2015 - Blog Posts

Watercolor My Heart’s Content

Yay we are now at the end of the year with new paperssss lol.

I must say that the previous watercolor papers I’ve been using was a little bit of a bummer because they don’t hold that much water compared to other papers. It kinda led me into doubt that maybe I wasn’t meant to watercolor but it has resolved now after buying a new one after a year *BIG RELIEF*

So much trust in those papers, it said 190 g/m2 D:

Anyway, I’m back with goals and meaningful comebacks haha. As what I have said in my 2015 goal is to post EVERY month of my progress, aaand I let you down on that. But still, I've promised myself that watercolor will be my medium for this year so here it goes :)

First months:

I think I was using more color than water like acrylic hehe.

Hopelessness started around here. Read/looked up on various ways on watercoloring and they said that it uses less color and more water making it very light. So I tried it and it looked like a colorful puddle ;_; See how it doesn’t hold much water ;_;

I felt sad and all so I played watercolor a bit on regular paper (of course I had to paint an eye, I love eyes). I guess I was lucky that it turned out to be Elsa I was painting haha (on regular paper ;_;).

Again I tried and this time I used less water and less paint. It was hard but it turned out nice, but you could still see water-y parts though.

Then Inktober came and decided to join. It wasn’t fully watercolor.

School came along during the later months but I had to do something > <

It was not ‘til early December I replaced my watercolor paper since the only available one here is Pheonix (Berkeley and Canson is here now whyyy). I told someone to get a Canson/Berkely for me since she was in Manila that time.

Tried again, this time less paint and more water.

Seeee??? I was sooo satisfied ;_; I thought I was gone with painting for good, turns out it was the paper’s fault. The anxiety was gone for good. ;_;

What I Learned:

Watercolor need suuuper patience

Watercolor is soft, and subtle as clouds in the sky

Quality over quantity (especially materials *_*)

Don’t lose track of what’s important. :)

Today is the 30th of December 2015 (Rizal Day wohooo), a little bit windy but I’m looking forward to next year’s adventure. :)

Hopes & Dreams,

- Hana  花

2015: Watercolor My Hearts Content

The very first thing I remember myself drawing was at my mother’s office 11 years ago. Then I got bored… until I saw my mother’s desk of colorful office supplies *_* It was paradise back then lol. I would grab highlighters, pens, glue, tape, sticky notes/ post-its….etc etc. I also used their leftover fancy papers *_* And so, I’ve been drawing and painting my life hihi.

(And up to this day, I’d visit mom’s office usually once/twice a week and still doodle on her little notepad! Sometimes I use her scanner for scanning my drawings and paintings >:D)

So I’ve recently started out this blog and I am really sorry for the hiatusss > *presses START buttton*

In the remaining days of late November 2014, I decided to double my savings to buy watercolor for my own christmas present. And I did! I bought it before Christmas. Hardwork really does pay off hihi

The stuff I did last month and this month:

An Innocent World Lolita dress

-

And so far my best watercolor doodling

Queen Elsa

January 11, 2015 - 1 am in the morning - ordinary short bondpaper. yep. I was painting another piece that night, then I failed. So I doodled an eye on a normal paper, and then it suddenly turned out to be a familiar one, so I painted  out the other eye, nose, mouth… and BAM. I was shocked to see it was Elsa. I really didn’t know what happened so I just leave it as a mystery hihi.

Unfinished X)

I would like to try updating my waterworks monthly to achieve this goal. But I still can’t promise about hiatuses and avocados ;_; im sorry

Hopes and dreams to everyone

- 花 / Hana

https://player.vimeo.com/video/125826422?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0

Le Trail du volcan 2015 - île de la Réunion - Bande annonce par drone

#holidayparty #christmaseve #2015 #givethegiftofmusic #holidayspirit #blessings #friends #family #peace #love #loveoneandother #forever

Bouquet final #montmartre #vendanges #2015 #home (à Hôtel du Square d'Anvers)

Is it socially acceptable to take pictures of kids playground these days without being labelled? 2015, the year where everyone gets offended by everything #2015 #regression #emotional #lol #funny #sad #confused #beautiful #design #scenery #malaysia #kualalumpur #love #instalike #architecture #design #art #chill #relax #view #bestoftheday #good #goodtimes #photooftheday #photo #instagood #instadaily #instamood #instagramhub

My favorite old designs and designs that l love that l found out  in 90 so far 

l know the fairy godfathers are Nick more  l like to watch the magicals godfathers in Disney XD ( Brazil ) still love watching these drawings

Miss up early to go watch my favorite cartoons sunch as: Tom and Jerry, The Fairy OddParents, Loones Tones, Hey Arnold,  The Rugats, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy and Dexter's Laboratory love is a cool nostalgia who  were born in the 90s will never forget these drawings to be part of childhood to now

Review: Crimson Peak (2015)

Rating: 8.5 of 10

In its barest bones, Crimson Peak is about a young American woman, Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska), who falls in love with a British aristocrat, Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston), with his own complicated relationship with his sister (Jessica Chastain) and mysterious heritage. Things aren't as straightforward as it seems, of course, and in Crimson Peak, it involves secrets and ghosts in the opulent house of Allerdale Hall.

Crimson Peak is gorgeous. Del Toro's (Pacific Rim, Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) movies are always exquisite in its visual, but Crimson Peak is the most outright beautiful. Rich in color and complex in its texture, the whole of Crimson Peak is a marvel to behold, most notably is their costume and the house of Allerdale Hall. The house itself (a three-storied house, built in a full 7 months, and has 2 complete sets of furniture of varying sizes depending on which scenes they shoot) is a real set built in Canada specifically for the film, and the little details put into it are mindblowing.

All that trouble paid off, thankfully (tenfold, if you ask me). The house has a deep, haunting atmosphere--magnifying its macabre. Despite not being a proper horror movie, Crimson Peak has imageries that haunt you for days if not for how eerie it was, then for how beautiful, or both. Honestly, it’s more than I can say for most horror movies.

One major flaw of Crimson Peak is that it’s not a horror movie, despite the fact that it looks like one and is marketed like one. Instead, it’s a love story that is not particularly scary, but is definitely on the creepy side.

Tom Hiddleston is effortless in playing the many sides of Thomas Sharpe--the dazzling lover, the struggling business man, and the ominous villain. I’m not usually a fan of Wasikowska, but here she is a perfect blend of everything Edith represents and I wouldn’t have her any other way. I was, however, underwhelmed by Jessica Chastain performance for most of the movie excepting maybe the final act. She’s the only chip on my shoulder that makes Crimson Peak isn’t perfect for me, but she doesn’t negate all the things the movie got right. In short, I honestly don’t get why people don’t seem to love it as much as I think it deserves.

TL;DR Creepy and weirdly sensual, Crimson Peak is a hauntingly beautiful piece of art.

Review: Attack The Block (2011)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Inside Out (2015)

Rating: 8.5 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full story at avclub.com

Review: Earth To Echo (2014)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

A group of kids on their very last night together (because they were about to move and the neighbourhood about to be torn down to create a freeway) happened to find a crashed alien, and went on an overnight adventure to get him home. If it sounds like a mixture of E.T. and The Goonies, that's because it completely is, but Earth To Echo managed to stand its ground instead of simply being an inferior mimic.

The plot itself wasn't revolutionary--and frankly wasn't that different from E.T.--but what elevated this movie was how genuine the friendship was. The kids, all played by "unknown" child actors (Teo Halm, Brian Bradley, Reese Hartwig, Ella Wahlesstedt), were very natural and felt like real friends. They also acted exactly as kids and not act how sometimes Hollywood thinks children act like. That was the appeal of The Goonies, and that was the appeal of Earth To Echo. A lot of the performances in Earth To Echo were actually improv, so that helped a lot in making sure the scenes play as naturally as possible.

Earth To Echo moved at fairly fast pace and that helps a lot, but the film also packed a lot of genuine emotions. Each of the kids had their own backstory that shaped who they were, and the looming dread of future separation felt real enough and added a layer of poignancy to the story. While the film clearly had connections to 1980s through its spiritual predecessor, Earth To Echo felt very now and didn't try invoke 80′s nostalgia (that could be overbearing in some movies); it had cellphones, GPS, and Google Maps, and a cute little alien with Minority Report-esque aesthetic. Actually, Earth To Echo reminded me of Chronicle more than anything (probably because I’m not a generation of E.T. and The Goonies), and here might be my obligatory mention that Earth To Echo was shot in found-footage style--but for me it wasn’t annoying or overly shakey and it actually had some neat trick regarding Echo's vision.

TL;DR Once you get past the obvious (and lazy) comparison, Earth To Echo is a sweet little movie about kids and friendship--with surprisingly good acting and genuine emotions.

Review: Whiplash (2014)

Rating: 9.8 of 10

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

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

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

Music Shoutout: The Libertines - Anthems For Doomed Youth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Anthem For Doomed Youth...

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

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

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

Review: People Like Us (2012)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

People Like Us is story about one Sam (Chris Pine), a twenty-something salesman who had to come home for his father's funeral who he hated, and discovered that his father had another family and another daughter (Elizabeth Banks) that he knew nothing about.

Imagine the brattiness of Captain James Kirk from 2009's Star Trek (who Chris Pine also played), put the character in a funeral and family drama, and basically you'll get something exactly like People Like Us. The lead character Sam was something that all of us like to hate: an alpha-type, cocky, over-achiever, money-chasing salesman who would put a bulldozer through a church and the books of law if it fit his needs. Elizabeth Banks' Frankie, meanwhile, was something of a different breed: a single mother struggling to meet her needs and put her life in order.

People Like Us is a simple story about people trying to connect with each other. No gimmicks, no obvious twist-and turns (aside from the core premise); it's just one of those quietly engaging films about people who have no idea why they're doing what they're doing. We get to slowly understand the father and what his family went through his life, as we get to know Sam's mother (Michelle Pfeiffer) and her past, his job, Sam's childhood, and Frankie's life in general. Those details, scattered throughout the movie like a puzzle of life, put layers into the characters in a seemingly obvious family drama. It put a sense of earnestness in an otherwise heavy-handed film.

TL;DR Written and directed by Alex Kurtzman (yes, that Alex Kurtzman. Roberto Orci, his screenwriting partner also wrote in this film.), People Like Us is not a perfect movie, but it's a surprisingly layered one. In all honesty, your enjoyment of this movie might depend on how much you tolerate Chris Pine's Sam (Olivia Wilde is still underused, though), but if you like family drama it's not a bad movie to spend your time with.

Review: Pitch Perfect 2 (2015)

Rating: 7.7 of 10

A sequel about an all-female college a capella group, The Barden Bellas’ fall from grace and rise to victory--there are a lot of things I appreciated in Pitch Perfect 2. I liked the fact that we were not forced to retread the same things all over again, even though there were similarities. I liked the fact that they didn’t shoehorn random conflicts between Beca (Anna Kendrick) and Jesse (Skylar Astin). I liked how they didn’t seem to aim for “bigger, faster, louder” approach that too often happen in sequels (and then ended up being worse), even though there were a bunch of celebrity cameos (even President Obama!) and that was quite fun.

There were also, a lot of flaws. The script was okay, but what hurt the movie the most was that it had uneven pacing, and sort of aimless. Until this time, I don’t even know who is supposed to be the lead character: is it Beca (most likely), or is it Emily (Hailee Steinfeld)? That is, honestly, the most damning thing I can think of when we talk about movies. Emily was cute and quirky enough but was absent too often from the scenes, while Beca was too distant for us to actually care. Anna Kendrick was gravely, gravely underused in this film, especially considering she was actually the focus of the movie. Those things could be alleviated if only the movie had stronger directing, but sadly, ultimately Pitch Perfect 2 was too “loose” to be a good movie. The movie improved a bit after the Bellas went into retreat and came out a group again (which was, admittedly, the point of the movie), but it was too little too late.

The rest of the characters didn’t fare any better. In the previous movie, the supporting characters (Cynthia Rose, Stacie, and Lilly) were also treated as comic relief and spoke almost entirely in one-liners, but they had something resembling character development and we ended up caring for them. This time, they were held back so far into irrelevance and almost completely replaced by one Guatemalan member, Flo (Chrissie Fit), who was the subject of 100% exclusively racist jokes with 0% development. Maybe they had ulterior motive--that they were using comedic lines to communicate the terrible things that happen there? Honestly, I don’t even know but it sure didn’t feel like it. 

There’s one other character that I hoped were used more: Jesse (Skylar Astin). I understand why he had such a small role in Pitch Perfect 2--there’s no place for him in the story--but I just wish we see him more because I actually think his charm might save the movie. Instead, we see Benji (Ben Platt) and Bumper (Adam DeVine) in his place. Benji was cute enough, but he doesn’t have Skylar Astin’s charm, and Bumper was too annoying for my taste in such extended role.

At the very least, Pitch Perfect 2 was still quite funny. Thankfully Fat Amy (Rebel Wilson) was still Fat Amy, and it was still glorious. Pitch Perfect’s humor always stood on the side of wrong and sharp, and I loved it.

The songs were good, but sadly not as memorable as the ones in the first Pitch Perfect, because I think they’re less unique. That didn’t stop me from toe-tapping, of course, and I still enjoyed them immensely (especially the Das Sound Machine ones). TL;DR That, sadly, also summarizes Pitch Perfect 2 perfectly: good but not memorable. 

Music Shoutout: Mark Ronson - Uptown Special

No one could escape the popularity of Uptown Funk. No one. Hand delivered to us by featuring artist Bruno Mars, it was one of those popular singles that came out of left field--entirely unexpected in today's music climate, but devoured by all.

English musician, DJ, and record producer Mark Ronson is the man behind the album, Uptown Special. And Uptown Special is nothing if not a groovy work of art.

In actuality, Uptown Funk is my least favorite song of the album (I know, right?). Not because it’s a bad song--it’s an excellent song--but because for me, that particular song aims for “flashy” in the ways that the other songs from the album don’t try to be. The rest are less flashy (but in absolutely no way are less funky) and they show how meticulous the actual production were.

A smoothie of R&B, funk, and soul with contemporary touch, Uptown Special is filled with guest stars of famous and lesser names alike: Bruno Mars, Stevie Wonder, Mystikal, Kevin Parker of Tame Impala, Andrew Wyatt of Miike Snow, Keyone Starr, Jeff Bhasker, and Ronson treated each of them as crucial ingredients in each of their songs--but never outshines the song itself. 

Highlights of the album, excluding Uptown Funk. for me are I Can’t Lose (ft. Keyone Starr), In Case of Fire (ft. Jeff Bhasker), and the many versions of Crack In The Pearl. While the album was definitely derived from aforementioned genres, it’s amazing how versatile and ageless the album is, but I definitely think the album is best consumed in its entirety. Basically if Mark Ronson is a curator of talents, then Uptown Special is a museum that you can dance into. Weird analogy, I know, but I’m perfectly okay with that.

Review: Ex Machina (2015)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

Caleb Smith (Domnhall Gleeson, of Harry Potter’s Weasley fame), a young programmer and employee at Blue Book (a Google-like company), was chosen by lottery to visit his boss’ (Oscar Isaac) house in the middle of nowhere. That’s not the end of story, of course, because he was actually invited to perform modified Turing Test on an AI or Artificial Intelligence (played by Alicia Vikander) that Nathan, the boss built.

Written and directed by first-time director Alex Garland (writer of 28 Days Later, Never Let Me Go, Dredd), Ex Machina is visually rich and has an understated sense of suspense throughout the movie, that I’d propose as proof of talent for his hand in directing as well as writing. The visual of the movie really was suspended a lot by the exquisite natural locations, its dastardly gorgeous house, and juxtaposed beautifully with the clean lines of technology around it.

For those unfamiliar, Turing Test is a test in which a human interacts with a machine, and only if he or she cannot distinguish the machine’s response as human or not, then the machine can be considered as true AI. Ex Machina discusses a lot about the how, why, and other philosophical musings around AI--not an uncommon circumstance in a sci-fi movie, but it is quite unique because it doesn’t lecture or present itself in an unnatural way. It’s just that; A discussion. It does have a love story, but in the way that enriches the story instead of traps it. Ex Machina felt like a truly smart movie that doesn’t look down on its audience and more so than not, Ex Machina answers itself in a truly compelling way.

Alicia Vikander was perfect as Ava the AI, as the kind that exudes innocence and raw emotion appropriate for her character. Gleeson and Isaac also perfectly portrayed two programmers on the verge of great discovery--one as the inventor and one as an unassuming component of the test--and the interaction between them was just fascinating to watch. 

There were also other crazy brilliant stuff in it, like the impromptu dance scene. (Not gonna say anything about it, and I’d say don’t Google it because you’d really don’t want to be spoiled. Just watch the movie and come back to me.)

TL;DR In the end, Ex Machina is truly a thought-provoking movie because not only it’s a great thriller built around brilliant science-fictional discussion, but also because it felt real. Aside from her flashy skeleton, Ava really felt like she might be the next Google project a decade from today. Maybe she will be.

Review: Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Rating: 7.0 of 10

The truth is, Jupiter Ascending is not a bad movie. It's just a completely mediocre one, and honestly that's almost as bad--or even worse--than being plain bad.

A space opera straight from the hands and minds of the Wachowski siblings (from the legendary The Matrix, Cloud Atlas), Jupiter Ascending tells the story of Jupiter (Mila Kunis), a young house cleaner unhappy with her life. After being chased and prodded around by mysterious creatures, with the help of one ex-space military (Channing Tatum) she found out that she was the exact genetic copy of a galactic queen and was set to inherit the Earth. (It might worth mentioning that Tatum's character, Caine, was said to be half-dog and half-human. Take that as you will.)

One thing I could say about Jupiter Ascending is that the visual is very striking. If anything, the Wachowski are gifted with excellent eyes for uniquely breathtaking science-fictional images and technologies. There’s more creativity in the design of this single movie than a dozen blockbusters in recent years combined, but unfortunately they felt empty because there's no plot or soul to back it up. The clothes and spaceships were astonishingly beautiful, the planets magnificent, the flying boots were really, really cool, and the action were actually pretty exciting, but there's a large sense of "So what?" looming over the entire film.

The core of the movie was meant to be held up by the romance between Jupiter and Caine, and that's where the movie falters. Not only there were no chemistry between the two lead actors, the protagonist herself was completely unengaging with almost no agency, and it made that much harder to connect and emote. There's a world of ideas buried beneath the intricate visuals--I even quite liked the randomness of the plot as it introduces us to multiple characters, if only a little meandering--but I ended up caring for the characters as much as I care for a paperbag. Which makes it a shame, because Jupiter Ascending really do have a potential to be great.

TL;DR In the end, Jupiter Ascending is a very pretty movie without a purpose, with it's only saving grace is that it has a really, really cool title*.

*Yes, I really do love planet Jupiter.

TV Shoutout: Mr. Robot

Mr. Robot is a fresh new show, but it quickly captured our attention and we don’t want you to miss it!

What it is about: Elliot Alderson (Rami Malek) is a socially-challenged cyber-security engineer who moonlights as a hacking vigilante, and discovers a hacking group with a mysterious endgame.

Why you should watch it: Plenty of things, from big to small details, set Mr. Robot apart from other courses we usually have on TV. Firstly, it is one of very few shows on TV that accurately portrays hacking—and the life and technology around it (Sam Esmail, the creator, was a coder I believe). For the ones who care, it is a very big deal since the portrayal of technology in most TV and movies has generally been... questionable.

Secondly, Mr. Robot explores the ongoing, and very relevant, fight between 99-percenters vs 1-percenters. Which might sound too vague and nebulous for some, but Mr. Robot smartly keeps the focus small—focusing on Elliot and the people he encounters instead. To keep things short, I’d just say Elliot himself is also a very interesting character, brought to life by Rami Malek’s intense talent.

Mr. Robot is also a very beautiful show to watch with a cinematic flair, and there are little touches that makes the show feel inherently progressive. Although definitely not in any significant roles (except one, for now), an Indian man, a Chinese, a gay, and young woman with hijab had all been portrayed during the total 2 episodes that had aired. It also recognizes the presence of misogyny in the tech world, and in general Mr. Robot is a very prescient show.

And it’s a damn good thriller.

Who should watch it: The ones who enjoy psychological thriller—especially Fight Club in regards to Elliot’s psychological state and Mr. Robot’s nihilism (and fans are calling it, there might be Tyler Durden-esque twist coming!)—or just general thriller, really. The techies. The paranoids, the secret anarchists, and just general TV/movie lover.

Where you should start: It’s been only a couple of episodes, so yeah, from the start. You can jump ahead to whatever episode airing, but you’ll miss the brilliant, movie-like pilot.

Status: 2 of 10 episodes already aired, and second season has been greenlighted due to strong buzz!

Bonus: The first 4-minute clip of Mr. Robot, watch!

Review: The Spectacular Now (2013)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

Sutter Keely (Miles Teller) was a party boy who met and fell in love with plain, average girl, Aimee Finicky (Shailene Woodley). The plot just writes itself, really, but it was what happens between them and how they happen that makes the movie shine above others. First and foremost, what makes this movie unique for me was the portrayal of high school that was devoid of the typical high school stereotypes. Cliques weren't in wars against other cliques, people actually treat others nicely, girls don’t get makeovers, the ex weren't an insufferable b*tch, and Sutter—one of the most popular kid in the school—could still be a joke. Basically, the kids were portrayed as human beings. The Spectacular Now has the courage to let story and characters be the drama the movie needs, instead of milking cheap stereotypes.

The Spectacular Now really is not teen movie (it's actually R-rated), rather it's a well-made drama that is incidentally set in the teenage years. While it has an assuring amount of sweet scenes, for me The Spectacular Now is mostly just a coming-of-age story instead of a full-on love story. The film was mostly told from the perspective of Sutter and how his life changed throughout his time with Aimee. We don't really see Aimee's life or her point of view (what's up with the drinking?), and for once I'm actually okay with that. Aimee is definitely not a one-dimensional character though—we certainly have a firm grasp of what her character really is about—we just don't get to see the details of her life and that's okay. This is Sutter's story, and that's enough.

The thing that propels this movie is definitely the rich, sweet chemistry between the actors. Miles Teller's Sutter exudes this good-natured charisma and relatability, with equal amounts of effervescence and anguish, and self-destruction, while Woodley's Aimee was pure, unconditional, and unrestricted—that was actually the bane of their relationship. Even the supporting characters were perfect, giving the right amounts of pathos to each of their characters: Brie Larson, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kyle Chandler, and Bob Odenkirk. They were all understated but memorable, especially Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Sutter's older sister with a mysterious tumultuous past with the family. The movie itself was pretty slow with relatively little drama, but layers and layers of characterization like that makes a worthwhile viewing experience.

TL;DR A teen-focused movie like no other, The Spectacular Now provides lovely, tender antidote to our otherwise cynical lives.

Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

And I am excited for the new generation of Avengers!

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

Review: Beck (2010)

Rating: 7.5 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Rurouni Kenshin Trilogy (2012-2014)

Overall rating: 9.0 of 10

Rurouni Kenshin, adapted from popular manga and anime of the same name (popularized in North America and Indonesia as Samurai X, referring to his cross-shaped scar), tells the story of one skilled assassin from Japan’s Bakumatsu Era who turned into a wandering pacifist, helping people along the way and vowed to never kill anyone again.

The live action trilogy consists of Rurouni Kenshin: Meiji kenkaku roman-tan (titled simply Rurouni Kenshin in the English world) which was released in 2012, followed by two-parter Rurouni Kenshin: Kyoto taika-hen (Rurouni Kenshin: Tokyo Inferno) and Rurouni Kenshin: Densetsu no saigo-hen (Rurouni Kenshin: The Legend Ends), both released in 2014. I just binge-watched all of them so it made more sense to me to do a comprehensive review of the trilogy. Besides, I just thought it’d be just a tad boring to read me raving about Takeru Sato (who played the titular character) three times over.

The biggest accomplishment these movies achieved, aside from hiring the right director for obvious reasons, was casting Takeru Sato as Kenshin Himura the Manslayer Battosai. Kenshin Himura was a difficult character to get right. He was a small, unassuming, baby-faced, soft-spoken person who had the weight of all Japan on his shoulders and swordsmanship skill of a god. Not only Sato looked exactly like how Kenshin would look like in real life, he was able to play just about every range of Kenshin’s in the most unobtrusive way, from Kenshin’s trademark goffiness, kindness, to his restrained composure, deafening sadness and powerful regret, and the bombastic rage that he eventually let out. Every once in a while he lets out quiet words of wisdom that are so excessively true your heart breaks, because you know it took a great deal of pain and mistakes to be able to say them.

The rest of the casts were great too, each one of them dissolved nicely into the characters that we have come to know and love from the manga and anime (I never read the manga, admittedly). Animes in particular are difficult to adapt into live action because animes in general operate in a wholly different reality. Jinei Udoh’s and Shishio’s powers weren’t exactly realistic, for example, but director Keishi Ohtomo was able to make them at least plausible. Even small things like clothes, hair, and behaviors of characters from animes might be harder to translate from animation into live action but Rurouni Kenshin was able to bring them come to life with grace.

The film was also absolutely beautiful to watch. The colors and cinematography were absolute striking, and so was the fighting scenes. Each of the fights are fluid, absolutely clear and delightful to watch, and definitely captured the magic of samurai fights that we have come to expect.

But the truth is, the three movies weren’t created equal. The first movie did a great job at introducing and sucking us into its world, for reasons above. TL;DR It was a great origin movie of a compelling character, surrounded by a hoard of interesting supporting characters. But more intellectually, what I really appreciated from this particular movie is that they hit the tone right with the violence. They were dirty, they were bloody (not overly so that it’s unwatchable) but enough to bring home the fact that killing, no matter the cause, is an ugly thing to do.

I found Kyoto Inferno to be the weakest installment. Shishio was a brilliant arc in the manga and anime, partly because they spent considerable amount of time building into the arc. The movie had such little time to tell its story in comparison that it was understandable that it would not have the same effect, but TL;DR I also found the film to have problematic pacing, and it felt particularly heavy and overwrought.

That said, The Legend Ends was brilliant. It started as the slowest of the bunch, and I appreciated the change of pace (without resorting to spoilers I'll just say it was refreshing to see someone who looks down on Kenshin for once). I have to say it built up nicely into the climax though, so don’t worry, it was every bit as intense as the others and the fights were every bit as exciting. TL;DR The Legend Ends was a very focused movie, especially compared to Tokyo Inferno, and that’s why I found it to be the best.

If I had to assign individual ratings for each film, I maybe would give them 9.0, 8.0, and 9.5 respectively (and a completely unscientific overall rating of 9.0). Collectively, they were such a great adaption that if you’re a Rurouni Kensin fan by any means, you maybe should watch them.

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.