers, lost, but rose again and get herself transferred to McKinley to join the New Directions.... only to not be heard of again. She was such a fighter in the first episode, but she was never given her own storyline to showcase herself in later episodes, not even when The Warblers joined New Directions (her reaction was limited to a quick one-sentence remark).

And speaking off The Warblers, the joint New Directions-Warblers came soooo far from the left field that it had not one iota of believability. If it were given time to build up and develop across several episodes of the season, it would be a marvellous arc, but the actual execution was pretty bad. It took place in exactly one episode, I believe? The Warblers were even barely in frame whenever they were in a group together, that it never felt real that they actually joined. And are we pretending that no former members of The Warblers sang anything at Sectionals and were okay with it? I know that the show is about New Directions, but the show just threw any sort of believability out of the window by that point. The heart was in it in season 6, but the execution was lacking that it left me wondering how a perfect season would be like.

8. Old kids of season 6: We never let go of anything. I was tired of the old kids by this time, I even skipped the wedding episode because I just don’t want to see them again. For me, their arc already ended and there were not much that can be gained by revisiting them. It was only by the time its 2-part finale aired that I understood that the show was never about the new kids, or even the club. It was about several kids and one teacher who happened to find their way to each other's life, and changed each other's life. The finale was pure nostalgia and wish fulfillment, but by that time it wasn't even a negative. It was perfectly sweet and bookended the series nicely. Glee is the world where the people you meet in high school are the only people of worth you'll ever meet in your life: it maybe not the most realistic, but it was the world that it lived in. In Glee, nobody’s ever has to let go, and who doesn't want to live like that?

Glee may have lost its steam. By this time, most people maybe don't know or don't care that the show has shown it last episode (it actually has the lowest rating of Glee's season finales), but for me Glee will always be remembered as that show that was always almost on the verge of greatness. Farewell, and good riddance (I never know which one to choose).

Review: Paddington (2014)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Paddington is a famous talking bear of beloved children's illustrated literature in the UK since 1958. (He even has a line of stuffed toys, merchandises, animated series, and even stamps and a statue.) Paddington's original illustrations are instantly recognizable, but as we all know, nothing is exempt from 21st century CGI treatment! So Paddington is now a hyperrealistic bipedal talking bear with a red hat and no pants (which may sound a bit terrifying), but this CGI Paddington is actually very cute, none the least because of his antiquated British manners and Ben Whishaw's mild soothing voice.

Paddington the bear comes from the forest of "Darkest Peru" and arrived at Paddington Station in London, looking for a family. He has been taught manners and how to greet people politely by his Uncle Pastuzo and Aunt Lucy and he hoped he could find family soon, but sadly London has become cynical. Children, or bears, cannot simply arrive at a train station and hoped to be adopted anymore, until Brown family approached him and offered him to give him a night's stay at their house. They agreed to help him finding an explorer who visited the bears years before in Peru, so Mr. Henry, Mrs. Mary, Judy and Jonathan learned to live with him momentarily.

Paddington learns as much as The Browns learns from him, and while the movie is also filled with regular "fish out of water" gags, Paddington's real story is about giving kindness and finding a family and the movie is really great at telling that. Paddington is not even afraid to bring out its sadness factor, which I appreciate because it made things much more poignant. I love children's stories that do not hold back (within reason, of course) because hey, bad things happen and the thing that matters is how we deal with them. TL;DR Throughout the movie Paddington is sweet and reminds us the wonder of a more friendly, civilized world even though he is a literal bear from the wilderness. That paradox is what made him special, and we ended up loving him as much as The Brown Family do.

*Here's a trailer. There's a bodily humor which might gross out some people, although I found it impossibly cute! I must remind you though that it's only a small part of the film and the rest of the film is really lovely.

Review: Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

Rating: 8.5 of 10

Before I say anything, let me just remind you that Birdman was hyped to extraordinary degree. Seemingly every movie site and every single movie critic loved it. Academy Award fell all over for it, and if you don't pay attention you might think they're talking about The Second Coming or something. It was crazy, and I purposefully waited to watch and and review it (just because that's how I am). Spoiler alert: Birdman went on to win Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Directing, and Best Cinematography in Academy Award. All of which are pretty well deserved, actually, so here it goes (non-spoiler review):

Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) is a washed-up actor, primarily known only as the guy who played "Birdman" in the movies three times over. He desperately tries to—risking everything he's got—to reach industrial relevance again by curiously adapting a play based on Raymond Carver's "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love". In an unexpected turn of events, big-time Broadway performer-slash-a**hole Mike Shiner (Edward Norton) agrees to join the play at last minute.

In short, Birdman is a brilliant satire. It expertly examines the absurd dichotomy between entertainment and art, relevance and irrelevance, ego and confidence, fantasy and reality, man and icon, in the way that's almost impossible to not see the parallels to the real world (whatever that is). That, of course, is intentional. The movie blurs the line between fiction and reality: it name drops several things from The Hunger Games to Robert Downey Jr. (whom Riggan might or might not hate). Heck, even the play itself is based from a real writer and a real short story. And guess what? In a further satirical twist, Michael Keaton actually played Batman back in 1989 if anyone remembers, and one would have to be literally blind to not see the parallel between the two superheroic icons. 

This super-realist theme really is a part of something genius once you consider its unique faux-one shot approach. The whole movie—almost 119 minutes of it—was shot and edited to make it look like it’s all done in one continuous shot. Birdman is reverse-escapism, in a way. It traps you in the same way Riggan is trapped with his poor pathetic life, and you can’t escape from the scene no more than Riggan was able to escape his own body.

While I’m not sure if Birdman is as revolutionary as I’ve been led to believe, I can definitely see how it appeals most deeply to the cinephile and theater crowd. Snobbery, fickleness of fame, and fight for relevance are themes that they know all too well, and it must be fun to see a movie that pokes fun at it so gleefully, sternly, stylishly, and artistically fresh.

Birdman is unique artistically not only because of the editing, but also because of the soundtrack. The soundtrack is of drums, all the time, throughout the movie—drums that are out of tune and kind of broken to reflect the state of mind that Riggan is in. (Bonus: How they made the soundtrack. It’s impressive.) Director Alejandro González Iñárritu clearly had a unique vision and he made it all happen with ease and brilliance. That said, I must say the only actor that really jumped at me in Birdman is Edward Norton (despite Keaton is a front runner for Best Actor for his role). The others are good too, but for me Norton clearly outshines them as the rude Broadway prodigy.

TL;DR While originally I wasn’t that impressed with Birdman, it really is one of those movies that gets better the more I think about it. Is it revolutionary? I don't really think so, but is it brilliant? Definitely.

TV Shoutout: Marvel's Agent Carter

Marvel's Agent Carter is ending its first season this week and it's time for another TV Shoutout!

What it is about: Agent Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) returned from the war and fighting alongside Captain America, to being a glorified secretary in covert agency SSR (Strategic Scientific Reserve) and she was none too pleased because of it. When Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) came calling about a raid on a vault full of his inventions, she decided to help her friend.

Why you should watch it: Because Peggy Carter kicks ass. End of story.

Well, not end of story, because what makes Agent Carter special is that it's also a rich period piece. When World War II ended, men came back from the war and women sidelined once again, so it was only up to Carter's determination to push herself above and beyond sexism of the era. Agent Carter is about her journey blasting through all the expectations of how a woman should be in that time. The show also have great, fulfilling script and 3-dimensional supporting characters all around, male and female alike; from Jarvis (Stark's original butler, played by James D'Arcy), Howard Stark, and the people Carter worked with.

For Marvel fans, Agent Carter acts as a sequel to Captain America: The First Avenger and prequel to the others, so this is obviously for you if you ever wonder about what happened in between. Surprisingly, this season did not dwell into S.H.I.E.L.D and HYDRA (considering we know that Carter later founded S.H.I.E.L.D) at all, opted out instead for another "evil" organization as the villain, but the show is none the worst because of it.

Don't be intimidated with the ever expanding universe of Marvel Cinema though, Agent Carter practically have no direct connection to any previous movies or show, except maybe Captain America. Even then, it was only as an emotional basis for Peggy Carter (sobs!) and none of the plot directly related to it. The show is pretty much self-standing.

Who should watch it: Those who wants to see strong, well-rounded female and male characters, great action and spy-work, and just general 1940's period class.

Where you should start: Oh come on, don't be lazy ;) It's just 8 episodes so start at the beginning!

Status: It's first season is an 8-episodes mini-season devised to fill the slot of Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D  during hiatus. There are still no words regarding second season (fingers crossed), but the showrunners are up for it if opportunity arises.

*See my Shoutout for Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D here.

Review: Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: We Are The Freaks (2013)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

We Are The Freaks is an offbeat teen-ish movie set around 3 misfit friends on a crazy weekend: Jack (Jamie Blackley) who is bored to the core and wants to go to university, Parsons (Mike Bailey) who doesn't want to, and rich-kid Chunks (Sean Teale) who is just plain crazy. It is set right around the end Margaret Thatcher's reign, Brit to the core, and filled with off-color, smutty jokes. 

The film begins with Jack talking straight to the camera and talks how "this is not an average teen movie" and how "he hates it when people talking to the camera" all the while doing exactly that. We Are The Freaks is definitely not your regular movie, and one that's very self aware—probably borders on being too self aware for its own good. It breaks the 4th wall constantly, filled with dreamlike sequences and nonsensical cuts. It is a bit glorious, really, to see a movie that embraces its unique style so wholly and so quickly. It might be an acquired taste for some people but I believe there's a space for movies like this.

Aside from being very stylistic, it also has amazing amount of attitude—in the sense that yes it's full of crass and black comedy. It reminds me a lot of the Skins UK series, none the least because it features 2 Skins alum ("Sid" and "Nick" of 1st and 3rd generation Skins respectively), but also because it features the same brand of humor, complete with hijinks with drug dealer and a trip to the ER. Directed by newcomer Justin Edgar, it might suffer a bit from style over substance disease, but buried beneath its attitude and craziness there's an interesting classical subtext especially between Jack who wants to go to university but can't afford to, and Chunks who has money to burn and maybe literally burns them too. 

We Are The Freaks, while not being your run-of-the-mill teen movie, is definitely, quintessentially teenager. TL;DR Like true teenage-hood, We Are The Freaks is just a little bit anarchic, a little bit chaotic, a little bit futile, but a little bit perfect: you don't know where you're going and everything feels meaningless, but you know there's a long road ahead. 

Review: Short Term 12 (2013)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

By almost coincidence, I watched two teen-themed movies today (or three, if you count Veronica Mars season 2. I guess I'm on some sort of a roll here). One is of course, Short Term 12, and the other one is We Are The Freaks which I'll review later. Both have very different approaches and outlooks on teenagehood.

Short Term 12 is a safe house for troubled kids and teenagers, and Grace (Brie Larson) is one of the supervisors. She's dedicated, she's kind, she's good at her job—but she's also, almost as troubled as the rest of her kids. A revelation regarding her relationship with her co-worker (John Gallagher Jr.), and the arrival of a new kid (Kaitlyn Dever), shakes her up and starts to undo her at the seams.

If that seems like run-of-the-mill synopsis for an indie drama, it might be is, but I think Short Term 12 excels because it does not try to be melodramatic or bleak for the sake of bleakness in the way that indie movies sometimes do; it's just human. "Human" really is the best way to describe this movie—complete with human heartbreaks and determination to heal. 

"Compassionate" is a close second, and it describes the movie exactly as well as it describes Grace. It may cause no wonder because she's the center of the movie after all, but Brie Larson's performance made sure of that. Larson is beautiful as Grace, almost in an unassuming way, but her beauty is striking (both inside and outside) and by extension she makes the movie beautiful. Her character is flawed but compassionate, determined, with deep-seated anger of an unfair world, and an ocean worth of quiet strength. Basically she's the perfect feminist leading lady (although no one's calling her that), and in another world she would be a perfect character for a superhero. Wait, scratch that. She is a superhero to those kids, along with every real-life social workers and counselors in the world.

Grace is indeed the anchor of the movie, but she's also surrounded by other well rounded characters. Jayden is an obvious stand-in for Grace's childhood (not to belittle her story), but Marcus' story just kills. His rap was one of the most gut-wrenching moment I have ever experienced from a film. Mason's background with his foster parents, and Nate's inexperience with "underprivilege" was also interesting to see.

Short Term 12 revels in realism. Nothing overplayed, nothing underplayed—everything is just is, and it's actually a very tricky thing to achieve in a drama without feeling drab or boring. The movie is striking in its earnestness, and only thanks to Cretton's direction that it could be achieved. TL;DR Engrossing, compassionate, and optimistic, what more could you want in a movie?

Rant: Why Is There No Science-Fiction Culture In Indonesia?

The recent release of two Indonesian science-fictional movies made me think: what happened to Indonesian science-fiction (SF) culture, or the lack thereof? The movies in question are, of course, Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh which was based on popular novel of the same title and Garuda Superhero, an original Indonesian Batman-esque superhero. I reviewed Supernova and intended to review Garuda Superhero (I ended up just writing a first impression of the trailer). For my failure to fulfill my promise regarding the latter, I'm sorry. I know it may look like I'm a hypocrite, but by the time I found the time to watch it, it had vanished from my chosen theater and before the end of its second week it disappeared completely from all theaters in Jakarta except for one single viewing. I read other people's reviews and the bottomline is that Garuda Superhero is more or less as atrocious as my first impression and apparently is almost as terribly received by moviegoers. Most of the reviews states that aside from being extremely derivative, Indonesia isn't ready to make this kind of film. The question is, why?

To answer, we have to understand what is SF and where did it come from? So in this article I'd discuss the history of SF as we know it (namely Western SF, the biggest SF culture in the world) and also in other parts of the world especially Asia and Indonesia.

Disclaimer: I did read some sources regarding the topic, but by and large this article is absolutely non-academic and might just be the ramblings of a misguided, naive, ignorant 24 year old girl, but I try to do this article justice. Discussions are more than welcome, of course. And brace yourselves, it will be a long post.

SF, with a "science" modifier to its "fiction", is defined by the existence of "novum" of the scientific kind in its stories. Novum literally means "new thing"; that twist that differs it from a tale about ordinary life. So a man in love with a woman is not SF, but a man from 2400 that time-traveled to 1958 and then fall in love with a woman is SF. That example is a crude classification, and there are always some works with arguable definition of novum or science (James Bond and his gadgets sit nicely in the fringe of SF), but that is the general idea.

Hearing the word "science fiction" most people would picture complicated technology and unintelligible conversations about quantum physics and buzzwords about melting positrons. Deriving from that alone, it's not hard to imagine why Indonesia seemingly have no SF culture. Indonesia isn't and never was the cradling bed of science and technology. Not to belittle the work of great Indonesian scientists and engineers (BJ Habibie, Sedijatmo, Warsito Taruno are the famous ones, among many others), but scientific attitude is never part of the building blocks of Indonesian living.

The thing is, in actuality SF (as far as it is from gods and demons) had its roots deep in mythology. You can still see it to this day as SF and Fantasy are frequently classified together (and sometimes collectively called as "genre", which I admit is weird. A genre called genre.). Many people are a fan of both and both are usually featured in the same ;cons, and writers sometimes jump from one genre into the other. Stephenie Meyer, for example, who wrote the notorious vampire love story Twilight series, went on to write The Host about alien invasion (or for more hardcore SF fan: Ursula K. Le Guin wrote both The Left Hand of Darkness and the Earthsea series). SF and Fantasy are both very similar because they both have nova, although one in scientific sense and one in the supernatural. So the question is: how can Indonesia, that is forehead-deep in mythological nova, is so poor of SF? Why hadn't it evolved into SF?

The origin of Western SF can be traced back to "voyage extraordinaires" stories in Ancient Greece. Those are stories about adventures to new and foreign lands, sometimes even to the sky or the moon and stars. Of course physically they were unreachable at the time but they saw the moon etc and thought, what if? What if we could go there? In Indonesia, an overwhelming amount of folk and ancient stories were about good vs. evil and cautionary tales, but there were extraordinary voyages too like the wayang story of meeting Dewa Ruci deep into the ocean. Not only that, there were also other fantastical, marginally SF stories like the folk tale of Timun Mas, which for all we know might actually involve genetically modified infant. We even have Gatot Kaca, who is basically the ultimate superhero before superheroes.

But then Copernicus "emerged" in Europe. The history of western SF was a bit incredible to me because of how specific its development was, sometimes even (roughly) traceable down to a single person. In the 16th century it was Copernicus, with the outrageous (and accurate) Heliocentric theory. The church held the believe that the earth is the center and the only significant body in the universe, but with Copernicus's new theory came the realization that we are just a fraction of whole universe, and an insignificant one at that. Voyage extraordinaires stories still existed, but changed. Before Copernicus, the sky and the moon were usually portrayed in the divine or spiritual sense (as the extension of heaven or the heaven itself). But after, they became material—in the sense that they became an actual place protagonists could visit and meet wacky new creatures. That paradigm change was important in igniting true SF.

There were similarly important figures throughout the years who paved the road for today's SF: Mary Shelley ("Frankenstein" unified contemporary scientific advancement, fantastical elements, and realism to create the first real SF work), H.G. Wells (of The War Of The Worlds fame, whose primary influence is grounding/connecting SF to "the mundane and the present"), Hugo Gernsback (who popularized SF with the rise of pulp magazines), and..... George Lucas (whose Star Wars had HUGE impact in cinematic SF—or cinema, period.). And here is my reminder for readers that those are oversimplication in the most absolute sense. There were TONS of other influential people that I didn't mention like Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov, John W. Campbell, George Orwell, Philip K. Dick, Ursula K. Le Guin, William Gibson, Douglas Adams, the list could go on and on.

I am absolutely tempted to say that the reason Indonesia developed no SF is because we have no Copernicus, but that is cheating. Plenty of other regions developed SF from a separate branch than the west. Voyage extraordinares also existed in the middle east, and the Arab world had identifiable proto-SF work as early as the 12th century. Now middle eastern SF is still not as popular as the western, but genre work in Arabic language is said to be on the rise, although back in 2009 there was an op-ed lamenting the lack of Arabic SF (much like what I do now).

There were several notable SF-esque Japanese old tales like The Tale Of The Bamboo Cutter, but 1900s saw one of the first true SF work in Japan. After the world wars, Japanese SF were more influenced by American fiction but they were distinctively Japanese. Gojira (or Godzilla), for example, were conceived as physical portrayal of nuclear attack--an unfortunate but uniquely Japanese experience. Today, SF theme is very big in Japan and there are countless and countless Japanese SF work in the form of live-action, manga, anime, or even game. Many of them reached high recognition in the SF world, like Akira (the poster child of SF anime), Ghost In The Shell (definite inspiration for The Matrix movie), Paprika, Gundam/Macross/Evangelion franchises (oh yeah I had just lumped those into one!), 20th Century Boys, 1Q84, Battle Royale, Casshern, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, etc.

Basically, SF emerged all over the place like a natural evolution, and that made the lack of it in Indonesia is all the more stark. "Everything not forbidden is compulsory" is a "rule" in quantum physics, and I believe it applies to literature too. People throughout history had always incorporated fantastical elements in their stories, some of them by rule must be of the scientific nature. There is a space or even need of SF in Indonesia, and somewhere, someday that niche will be filled. And, for reasons I'll explain, I'm actually optimist that it will be soon.

I must elaborate that when I say there's no SF culture in Indonesia, I don't mean there is absolutely no SF. There are recorded works, but they are patchy or hard to find (sometimes even with questionable quality). Djokolelono's Jatuh Ke Matahari (Falling Into The Sun), published in 1976, is regarded as the first Indonesian SF novel (which I observed is 100 years too late than others). If there was ever SF before and not long after 1976, it completely fell into the cracks of cultural history and I'd argue is therefore insignificant to its development. SF only regained its life again in 2000s, when novels like Supernova (Dee, 2000), Area X: Hymne Angkasa Raya (Eliza Handayani, 2003), Anomali (Santopay, 2004), etc. were published. To this day, Djokolelono also wrote several SF and Fantasy books for children, young adult, and adult. There were actually quite a lot of SF works in 2000s if we try to list them all, but few of them reached significant popularity or longevity and I'd argue the SF culture is still practically non-existent. Case in point; there is no SF section in the bookstore that makes browsing the bookstore painstaking, confusing, and likely result in no SF bought. I can't remember the last time we had local SF movie and it felt forever until we eventually have Garuda Superhero (and some still say that "we're not ready for it"). Also, aside from few enthusiasts like me, basically no one's talking about SF. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong set of friends, I don't know.

That said, Indonesia is not special in its stagnation. Several other SF culture in other countries struggled too. India's SF, despite its popularity, is regarded as "mediocre and derivative". Chinese radio, TV, and film authority issued guidelines to discourage, among them, time travel stories. And don't forget the aforementioned arabian essay.

But the 100 year gap of SF in Indonesia (only first emerged in 1976) compared to other regions is curious, to say the least. Provided that were true and there were no significant SF work of that period that fell into obscurity, SF in Indonesia have no direct line to the rest of Indonesian literature history (Jatuh Ke Matahari's author Djokolelono is actually a working book translator too, and it seems reasonable to say he was rather influenced by western literature). Lacking real sources about this matter, I resorted to wild guesses. In 18th and 19th century—a significant time of SF history in which it branched out to a notably distinctive genre—Indonesia was under the colonism of Netherlands (actually, Indonesia was colonized way before that by the Portuguese and Spain, since early 16th century). I know it's fashionable to blame things on the colonials (we do like to blame things on them colonials, don't we?), but I figured something must have happened around that time that made situations inconducive for the birth of SF. Proper education for native people were limited only to the elite and therefore, science were too. The development of science and technology is crucial to the emergence of SF, for obvious reasons. Science and technology eventually came to us, but they came fully formed from the west. We never had that anxiety of invention, which is important for the heart of SF. I'm just armchair-philosophing here, but that reasoning seemed probable enough for layman me. Although one might think that the influx of western literature especially during the time of VOC, combined with insurgent situation at the time should be a fertile ground for SF, but hey, apparently not.

Now that we've understood the history of SF here and in the rest of the world, it's time to ask: what should we do next? Quite a few of Indonesian SF lifted elements from Indonesian mythology, which is a great effort to make them "ours" and I hope people would keep tapping on that endless resource. But selfishly I'd like to see something that are more contemporary and speak more loudly (in a true SF fashion) about our condition now, because for me SF are best when they speak with social resonance (if you have a recommendation for Indonesian work, let me know). Poverty, gap of the rich and the poor, corruption, religious anxiety—mixed in with a little alien or dystopia—might be a recipe for truly compelling SF. I kept thinking something akin to Lord Of The Flies, which is weird because it's not SF but it could have been (it certainly is speculative fiction), would be awesome for us. In the realms of movies, I'd like to see more script-based SF (instead of pure visual spectacle), from independent and commercial filmmakers alike. There's no reason we can't produce lowkey projects like Pi, Safety Not Guaranteed, Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World, Timecrimes, 28 Days Later, etc (yes, I'm basically spitting out every title that comes into my head).

But the truth is, we may not realize it but SF in Indonesia is slowly and surely rising. Even now, there are two superhero movies slated for release in the next couple of years (Volt and Gundala Putra Petir remake, if fate permitting), and superheroes Bima Satria Garuda and Nusantaranger are gaining good grounds. Hopefully, other subgenres will follow. I hope the next time I write about the state of Indonesian SF, it will be in a completely different circumstance (possibly raving about The Golden Age that Indonesian SF were having).

Sources: The bulk of western SF's history is from Adam Roberts' book The History of Science Fiction. Other sources can be found through the link.

Edited to add (6/02/2015): So I had a trip to the bookstore today and gave myself time for a thorough browse. I found 5 seemingly-SF books (if not, then certainly speculative fiction): Zombie Aides (Satria Satire), Bumi (Tere Liye), Spora (Alkadri), Gerbang Trinil (Riawani Elyta), and Time[s] (Aya Swords). So SF lives, but some genre savviness (knowing the kinds of title and cover SF usually comes in) definitely help to pick them up from the rest. I bought 2 of them, Bumi and Gerbang Trinil, and maybe I'll give them a shoutout if they're good.

Review: Predestination (2015)

Rating: 8.8/10

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

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

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

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

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

Review: 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.

First Impressions: Garuda Superhero (2015)

Just a few weeks ago I mentioned the significance of having a genre project at Indonesian cinema, how few and sparse, when Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh came out. And now I just found out that we have another one, titled Garuda Superhero. It is a proper sci-fi/superhero/genre movie, whatever you wanna call it, but you know Indonesia haven't produced anything like this before in recent memory (if I miss anything, let me know) especially at the big screen. Indonesia did have a brief love affair with the superhero genre back in late 90's but only in the television, when shows like Gerhana, Saras 008, and Panji Manusia Milenium were on air. The last superhero movie made, I believe, was Gundala Putra Petir 34 years ago (which I never saw).

Here is the latest trailer of Garuda Superhero, scheduled for January 8th 2015:

I'm gonna be completely honest with my first impression of the trailer, but I'm not gonna lie that I am excited. Every small step in the name of sci-fi culture is worth something, and I largely appreciate the effort and the passion behind this picture. But let us say in unison, because I know you're thinking what I'm thinking: It looks TERRIBLE! Hell yeah.

If Hollywood made this kind of trailer, I would laugh at it and walk straight into another movie's theater. But because it is Indonesian, I have no choice but to see it first row at the theater (probably the only one there). Call it patriotic, call it stupid, call it blind admiration for sci-fi, but I'd apologize for nothing. I'd also add that what I write below is just a first impression and I had not seen the full movie. 

So let's talk CGI. Bad, bad CGI. So, so bad. I'd give it a pass because I know the film's budget must be not that big, maybe not even in national standard. I am somewhat amused by the heavy amount of green screen they used. Like, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow level, even in a restaurant scene. Maybe they did it because they wanted to achieve not-quite-this-world look, which I actually appreciate. 

But Garuda Superhero also looks derivative in every which way. They seem to pick up a million storylines and every single trope then blender them into a trailer. Visually, too. In fact, let me count the ways (it's actually quite fun). Left are screenshots from Garuda Superhero trailer, right are pictures from other movies (sorry for the wonky pictures, some just aren't available in the right sizes).

You like Marvel movies, right? Because apparently they like them too.

a) Leviathan! Are we gonna have The Hulk too? What we're gonna have though, are the Chitauris. Sorry. b) But we do have Black Widow! But I'm also partial at calling out Ultraviolet, and it may be worth mentioning that the female character seems to be a villain not  a protagonist. c) Some Tesseract level item... d) I have to give them kudos for taking cues from an unreleased movie... Does the design look a lot like Ultron to you too? e) He looks too much like Ivan Vanko for me to be comfortable.

They've done Marvel, so why shouldn't they do DC while they're at it? 

a) I think they're obviously going for a Batman vibe here (and a dash of Marvel's The Falcon), but I'm definitely getting more of a Watchmen's Nite Owl instead. b) But they do have a batarang. c) ...and The League Of Assassins. d) It may not be unique, but gratuitous exercise seems awfully like Arrow, right? e) I'm undecided whether he looks more like a Bond villain or Lex Luthor. Since we're in a DC mood, let's go with Lex Luthor.

And there's other stuff...

a) The Incredibles exercise (patent pending). b) Wait, why do they have an asteroid? c) Oh okay, so they can have the obligatory doomsday roundtable..

Basically, this trailer exist to show us that this is where we're at. This is the level at Indonesian sci-fi culture is currently working, and this is why I advocate more and more sci-fi, always, because basically the only thing to learn to do something properly is by doing. We're gonna stumble, and there'll be a lot of misses, but we're getting there.

Disclaimer: This is not intended to offend or put anyone down. If this article sounds a lot like nitpicking, I maybe am, but I'm doing it because I love the craft and I believe that honest, well-intended criticism will propel us forward. Also because this is a commentary on a trailer, I have no idea how these tidbits would fit into the context of the film.

TV Shoutout: Black Mirror

Honestly, I originally intended to write this TV Shoutout in time for the Christmas Special, but I foolishly thought that it airs on the 25th instead of the 16th. But that's okay, because now I can tell you that the special was full of usual Black Mirror greatness. And here it is about the show:

What it is about: Black Mirror is a British dystopian anthology miniseries. The stories for each episode varies but the running theme is humanity and technology, usually set in an imagined 5-or-10-minutes-into-the-future. And for lack of better word, Black Mirror is exactly what the title suggests: our dark reflection of who we are as human being.

Or in shorter words, it's The Twilight Zone for today.

Why you should watch it: Because it is a brilliant satire. It is scifi-esque, but definitely everyone can enjoy it because most times the technologies are incorporated seamlessly into its world, just like ours. In it's heart, Black Mirror is less about flashy gadgets and more about social commentary. What it's not though, is safe or comforting, in the way that some art should not be. It is intended to be shocking and eye-opening. I doubtlessly would not recommend a few episodes (like The National Anthem) for the faint of heart, but it is absolutely worth it. Black Mirror is lovely and funny at times (Charlie Brooker the creator actually did award-winning comedy work), but equally terrifying and heartbreaking, in the best way. Most people who've watched it agree that Black Mirror is one of the best TV series they've encountered, and for good reason. If that does not convince you yet there are more trivial reasons, like the fact that it is beautiful to look at and beautifully directed, and it features familiar brilliant actors from Mad Men, Captain America, Game Of Thrones, etc.

Who should watch it: Those who like great storytelling, sci-fi or not. Those who thought that there's something missing in today's television and demand "more" from their entertainment. Those who think that underneath the flashy and happy exterior, the world is dark and full of terrors. And whether it sounds like Black Mirror is your thing or not, I wholeheartedly encourage you to at least try to watch one of the episodes, because otherwise you might miss one of the masterpieces of modern TV.

Where you should start: It is an anthology (a collection of short stories), so basically you can start at any episode because each episode is self-standing. But if you're squeamish or less tolerable for more "racy" stuff, I do advice you against The National Anthem (season 1 episode 1) at least until you get the hang of the show.

Status: Black Mirror had 2 full seasons (each had 3 episodes) and one Christmas Special (listed as season 3). A full season might be coming in 2015.

Lastly, if I had not succeeded in explaining what Black Mirror is all about, Charlie Brooker the creator/writer might. Here he is talking about the concept and the meaning of Black Mirror:

So. Excited.

Teaser for new season of Orphan Black, BBC America.

4.18.15

Save the date, #CloneClub.

Review: Doraemon: Stand By Me (2014)

Rating: 7.8 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh (2014)

Rating: 8.2 of 10

Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh is one of those rare products of Indonesian movie industry: a science-fiction! 

Supernova is about Dimas (Hamish Daud) and Reuben (Arifin Putra), two people who met on a fleeting chance and instantly clicked. On a trip (which means, ehem, on drugs) they vowed in the future to write a magnificent opus of science and romance. They invented the characters Ksatria/Knight (Herjunot Ali), Putri/Princess (Raline Shah), Bintang Jatuh/Shooting Star (Paula Verhoeven), and Supernova—an omnicient cyber entity. Their lives, in the most unexpected way, soon intertwined.

The movie is based on the megahit Indonesian novel of the same title, written by Dee Lestari. It was also the first book of the series Supernova which is now down to the fifth book (it's been rumored that it'll continue and be concluded on the sixth book). 

My first impression is that Supernova has excellent visuals; from aerial view of cities and oceans; spacious offices; and rustic loft with strategically placed items; to the trippier parts of the movie, it was all basically perfect. There were galaxies, rocks, and random close-up of objects that any self-respecting philosophical sci-fi movie would have (and I mean that sincerely). Every scene is a vision, and I especially liked the visual of Putri with her perpetually white clothes and pearly white skin, like a proper princess of the heavens untouched by earthly dirt. I also liked the universe that the movie created, like a heightened reality—or as the movie called it, pseudo-Jakarta. The music, whether the songs sung by Nidji or original soundtracks by Tiesto, accompanies the scenes beautifully as well.

The grand idea of human and humanity in this movie is infinitely interesting, but superimposed with a love triangle drowned in tropes and cliches. The story only picked itself up after the twist, but dampened somewhat by the fact that Bintang Jatuh or Diva is such an underdeveloped character. She should be the most interesting character, an enigma, a paradox but instead is the most paper-thin. She has the potential of being the critical voice of us humans, but I guess the three "story" characters (Ksatria, Putri, Bintang Jatuh) were always meant to be stand-ins so were not developed enough. Watching Dimas and Reuben alone discussing Schrodinger's Cat and whatnot indefinitely might be more fulfilling, because maybe after 2 hours they'd solve the Theory Of Everything already or something. That's not to say that the script is atrocious, I for one think it's well done enough from the source material, but I have a feeling some of the Diva's scenes were left on the editing room floor for time or continuity reasons, like things sometimes would.

TL;DR I think by its nature Supernova must end in a somewhat unfulfilling note, because it was always meant to ask questions, not provide answers--and definitely not provide an answer (the fact that it is the first installment of a 6 book saga might tell you something). But in the end, the movie was well worth the effort and honestly I'm just delighted to see the story brought to the big screen.

Music Shoutout: Whilk and Misky

So I've been arguing with myself for a few days whether Whilk and Misky is worth writing about, especially for a predominantly non-music blog, but I've given up: there's no escaping it, they've earned it.

The band is a London-based duo, namely of Charlie and Nima. Which one of them is Whilk and which is Misky, I have no idea. (Their chosen name, obviously, is a play of words milk and whisky, and once you heard it you know the name just made perfect sense.) Their sound is new, unique, and sounds exactly like an old wooden pub with ceramic tiles and black wooden chairs. Relaxed low voice, steady beat, and gentle Spanish guitar is apparently a recipe for musical goodness.

Here's their infectious, irresistibly hand clap-py single:

They've released their EP The First Sip and you can find, listen, and support them on their website, Youtube, Spotify, Soundcloud, iTunes. The rumor is they're going to release full album in 2015.

Review: Automata (2014)

Rating: 8.2 of 10

So I've told you guys that my heart beats for sci-fi. What you don't know is that I've basically made it my life's mission to watch every smaller science-fictional movies that come into my town (because well, there aren't a lot of them). Yes, even if reviews out there aren't that favorable. The thing is, as much as I want otherwise, the film industry is still an industry and that means supply-and-demand rules the world. Me, or any of you for that matter, buying a ticket for a movie is like raising a hand and shouting, "There's a market for this kind of movie!" While by Sturgeon's Law not all of them can be good, there are gems to be discovered, time and time again, in supporting smaller and odder movies. One particular example that stuck in my mind is the undeniably fun and awesome Attack The Block (reviewed here. Still one of my favorite movie viewing experience) that played at blitzmegaplex in 2011. The lead actor John Boyega has since went on to do greater things, including being the leading man of JUST THE BIGGEST MOVIE FRANCHISE IN THE UNIVERSE in next year's Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The point is, we need to encourage filmmakers and distributors to take chances by supporting the wildcards because that's how we get new and awesome things, the new(!) Star Wars included.

But enough of the preamble, the topic today is Automata that is currently playing at 21 Cinema franchise in my town. This one features a pretty recognizable actor, Antonio Banderas, which might be a draw for some people so the movie had that going for them. Banderas played Jacq Vaucan, an insurance agent that encountered a malfunctioning robot or automata—one that can repair itself. In Automata, the robots were programmed with a variation of Asimov Laws of Robotics: 1) They cannot harm any living being, and 2) They cannot make any kind of alteration unto itself. In this world, it was unfathomable that any robot can repair or upgrade itself. It required too much cognition, and most importantly, it would have violated the law.

The world building in this film is amazing. It has the right mix of new and old technology like a real world should; from the 3D holograms, the old cars, the clunky fax machines and pagers (fax machine and pagers! In the future! But it makes sense!), the practicality of the plastic trench coats, to the rigidity of the robots and the fact the the shiniest thing in that world is a hooker robot like it was the only thing that makes sense. I also love little touches like collarless suit that Banderas wore, because despite everything, fashion always evolve (did the movie invent it? Because I've never seen anything like it). In this movie, everything feels real, like you can touch them and feel the dust. Antonio Banderas as the lead actor is solid as well, so are the rest of the actors. Banderas was great casting because not only he provided star power, but he has the right amount of both self-deprecation and gravitas that is so hard to mix and pull off.

The movie touches all the obligatory themes that robot movies often touched, (yes, including Blade Runner) but a trope is a trope is a trope. Sometimes things are done because they simply work and relevant. The movie deals with a lot of questions, but subtle enough for us to not get hammered by them. Are they living? Are they not living? What do they see in themselves? What do they think of us? Do they see us as a creator, a friend, a parasite? Will they ever kill a human being? What do they want once they get to the other side of the world? While it is a bit surprising to see a movie in which the biggest threat is robot than can alter itself—not because they harm a human being—but the question remains: Once they found out that humans can/sometimes can kill one another, will they ever be a harm to us? The movie paints the robots as neutral; neither friendly or malicious, which is really the only logical thing.

There are plenty to like about this movie. While the theme is not new and the script might veer off into strange land in some ways (but that's what made me like the film, actually), but the atmosphere is solid and unbreakable. Gabe Ibanez, the director, was apparently a visual effects artist and that shows. The props and robots were not only beautiful but also meaningful, like every little thing on screen was meant to convey something. TL;DR If nothing else, Automata is beautiful, atmospheric science-fictional film with a burning question in its heart.

Review: Zero Dark Thirty (2013)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Zero Dark Thirty. A chronicle about how United States, by the brain and determination of one CIA analyst (played wonderfully by Jessica Chastain), eventually found and killed Osama bin Laden; the man responsible for one of the most horrible terrorist attack on recent memory, the 2001's World Trade Center attack. Portraying anything close to 9/11 will definitely be hard, and from the very beginning Zero Dark Thirty took a brave jump into the sorts of raw emotions that surrounded the tragedy with audio recordings of the event. That's the kind of movie we're dealing with (and it just so happens that this movie is directed by Kathryn Bigelow who also directed one of my favorite, and trippiest movie, Strange Days, which I'll write a review on some time in the near future).

In watching a "based on true story" movie, I'm always wary about accuracy, especially for something as topical as Osama bin Laden's death and al-Qaeda. There are always sacrifices (in terms of accuracy) to be made for dramatic and narrative purposes, but Bigelow, for the most part, thread the line gracefully. She made great effort to keep the story not only as accurate as a movie can be, but also felt as real and as raw. The chase is long, winding, and full of desperation; the tortures pointless; the missions suspenseful and confusing; and in the end there wasn't victory, there was just relief. The story is gripping because it is, and Bigelow sees that it doesn't really need embelishments. In fact, the movie is quite hard for me to review because everything is understated, everything is in the right place, and there wasn't really anything left to say other than it was a stunning movie. 

TL;DR A gripping, suspenseful, and brilliantly crafted* movie.

*The truth is I stole that sentence from the film's Rotten Tomatoes Critics Consensus, just because that is the truest and most concise way of describing the film that I can't think of anything else. Damn you, brain.

Trailer: Pitch Perfect 2

Despite for my love for everything dark, I'm unashamed in my love for Pitch Perfect. So here's a trailer for the sequel! Out May 15th 2015, starring Anna Kendrick, Hailee Steinfeld.

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.

Review: Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Gone Baby Gone tells the story of Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck), a young private detective, who along with his partner (Michelle Monaghan) were asked by a confused and angered couple to help the police finding their lost young niece. Amanda MacCready, the missing child in question were already missing for a few days. The detectives working on the case could not have been more reluctant on letting him in on the case, and so was Helene (Amy Ryan) the drug addict mother. That is the general synopsis but more importantly, Gone Baby Gone tells the story of flawed people in a bruised and battered city, stuck eternally in less than ideal situations.

Ben Affleck, formerly famous as an actor and had just found a new renaissance in directing, put his little brother in this flick and thereby delivered one of the highlights in both of their filming career. Ben Affleck handled the story like a painting; carefully with a swift but firm hand that was only loud when he needed to. He showed incredible restraint as a newbie director, and I think that showed incredible talent. Meanwhile, Casey Affleck was able to give not only a very specific form of authority and dignity, but also a dash of naivety that could only come from a young age and sensitivity that clearly came from strength of character. Casey was able to put those traits into a blender and made a living breathing person, one that is flawed and compelling. Due to its amazing cast, similar praise can be said for the rest of the characters too, from Amy Ryan's Helene to Michelle Monaghan's Angie and Ed Harris' Detective Bressant. Writing-wise, the plotting is tight and unpredictable, and the amount of pathos in this movie is incredible, adding only to its richness.

TL;DR Gone Baby Gone is a gripping drama; is a tense thriller/mystery; is a story of questionable morality and of people lost in conspiracy. And in the end, it is the sort of movie that you'll never forget because it shares with you an unanswerable question: what is a good deed in a bad world?

TV Shoutout: Marvel's Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D

What better way to start TV Shoutout other than with Marvel's Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D?

What it is about: S.H.I.E.L.D is a secret organization that exists to deal with superpowers, alien artefacts, and highly-advanced science that no other agency is prepared to deal with. In post-Avengers world, Agent Phil Coulson, one of the best agent of S.H.I.E.L.D, had just handpicked his new team. (Yes in case you're wondering, we're talking about that Marvel, that Avengers, that S.H.I.E.L.D, and that Coulson).

Despite its connection to Marvel, you don't have to like superhero movies to like this show. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D (AoS for short) is decidedly a different kind of beast, made to tell the other side of the fight involving ordinary humans namely the agents.

Why you should watch it: AoS was developed by Joss Whedon. For those uninitiated, he's famous for his trademark touch of funny one-liners balanced with great character development as evidenced in critically-acclaimed works like Buffy The Vampire Slayer series, Firefly series, and Marvel's The Avengers.

Now (I should emphasize the "now", more on that later), the series is one of the most riveting drama/action series out there. The funny things are there keeping things light while never shying away from the hard stuff. It has truly magnificent character development, heartbreaking relationships (romantic, almost romantic, or otherwise), and engaging villain. AoS season 2 is a must-see TV in every way.

Who should watch it: Those who wanted to know more about Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Those who love Joss Whedon. Those who love good action and drama in their series. Basically everyone who loves good TV with great characters.

Where you should start: Now is the part where I warn you that this show started out rough. By rough I mean it looked like the most mediocre, cookie-cutter procedural ever. Which is fine for the most part (A LOT of TV procedurals out there are mediocre), but not great. But somewhere in the middle of season 1 it found its footing, did a complete 180 degrees in its storytelling and started to pump up real punches. The characters became rounded human beings, humor started to set in, and sh*t started to get real. SEASON 2 IS AWESOME guys, so you don't want to miss it.

The series is now in season 2. Starting in the beginning of season 2 is okay, but season 2 "broke" most of its characters so you could only appreciate the subtleties if you've seen season 1. For those of you who don't want to watch first season in its entirety (because well, a lot of the early episodes were crap), there's a handy internet guide for a selection of episodes. Jumping in the middle of season 2 is okay too if you understand the gist of MCU (basically S.H.I.E.L.D = good, H.Y.D.R.A = bad) because you could always pick stuff along the way, but again, subtleties. Subtleties are what made this show excels above any other shows.

What you should remember is that since AoS is part of MCU, there will be some spoilers if you're not up to date with what happens in MCU (particularly The Avengers and Captain America 2). You don't have to watch the movies to understand AoS because it is pretty much self-contained, but some things will definitely carryover into the show due to its connected nature. If you're fine with being spoiled though (or don't necessarily care about the movies), it's completely okay to watch AoS without the movies.

Status: Season 2 ongoing

Review: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer sharing a witty banter? If it's not your idea of Christmas, it will be after you watch Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, a wonderful tounge-in-cheek outing from director Shane Black. He was practically a no-name then, along with the formerly catastrophic Robert Downey Jr., but now the bigger world might recognize them as director-actor pairing who made Iron Man 3 happened. Today Robert Downey Jr. is famous as the equally witty Tony Stark, worth millions of dollars, and belovedly nicknamed by the world as RDJ, but I believe this is the movie that started it all.

The basic gist is Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey Jr.) was a petty thief who was accidentally spotted to become an actor and was sent to LA, where he met his long lost high-school lover Harmony (Michelle Monaghan), and a private detective "Gay" Perry (Val Kilmer). And oh, he also had the worst luck ever on Christmas, when he witnessed two guys dumped a body in a lake. Eventually, the three of them decided to do some detective work on their own.

This is an action/black comedy movie, and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang had done everything right on every level. It was full of action and black humor. It had the right attitude; the dialogues are fast, smart, witty, and fresh. And highly quotable too, because in the end that is what matters isn't it? 

TL;DR It was a definite fun ride and it delivered everything on the right note. The fact that you've just found a new way to insult idiots is just a bonus.

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: Interstellar (2014)

Rating: 7.5 of 10

The earth is dying. Dusts are flying, crops are failing, technology's extinct, space travel is dead and moon landing is considered a hoax. That is the world of Interstellar, in which life on earth getting bleaker and bleaker everyday. That is also the world of Cooper (Matthew Mcconaughey), formerly a NASA test pilot and presently a farmer with a son and a daughter. After getting a mysterious message, he finds out that NASA still exists and they're looking for a new planet for humans to live in through a (somewhat) newly-discovered wormhole around Saturn. Cooper, being one of the last remaining NASA pilot, is asked and choose to get on the mission, knowingly leaving his children behind in the hopes of finding a place for future generations.

When I heard people say Christopher Nolan (director) is not an emotive filmmaker, I didn't fully understand it until now. The thing is, in previous films, he never needed to convey human emotions. He loves high-concept ideas and twists-and-tricks because those are the things that he excels in. In Interstellar, although both tricks still exist, humanity and human emotions is front and center and it was quickly apparent that he lacked deft hands at portraying them. Interstellar tried to do a lot of things, and whether he succeeded or not depends largely on the attitude of the viewers. Interstellar tried to combine the grandeur of space adventure and human drama in the same way it tried to combine science and metaphysics. For me, the movie failed on both accounts. Nolan likes to portray things in a matter-of-fact way, but for me in Interstellar it fell almost clinical and documentary-like. Which might work in a tighter movie, but ultimately failed in a movie that wanted to act like a sweeping drama. 

The movie didn't know what to do with its notions of science vs. metaphysics (or “love”, as the movie says). Unless handled with the greatest care, you usually can't have the best of both worlds because you'll end up dismissing one for the other, or you'll just look confused. Interstellar definitely seemed confused about how to portray its metaphysics tendencies in its “realistic” world. For what it's worth, I'll give the movie a little break because at least it appeared like "love" is the explanation that some of the characters chose to believe in instead of making it like "this is definitely what happened". Desperate people wanting to believe in love? That I can get behind (although “because love” is an overused trope), but still it seemed jarring in a movie that spouts scientific jargons in the most matter-of-fact way.

Interstellar could benefit from little tweaks here and there for the reasons I mentioned above, but that does not hide the fact that Christopher Nolan's storytelling still inspires boundless awe. The visual itself worth every penny. The movie was shot very beautifully, especially when we see the spacehips zooming calmly and quietly in the space vista. And the exoplanets. And basically everything. 

But what would a Nolan movie be without Hanz Zimmer score? In the case of Interstellar, half as good, I'd say. TL;DR The story couldn’t carry the movie alone, but the visual and score definitely helped a lot. Thankfully the score, haunting and beautiful, existed to infuse emotion that the movie begged for. In the end, the resulting outcome is still good enough. 

Introduction

Hi, my name is Inka Saraswati and this is my movie blog.

Sooo for a little background story, I signed up for this new tumblr account because I wanted a new house for my movie reviews. You see, I've been writing and posting reviews in Rotten Tomatoes for quite a while, but they recently changed their layout and user flow and basically I didn't like it. So I decided to leave and make my own site instead.

For reasons above, I'll slowly roll out my existing reviews from RT into here and of course I'll add new ones along the way. I, at its core, am a sci-fi fan so it couldn't be helped if my coverage skew towards that particular genre but I'll definitely cover various films from various genre, including older and odder films.

Also I might occasionally write about TV, music, poetry, pop culture news, or even post some tumblr-iffic stuff, but the backbone of my site will always be movie reviews.

So enjoy!

You can also find me in deviantArt for photography and whyd for music collection.