Review: Rise Of The Guardians (2012)

Review: Nocturnal Animals (2016)

Rating: 7.0 of 10

Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) is a rich, successful gallery owner who is unhappy with her life and marriage, who suddenly receives an unpublished manuscript dedicated to her from her writer ex-husband, Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal). Nocturnal Animals tells the paralelling naratives between Susan and the lead character Tony Hastings (also played by Jake Gyllenhaal) in the novel.

Visually, Nocturnal Animals is achingly beautiful. Everything is minimalist but decadent, and at times shot not unlike a perfume commercial. At least, the parts with Amy Adams, because she does live in “that” world. The parts with Jake Gyllenhaal, however, is more grounded and mostly set in the desert or in a police station, and is more traditionally shot but not without its visual moments.

But story-wise, things are less... good. What is the movie trying to say? Honestly, I don't know. What purpose does the book storyline hold for the main story? What is Edward trying to say by sending Susan the book? During the movie we're left grasping at straws to figure out what it all means, and then the answer never comes. Don't get me wrong, a good movie does not have to spell out everything for its viewer, but it has to give us something to hold on to, and Nocturnal Animals give us nothing.

Amy Adams' character is cold and the environment is sterile, making it hard for us to relate. Jake Gyllenhaal’s performance is absolutely magnetic and his storyline affecting, but his character is rendered moot because he is only a character in a book. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is chillingly scary and is also a standout in this film, but he is a bad guy and does not help us to relate to our protagonists.

But the main thing that makes it so hard for us to relate for the characters is that because there's also no arc to speak of of the characters. Amy Adams' character stays constant throughout the whole movie (seriously, if 80% her scenes consist of her laying in bed or taking a bath, how much character growth do you expect) with maaaaybe a hint of change at the last 5 minutes, but then-cut to black! Due to the nature of his story, a lot of things happen to Jake Gyllenhaal's character as Tony but he has absolutely no agency in the story. 

To sum it up simply, in Nocturnal Animals there's no overarching theme, no character arc, there's not even an ending. Honestly, why should we care?

Okay, I lied, I could think of a couple themes about the movie, but none of it is well developed. One possible running theme is about loss, regret, and revenge, but it's not framed cohesively enough. Another possible theme is about wealth and decadence versus suffering for integrity, but then again, is woefully lacking in execution.

One nice thing I could say is that Tom Fords direction is exquisite, and I don't mean that just visually. He is able to build emotional moments and suspense, and bring out everything from Jake Gyllenhaal and Aaron Taylor-Johnson's performance (and they give a lot in their performances).

TL;DR But like I said, everything else in Nocturnal Animals is just... there. Even with its emotional moments, somehow all of it doesn't mean anything.

Review: Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Rating: 9.5 out of 10

2016 is indeed the year of superhero battles. So I can’t really do this review without first mentioning Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice (reviewed here), which was previously released this year, because one is a masterclass of what not to do, while the other is a prime example of how to do it right. While BvS shat all over the characters in an overwrought and boring plot, Captain America: Civil War let all 12 of the characters shine and treated them with the utmost respect.

Respect is one thing that jumped to me the most. While having major disagreement in their opinion, Steve Rogers (a.k.a Captain America, played by Chris Evans) respects Tony Stark (a.k.a. Iron Man, played by Robert Downey Jr.) so much, and vice versa. Differences aside, they and the rest of their team genuinely considers each other as friends, and it pains them that they’re not on the same side. It’s a difficult situation to be in, and as unlikely as it may sound, Civil War succeeded not just as pandering of epic fight sequences; it’s also a character-based drama.

Civil War does have its trademark Marvel quick quips and fun moments, but for the most part, it’s an emotionally heavy film. I was almost emotionally exhausted after the end of the film–but for good reason, it was something you only feel after a really good film. Avengers movies (let’s be honest, Civil War is practically an Avengers movie) have always had big stakes, but they always had lighter feel to it, primarily because they usually have clear-cut victories. Civil War, though, typical for these “versus” kind of films, have a largely Pyrrhic victory that leaves both sides kinda broken. I repeat, which is a good thing, because that means the filmmakers treated the story with the gravity it deserves. Hat-tip to Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely as writers, and Russo Brothers as directors (all also worked in Captain America: The Winter Soldier), my favorite MCU film.

If I made it sound like it was an excruciating movie, I’m sorry, it really is not! It was still a really fun film that made me laughed out loud quite a few times. Spider-Man especially was one of the highlight of the movie. While I was initially unsure with the decision to de-age Peter Parker and the casting of Tom Holland, eventually it worked so well within the movie. The amateurish vibe of Spider-Man contrasted so well against our veteran heroes who carry the weight of the world on their shoulder. Also, the comments that come out to and from Spider-Man are just gold (”Remember that really old movie Empire Strikes Back?”). Black Panther also made memorable first appearance. In the limited screentime that he has, Chadwick Boseman played the character with such grace, dignity, and power definitely fit for a prince and a superhero–with enough glimpse of his backstory to get us excited for his upcoming solo movie.

The fight scenes are downright amazing. Its street fights are as amazing and as inventive as the ones in The Winter Soldier, but the superhero fights are on another level. Remember the ballet-like final fight in The Avengers? Civil War definitely rival that with 100% more excitement because they’re not fighting faceless minions, they’re fighting each other with each of their own “gimmick” and style.

But as much as Marvel tries to make each movie accessible to new filmgoers, Civil War is definitely more geared towards the people who’ve followed Marvel Cinematic Universe (particularly the Captain America and The Avengers movies) for a while. New viewers definitely would understand the plot, but they wouldn’t necessarily understand the gravity and details of the whole situation.

The plot is as simple and as difficult as you make it to be. The backbone of the story is simple: after the destruction of the town Sokovia (in The Avengers: Age of Ultron), United Nations wants to take lead of The Avengers because they deem the heroes dangerous if they go unchecked. Some of The Avengers agrees, some don’t. Even now, I’m not sure who I’m siding with, and the movie itself does not tell you which side is right one. Honestly, as much as I love Steve Rogers as a character, I’m more inclined to siding Stark (though I’m sure it’ll backfire one way or another in the future), and it pains me so much that Rogers couldn’t agree with him. Also, I’ve been wanting to tell you about a specific scene, I might as well put it here: In a scene that mirrors his first appearance in Captain America: The First Avenger, with the last of his strength, Rogers stood up from the ground against Iron Man–all in his Captain America glory–and says, “I could do this all day.” (If you’ve watched the first Captain America, you’d understand the significance.) It was a heartbreaking scene that floored me, but that’s a testament of how much the filmmakers understand the characters that they created.

TL;DR Not your run-of-the-mill superhero movie, Captain America: Civil War is a dense character-based drama with a whole lot of action. Heads up though, while this is a Captain America film, due to the nature of the story it really has an equal screentime between Rogers and Tony Stark, in case you have different expectations about it.

Review: The Nice Guys (2016)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

Rant: Being A Good Person On TV

Being a superhero is hard, but everybody knows that. They've got tons of people to save, friends to protect, and villains to defeat--all while maintaining secret identity and a full-time day job. Considering how evil and able their enemies tend to be, it's not hard to comprehend that sometimes they might be tempted to go down to less than noble means--whether that means killing, cheating, lying or whatever. I sometimes imagine that maybe, in their position, I'm gonna be more "creative" too, but that's not the case with the heroes I'm gonna talk about in this post.

Particularly, Barry Allen of The Flash, and Scott McCall of Teen Wolf.

(It's easy for me to talk about The Flash with some degree of dignity--since the show was well received by critics and fans, but I'm actually a bit nervous to talk about Teen Wolf. Yes, that remake of a failed old movie that nobody asked for, that has "Teen" on its title, airs on MTV that no longer stands for “Music”, and its entire existence probably piggybacked on the popularity of the tween-monstrosity called Twilight. And I assure you now, it's legitimately good.)

We live in a cynical world, especially in entertainment. Morally-grey and morally-ambiguous protagonists aren't only numerous but seems to be a trend that only gets stronger: most popularly started with The Sopranos and cemented today with the likes of Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Girls, Scandal, and Game of Thrones, people seemed to devour their stories and it's easy to see why. People love relatability, and people always want a good redemption story (whether it's earned or not). We like to see characters that don't always do good, or don't always do evil, because we know we sometimes do both. People were always drawn to flawed characters (case in point, Hamlet), because we know that we are flawed too.

A hero who's perfect is boring, because we always know what that person would choose in any given time. That is like an unspoken mantra of TV and film, and I used to firmly believed in it. Superman would never work on screen, they say, because he’s too good. But after watching and enjoying Teen Wolf and The Flash for years, I know that that’s not the case anymore.

In stark contrast to it's sister show Arrow, The Flash had decidedly different tone: it was fun, lighter, and more optimistic. Barry Allen (Grant Gustin), its central character, also had one determining characteristic that set him apart from Oliver Queen (Stephen Amell) from Arrow: that Barry is the kind of hero that always find another way (in Felicity's words). Whenever things get tough and the only solution in sight is to kill or let someone get killed or hurt, Barry would always try to find another way to save the day, sometimes in no regard of his own safety. Actually, Oliver would usually eventually get there too, but more than often not, it was only after much deliberation and plea from his friends and colleagues. But Barry is such an inherently a good person who just would NOT compromise to evil, a rarity among the Batmans, Daredevils, even Man of Steel’s Supermans of today, and other bunch characters--superheroes or not. And obviously the show’s formula works extremely well too, because The Flash quickly became CW’s most popular show (even surpassing its parent show), earned hardcore fanbase, received critical praise, and concluded its first and current season with a satisfying finale.

Similar thing could also be said about Scott McCall of Teen Wolf. His defining character is that he wants to save everyone and everything (even his enemies), and he trusts basically everyone (even his enemies). He is a good person almost to a fault, and I believe he is actually the better example of the two regarding the point I'm trying to say, because of 2 things: One, Teen Wolf has been going for 5 seasons and is a living example that it's not only possible to make compelling show (excepting the terrible season 4. Ugh.) out of a genuinely decent character, but it's also sustainable. Two, for its dark overall tone. It's easy to think Barry's shameless optimism is due to the fact that The Flash is an light-toned show, but Teen Wolf isn't particularly light (it's a horror series) and most times it has a general sense of looming dread. So tone shouldn't be a hindrance to having a goody-two-shoes lead protagonist.

We don’t really know the direction that The Flash is going with its second season--maybe Barry's belief would evolve into something more morally grey, we don’t know. But with Teen Wolf, I think, it’s save to say that an honorable lead character is doable. The show handled it the right way, too. They made Scott’s goodness not only central to the heart of the show, but also to the plot (with him being a True Alpha). We also get to see how he influences the people around him, and how he consistently made his friends become better persons. And Scott’s not even the extent of a “good” character on the show: ordinary people such as Sheriff Stilinski can be relentlessly good too. And that’s the important message, I believe, that we can be good if we try. It doesn’t get more uplifting than that.

I’m sorry that this rant is a bit vague if you’ve never seen the shows because I don’t have enough memory to spit out any specific examples (I’m terrible at remembering plot) but the point is, being a good person isn't boring. Actually, being a good person is fuckin' hard. Have you ever tried to do exactly zero bad thing in a day--no lying, no running over the red light, no badmouthing your coworkers and overtiming your lunch break, no using work’s copy machine for personal use, no sneering at that bum across the road, and no disturbing that sleeping kitten? It’s effin’ hard. But if you have time-traveling impostor or body-altering supernatural doctors chasing after you? I bet that’d be an extra, extra hard thing to do and the struggle they go through to just not give in is worth a watch.

My point is, I think it’s time to abandon the long held belief that good people are boring. On the contrary, in my opinion, how they can stay noble regardless of obstacle is a journey worth seeing.

Music Shoutout: Whilk and Misky

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

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

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

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

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: Hail Caesar! (2016)

Rating: 7.9 of 10

The latest film by producer-writer-director duo, Ethan and Joel Coen (The Big Lebowsky, No Country For Old Men, Inside Llewyn Davis), Hail, Caesar! is not an easy film to explain at first glance. It doesn't have a clear, definable premise, except maybe this decidedly vague description in its synopsis: Hail, Caesar! follows a single day in the life of a studio fixer who is presented with plenty of problems to fix.

I may warn you now that this review is written by someone who's not a fan of Coen Brothers work--but I'd also remind you that I always, always try to see movies objectively. Their movies are always artistically and narratively outstanding, but I always find their movies to be a tad too uncomfortable for my taste. There's actually an excellent video essay (by Every Frame a Painting, watch it here) on exactly how Coen Brothers’ shots differ from “standard” filmmaking, which actually made me feel relieved because it turned out there's an actual cinematographical reason on why I don't like to see their films despite them being of high quality.

But Coen Brothers don't really care about making things "commercial" or "accessible", they just do what they want to do--and in result they always succeed in making one-of-a-kind movies with singularly unique voice. They are experts in what they do so it’s no wonder that the critics love them, and in a lot of ways, The Coen Brothers are the guardians of the art of filmmaking.

Now back to the actual movie. Set in the 1950s, the leads are played by Josh Brolin as studio man Eddie Mannix, and George Clooney-in-silly-haircut as actor Baird Whitlock. There are also a number of cameos from big stars like Scarlett Johansson, Tilda Swinton, Ralph Fiennes, Channing Tatum (in a scene that included singing and tap dancing), Jonah Hill, and more. If that sounds a bit sporadic, it’s because Hail Caesar! is indeed somewhat sporadic, if only because of the nature of the story. The crux of the story is about George Clooney’s character who is kidnapped, but there are a lot of things going at once that are only connected by the end of the film. However, with a lot of things going on, they do not feel jumbled or overstuffed at all. Especially with how gleefully absurd those cameos are, you don’t really mind because they really do make the soul of the movie.

There are a lot of talents involved in this movie, but there are definitely some standouts worth mentioning such as Alden Ehrenreich (soon to be young Han Solo in upcoming Star Wars prequel movie), Veronica Osorio, Channing Tatum, and Tilda Swinton who are just charming in each of their roles. In midst of deadpan hilarity and caricatured characters, Coen Brothers also managed to sneak-in a few commentary/satire on things like religion and Christianity, capitalism, communism, and even on the movie industry--which lend some weight to the movie instead of being just another well-made absurd comedy. 

TL;DR While it’s not the best movie that the Coen Brothers had ever made, Hail Caesar! is an excellent film, although for me, it’s just refreshing to see something as blatantly original as Hail Caesar!. But if you’re a fan of the Coen Brothers--or a fan of something that I can only describe as uncomfortable comedy--then this movie is definitely for you.

Review: Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them (2016)

Rating: 8.8 of 10

Five years after the last Harry Potter movie, and fifteen years after the first, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is the first cinematic continuation of the universe that does not directly include Harry Potter himself.

In the center of the movie is Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, a mild-mannered beasts expert from the British Ministry of Magic. He has this demeanor about him—a little hunched back, soft spoken, never really look at people straight on—that is so endearing you’d never want to take your eyes of him whenever he’s on screen. He befriends Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), a wide eyed No-Maj who dreams of something bigger; Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), a quirky yet determined MACUSA employee; and Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol), Tina’s sister and coworker and a bubbly mind-reader. Fantastic Beasts is full of fun and memorable secondary characters that help make the universe felt so rich. 

Also, we get to see the culture of wizardry in the US and the workings of MACUSA  (US’s version of Ministry of Magic), that includes an Auror played by Colin Farrell (he is unexpectedly perfect as a wizard, and also has the coolest outfit. Although I may or may not want to steal everybody’s wardrobe from this movie). The titular wild creatures are also infinitely weird, cute, and strangely endearing. 

Fantastic Beasts is not a perfect movie, but honestly, you won’t really care. The second act should feel draggy and aimless, but the whole time you’d be too busy being mesmerized by all the wonders and charm the movie, the beasts, and the characters had to offer. By all means, Fantastic Beasts will definitely fill that Harry Potter-shaped void in your heart.

There are 2 major plots in Fantastic Beasts: Plot A is about Newt and his friends running throughout New York to find his missing beasts, while Plot B is about Grindelwald and the Second Salem movement that will eventually tie into the rise of Voldemort in later years. They both have very different atmostphere about them, and it’s pretty amazing that they didn’t feel disjointed at all. Newt’s subplot with the creatures and his friends is cute and charming, while the Second Salem goes way, way darker than you’d expect.

Ultimately, Fantastic Beasts is a fluff piece. It’s cute and light and whimsical (when it’s not directly tied to Grindelwald) but I wouldn’t have it any other way. As of now, there are talks for sequels that will focus further into the story of Grindelwald, and less into Newt Scamander. That makes me sad, really, because it’ll be a shame to say goodbye to these lovable characters and creatures.

TLDR; Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is as whimsical as you'd expect from Harry Potter universe, and indeed, fantastic. (I regret nothing writing that.)

Coming soon: Avengers: Age Of Ultron (2015) Review

We have early release here (and I’ve seen it), but I’ll hold off the review until this week’s Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Stay tuned!

Web Shoutout: Actors on Actors

Welcome to Web Shoutout, a series highlighting interesting places in the interwebs about movies and filmmaking! (Check out the previous Web Shoutout here).

This time I want to talk about Variety’s Actors on Actors series on Youtube. These days, I think most people seem to forget that acting is an art--and a very challenging one at that. It’s easy for us to forget about that and get lost in the glitz-and-glam part of a celebrity life, because they don’t really get to talk much about the craft of acting. Most interviews that we see are either promotional interviews or a 5-minute conversation in a talk show (that undoubtedly will include a cute random trivia). Which, they’re not inherently bad but they always leave me wanting more

Distinguishing itself from those kinds of interviews, I find Actors on Actors incredibly delightful to see, if only because it brings me so much joy to see a conversation between two people that relate and respect one another. Obviously, we also get to hear in-depth stories about their experiences as an actor, the roles that they picked, and how they do their craft. I’ll just leave you a with several videos to enjoy, and also don’t forget to take a look at their channel and Actors on Actors playlist.

1. Ryan Reynolds and Taraji P Henson - Full Conversation

2. Andrew Garfield and Amy Adams - Why Playing Spider-Man Broke Andrew Garfield’s Heart

3. Octavia Spencer and Dev Patel - Full Conversation

4. Benedict Cumberbatch and Edward Norton - Full Conversation

Subscribe to Variety’s channel.