Curate, connect, and discover
my cute notebook collection so far(๑╹ω╹๑ )
Picture if you will, a Ultimate and/or a Absolute version of everyone's favorite thief Sly Cooper and his world.
To those who are not familiar, the Marvel new Ultimate Universe is where the Villain the Marker came to a earth and with time travel change everything to match his image, stopping the birth of many different heroes by various means. Eventfully you have new heroes showing up to take back the world from the Marker and his allies upholding the Status Quo.
The latter is similar, but focus on Darkseid corrupted a universe where heroes have to burn twitch as bright to stand up on a earth overcome by darkness and villainy. With heroes missing a key element of their background, but their core remains.
So picture if you will, a Ultimate Sly Cooper who never became a thief, or lost his parents. He married Carmelita and had a family. But always feeling like he was missing something. Only for one day to learn the truth of the world, and becomes a Master Thief to fight the status quo.
The second, a Absolute Sly, who made never had his Cooper gang, never had Bentley, and Murray in his life. Maybe he never had the Thievius Raccoonus, or any of that. He been a long wolf all this time in a world dominated by those like the Fiendish Five, the Klaww Gang, and Le Paradox among others. But Sly will always be Sly and he a Master Thief who fights the people and those who can't fight back.
Una mentira a un mundo ficticio.
-Hada Chantel.
Javier Marin , Chalchihuites. - Hada Chantel
Rating: 9.8 of 10
A story about how one young ambitious jazz drummer Andrew Neyman (Miles Teller), captured the attention, and then some, of a talented but ruthless teacher Terence Fletcher (JK Simmons), Whiplash is one of the most electric and intense film about music.
Partly inspired by its writer and director's, Damien Chazelle, own experiences as a jazz drummer at school, the movie defies every stereotype one might expect from such film. Pursuit of greatness is such a prevalent theme in movies about music/dance/sports/whatever to the extent that the trope becomes boring, but Whiplash managed to find a fresh new angle to the trope with refreshing complexity. As we see Fletcher barking orders to his scared students, and as we see him encouraging a little girl to keep playing music; as we see Andrew practicing his beats over and over again through the night, and as we see him having dinner with his loving but unappreciative father, we understand them better as we see different sides of them, and we appreciate them as morally grey characters that they are. JK Simmons stole the show as Fletcher--but with every smirk, every twinkle, and every glance, Miles Teller successfully conveyed Andrew's drive, his humiliation, and his ambition through silence. He also played a convincing drum on screen (for non-drummer like me) too, which always help elevate a movie.
Whiplash is also an extremely intense movie, like you wouldn't believe. With tight shots, sweat, blood, pure determination, strive for perfection and no tolerance for anything less, watching Whiplash is like an endurance sport for your heart. TL;DR Filled with more thrill than any of recent action movies combined (okay, maybe not Mad Max: Fury Road), Whiplash is an experience like no other--and with good jazz music, too? You can't lose.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The Painted Surfer by Toby Harriman Via Flickr: North Shore Hawaii.
ZOM…BEAVERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somewhat sadly this is not as really a campy lesbian adult entertainment zombie parody. At times it’d probably help the movie, but we are left with a horror comedy that does manage to deliver on its own still.
My original post: Zombeavers
via Gridllr.com — gridlify your Likes!
Grunge baby