So. Excited.

Review: Freaky Friday (2003)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Today, we’ll talk about modern day classic, Freaky Friday (and ain’t nobody going to convince me that it’s not!) which I happened to rewatch on a lazy day. I was surprised, and I realized I shouldn’t have been, at how well it held up. Okay, it’s not groundbreaking by any means. I gave it a score of 8, which means it’s firmly in the “good” category but not particularly great--but that doesn’t mean it’s not awesome or entertaining, especially for a family-friendly comedy that it is.

The story was about mother (Tess, played by Jamie Lee Curtis) and daughter (Anna, played by Lindsay Lohan) who had their bodies swapped for a day because of a spell. So on a fated Friday before Tess’ wedding, Anna literally walked in her mother’s shoes and vice versa. Naturally, all interesting things happen.

The charm of Freaky Friday was a nebulous one: basic premise is novel but simple and plot is predictable, but the execution is top-notch and it’s funny as hell. Most of it, I think, boils down to great casting. Jamie Lee Curtis had a hint of rebelliousness in her that it didn’t seem jarring when Anna (in Tess’ body) had her ears pierced and then rolls off with a motorcycle; and Lindsay Lohan actually acted reliably as an overly-responsible mother.

Freaky Friday, I think, was also great at treating its characters like a human being. The movie, as with most family movies, showed to great lengths at how the fight between Tess and Anna was basically because of misunderstanding, and there’s a scene that I really, really like. It was when Jake (Chad Michael Murray), that Anna had a huge crush on, actually offered Anna (while being herself) a ride home on his motorcycle, and she refused. It was established that she’s a rebel and she even considered not going to her mother’s rehearsal dinner for a band audition, but that scene alone showed us that she loved her mother and actually cared about what she thinks. The little brother was cute as the comic-relief type, but in a way that didn’t diminish his intelligence as a character. Ryan (Mark Harmon) was also a great, albeit under-appreciated, character as the considerate future-stepfather.

If there’s anything I’m not completely on board with, is the Jake/Anna-as-Tess subplot. Not so much about how it looks and the apparent age difference (I couldn’t care less), but about how fast he moved-on from apparent-Tess to actual-Anna that maybe happened in less than 12 hours. Apart from that, it was all great.

TL;DR Freaky Friday is an infinitely watchable family movie that worked better than the sum of its parts.

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.

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: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Rating: 4.0 of 10.0

I have to be honest, and I’m going to drop the bomb this early in the article: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is the single most boring movie I’ve ever watched in the theater in a long time–and I’ve endured A Good Day To Die Hard. Even that movie still wins favors from me for being a quick 90-minute movie with an earnest desire to be as simple and as loud as possible. BvS, on the other hand, is 2 and a half hours long and the studio themselves proudly stated that (I paraphrase, but I kid you not it’s true) “there will be no jokes in this movie”. They lied, by the way. There were a couple of jokes, maybe 3, but none of them were remotely funny. Maybe that’s what they meant. Of course not every movie should be witty–but when a movie is bad and you can’t even laugh, that’s when a movie-going experience becomes a torture.

BvS, actually, had a promising beginning. It still insisted to have a scene of the Wayne’s parents death and of little Bruce’s fall into the cave, which I am so tired of. Okay, I get it. Bruce’s parents were murdered in front of him as a child and that’s his origin story, but that’s how it’s been in every iteration of Batman. We don’t need to be retold the same story all over again, particularly because this version of Batman had been around the streets for 20 years. But if you must have the scene for the simple fact that your movie has Batman in it, I made peace with it. The next scene though, was quite excellent and actually gave me hope that this would be a great movie (I was wrong). It was of Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), in the exact moment of Man of Steel’s final battle when Superman (Henry Cavill) and General Zod (Michael Shannon) destroyed half the city–and apparently, a Wayne building. To see the effects of the battle from a pedestrian perspective was genuinely terrifying, and that created an understandable motive for Bruce Wayne to hate on Superman.

In fact, Batman is the only decent thing to come out of this movie. Ben Affleck actually makes a pretty good Batman, at least as good as the movie lets him be. Admittedly his motive on hating Superman might not be the most logical (after all Superman is the person who saved them all, city-wide destruction notwithstanding), but experiencing that much destruction in front of your eyes might do something to you. Honestly though, Batman is kind of insane in this movie. He has repeating nonsensical nightmares, is fixated on killing Superman on an unhealthy level, and brands criminals with his logo for no apparent reason. But, his solo fighting sequence is the only interesting one compared to the rest, and the simple fact that Ben Affleck is a better actor than Henry Cavill makes him the better half of the bunch.

Superman is where it all falters. First, I’d like to point out that I actually kinda liked Man of Steel, which is the prequel to BvS. Zack Snyder, who directed both movies, takes the idea of Superman, an all-American hero, and turned it on its head with MoS. What if, he asks, Superman is not regarded as a hero but as an alien threat instead? It was a compelling question, and one he began to answer in MoS. But in order for MoS to work (which is an origin story), it has to be followed by a rather traditional Superman movie, otherwise MoS would be pointless. Instead with BvS, Snyder continues to try to subvert the idea of Superman, but he hasn’t earned any of it. BvS tries to discuss the dichotomy between “Superman as a savior” vs “Superman as a monster”, without first establishing the savior part of Superman at all (neither in MoS or BvS). The result is a gritty Superman movie that both rings hollow and violates the very idea of Superman itself.

The messages telegraphed about Superman in this movie is all over the place. Alfred (Jeremy Irons) spouts two opposing opinions on Superman at two different times. Also, at one time Clark Kent/Superman talks about how he wants to do good and save people to honor his father, while in my recollection Pa Kent basically told him in MoS (I exaggerate, but still), “Don’t save the humans, they don’t deserve it.” It’s clear that the movie itself isn’t sure on how to handle Superman. Also, Henry Cavill’s acting that only ranges from brooding to grimacing (coupled with Snyder’s obsession of having Superman suspended mid air to hammer-in the idea that he is a god), just worsens it all.

How about other characters? Jessie Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor, that one I can’t understand. The less I can say about him the better, so I’m actually gonna chalk it out to taste. Perhaps, his Lex Luthor just isn’t my taste. One thing I know for sure though, his character is as annoying and as perplexing as he appeared in the trailers, so if you hate him there you’ll want to burn him in the actual movie.

I don’t have any special thing to say about Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot). She doesn’t have much to do in BvS (yet. She’s having her own movie and she’ll also appear in upcoming Justice League movie) and doesn’t have much time to build her character, so I can’t say anything worthwhile yet. I’m not fond of her costume from practical perspective, but that’s hardly the worst thing in BvS.

Alright, maybe you’re thinking, what if I only want to watch the movie only for the action? I’d just warn you that any kind of action only begins halfway into the movie (probably maybe even way into the third act), and the ride leading to it was excruciating. Even the titular fight between Batman and Superman is wildly lackluster, purely because of the fact that you just know how stupid it is. When you want to avoid a fight, definitely the first thing you do won’t be throwing your supposed opponent 10-feet into a building. When you don’t have time to talk, then you shouldn’t have time to keep saying you don’t have time to talk. The conclusion of the fight is also pretty stupid ("Martha," anyone?). To tell you the truth, the titular fight really is boring. The final fight, featuring Wonder Woman, is slightly better, but only if you like those kinds of heavily CGI’d fight.

The story itself is incomprehensible. Fortunately there’s something resembling a plot, but it has no apparent arc aside from the obvious question the writers ask themselves: HOW DO WE GET BATMAN TO FIGHT SUPERMAN. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is not what a good writer should do. Obviously, there’s a certain kind of art about a movie that builds quite and slow suspense that leads to a satisfying climax. Some movies though, just draaaaags, and BvS is the latter. I’m not a person with the shortest attention span and I certainly don’t need an explosion every 5 minutes to keep me engaged, but I just couldn’t care for BvS and I was bored. out. of. my. mind. With clunky pacing, disjointed edits, and worthless dream sequences, BvS is basically an incoherent rambling of Zack Snyder.

While we’re here, let’s talk about the title. “Batman v Superman” doesn’t really mean anything outside the court of law, which certainly has nothing to do with the movie. Even “Dawn of Justice” is kinda meaningless unless if you think it’s a clever enough pun for Justice League. And since the movie does not talk about the actual justice itself, and certainly doesn’t end in any way that implies justice is served, it simply is a misnomer. Basically the title was just a collection of things that Snyder thinks would sound cool, which ironically is a fitting description of the entire movie.

Honestly, the only thing I liked about this movie is the fact that practically anybody could figure out who Superman is; because when your disguise is a pair of glasses, then you’re not really trying to fool anyone.

My TL;DR is this: Do yourself a favor and skip this movie. Just watch literally anything else; Kung Fu Panda 3, Nolan’s Batman Trilogy, Supergirl, your high school graduation video, anything. Treat yourself with a decent lunch. Just don’t pay for this movie, unless you’re prepared to be disappointed.

Review: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

So, if you live on Planet Earth, you have probably read reviews/heard from other people about how amazing Thor: Ragnarok is.

I’m not gonna be one of those people.

Alright, I don’t think it’s terrible either. I just think Ragnarok is okay, and somewhat on par with other “okay” Marvel’s Cinematic Universe (*cough* Ant-Man *cough*).

I could say that the one great thing about Ragnarok is that it has a lot of personality. The sin of previous Thor movies were that they were not only forgettable, they felt “cookie-cutter”. They felt like you’ve seen them before, and in fact you definitely have. Meanwhile, Ragnarok is definitely its own beast, and that is for sure thanks to Taika Waititi’s clear vision as director. His vision in infusing fun and humor is definitely something that Thor sorely needs. And that proved to work, as evidenced by its success both critically and commercially.

However, Taika’s brand of humor is not my brand of humor. Because the story is quite thin, Ragnarok definitely hinges a lot on its humor. So if you like Taika (see What We Do In The Shadows) then I guess you’ll like it, but if you don’t get the laughs then you won’t enjoy it as much. I’ve always said that Marvel movies are always unexpectedly funny, but although there were laughs, they were not usually at the expense of the characters. However, Taika likes to make fun of his characters, to the point that he makes them look quite foolish. He probably was trying to make them more “relatable” or something, but for me, they just make me respect our heroes less.

The villain is played by none other than Cate Blanchett. Cate Blanchett just has that enormous movie presence that makes every movie better, but her character Hela was not given the gravity it deserves. Given that Hela is Thor and Loki’s sister (and given what happened to their father Odin), Ragnarok is ripe for a real, emotional family story. But Ragnarok failed on that front. Sure, Ragnarok touches on that in one or two scenes, but they definitely were not enough. An emotional core like that should be ingrained in its story, but instead it just felt tacked on. Just because Ragnarok is a funny movie, that doesn’t excuse the lack of heart in this film. Just look at Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2. That movie was funny as hell, but the emotional content of that movie was through the roof. Sadly Ragnarok couldn’t do anything like that, instead Hela just felt like another Malekith (villain from Thor: The Dark World, if you don’t remember, who was not that good of a villain to begin with).

Ragnarok, though, definitely plays on Chris Hemsworth’s strength. Hemsworth is an incredible comedic actor, and he fits right in this new tone. I couldn’t grasp much of Hulk/Bruce Banner’s character in this movie, mainly because in-universe we have not seen him for 2 years. He has changed a lot but we were not given time to revisit his character more. Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie though, is really great! She is badass and memorable, and is definitely a worthy addition to MCU family. About Loki… I can’t believe I’m gonna say this, but I do think that Loki’s character has definitely run its course. Unless something happens to the character that changes him, I can’t see how Loki could add value to future Marvel movies.

TL;DR If you need some laughs, or you have 2 hours to kill, Thor: Ragnarok is definitely a great movie. But if you’re looking for something more emotionally profound, you’re not gonna get it here.

Review: Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

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

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

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

Review: Jennifer's Body (2009)

Rating: 8.9 of 10

Jennifer (Megan Fox) is the most beautiful girl in Devil’s Kettle High School, while her best friend Anita “Needy” (Amanda Seyfried) is a frumpy, simple girl. Needy have been loyal to Jennifer for all of her life, but she just might have to fight Jennifer when she turned evil–not just “high school evil”, but “evil, evil.”

Let me say this: Jennifer’s Body is really good, but sadly it flopped at the box office (and received only lukewarm, some might even say negative, response from the critics), because nobody knew what to expect. The somewhat tacky poster gives the impression of a hormone infused B-movie, the demonic premise implies a scary movie, and the “comedy” label tacked-on on promotional pieces lead people to expect more laugh-out-loud moments. Instead, Jennifer’s Body is none of that–or all of that and more, depending on your point of view.

I would say the best way to describe Jennifer’s Body is that it’s a teen drama movie, with some horror/supernatural stuff mixed in. Think Mean Girls, but with actual murder. Both Jennifer’s Body and Mean Girls have the same wit, the same commentary on high-school female friendship dynamics, and the same emotional resonance between the two lead girls. Okay, Jennifer’s Body is not as funny as Mean Girls and not nearly as quotable, but I don’t think it was ever meant to be as funny as Mean Girls (I meant it when I said Jennifer’s Body barely qualifies as a comedy, but I do think Jennifer’s Body and Mean Girls have the same spirit). The horror stuff are an integral part of the story, but they’re clearly not meant to shock or scare you “just because”. It's pretty funny, but not at the expense of its story. It’s also sexy, but in the way that serves the story. At the core, Jennifer’s Body is just a drama between two friends–and a very effective one at that. It’s also worth noting that Jennifer’s Body is written and directed by women, and that makes Jennifer’s Body a uniquely female horror movie. I understand that not everybody’s gonna understand what Jennifer’s Body is trying to do, but I definitely enjoyed it. 

I also believe, it flopped because audiences have rock-bottom expectations of Megan Fox. Megan Fox has been the poster girl of bad movies and bad characters (although not nearly half of it are her fault), that people just assume that Jennifer’s Body will be terrible and not go see it. But after Amanda Seyfried’s flawless performance as Needy, Megan Fox is actually one of the highlights of the movie. Yes, her character Jennifer is shallow, promiscuous, and manipulative, but Fox played her with such degree of self-awareness that it’s a delight to see.

TL;DR If you’re looking for a fun, sexy horror movie with emotional weight, Jennifer’s Body might be the one for you.

Web Shoutout: Youtube Edition

Today, I’m starting a new series: Web Shoutout. It’s a place where I Shoutout random stuff from all corners of the Internet that I find interesting, most especially regarding movies. Hope you like it!

This time I feature standout channels from Youtube that help me, as an amateur movie reviewer and movie enthusiast, understand layers of movies and moviemaking that I might never paid attention before. This list is by no means all encompassing, it’s just a bunch of channels that I enjoy watching at the moment.

1. Every Frame A Painting ( @everyframeapainting on tumblr )

I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that my first pick is Every Frame A Painting, because in my mind, anybody who’s plugged into the Internet’s movie newsreel for a while must have stumbled into an Every Frame A Painting video at least once. 

The channel is created by filmmaker and editor Tony Zhou, to host a video essay series dedicated to the “analysis of film form”. Like the name suggest, the channel mostly--but not limited to--dissects movies you love on cinematographical level and makes you realize things you’ve never thought of before. But most importantly, he encourages “ordinary” people like me to appreciate a movie beyond the skin-deep, like with The Silence of the Lambs essay above. 

To this day, Every Frame A Painting features a wide range of analysis from the works of Martin Scorsese, Jackie Chan, Edgar Wright, etc., to an entire video dedicated to texting on screen, and another one exclusively on chairs. Heck, even his video on Michael Bay makes you appreciate the director more (Bayhem is still crap, but a masterful kind of crap). To my knowledge, Every Frame A Painting is the first of its kind to gain real media recognition, and for good reason. His videos are engaging, crazy good, and always of excellent quality.

Subscribe to Every Frame A Painting. Support the channel through Patreon.

2. Nerdwriter1 ( @thenerdwriter on tumblr )

Due to no fault of its own, I immediately compared Nerdwriter1 to Every Frame A Painting when I first discovered it. In retrospect it was a bit funny to ever think that, because it turned out that Nerdwriter1 (by Evan Puschak) existed almost 3 years before Every Frame A Painting. But it was obvious why I did--they both produce high quality video essays (very often) on movies--but fortunately, I eventually understood that Nerdwriter1 is a different beast.

It took me a while to realize why I love his videos so much: it was because he treated movies not as a separate entity, born in a vacuum, but as part of humanity. Once I understood that, it’s actually very apparent on his channel. That’s why he makes video essays about Donald Trump, Youtube as a medium, and Black Friday--but the same holds true whenever he talks about movies (as evidenced by Children of Men essay above) and entertainment, like when he used Louis CK’s jokes to illuminate the nebulous nature of humor and morality.

His “Understanding Art” series, especially, is most excellent, in which he talks about movies a lot, but also about paintings, poetry, etc. His video on David Cronenberg’s Eastern Promises might be my favorite yet (which you can watch on his channel, it’s too bloodily graphic to embed here. SERIOUS WARNING, guys), and others include Pan’s Labyrinth, Ghost In The Shell, A Serious Man, Batman, etc.

Subscribe to Nerdwriter1. Support the channel through Patreon.

3. RocketJump Film School ( RocketJump is @rocketjumptv on tumblr )

If you want to get a bit technical about what happens behind the scenes, RocketJump Film School is an excellent place for you to be. RocketJump itself is a digital movie studio that specializes in original web video content, including hit webseries Video Game High School (it ran for 3 seasons, BTW), and a collaboration with Youtube/TV breakout stars Key & Peele (can be seen through their main channel, RocketJump). They also recently had a deal with Hulu and their 8-episode documentary about their production will premiere this December. RocketJump Film School channel, however (they also have a forum), is their place to share their knowledge with budding film-related workers.

There are lots of themes discussed in their videos, ranging from editing, cinematography, lighting, screenwriting, sound, effects and CGI--to more random stuff like how to create fake blood, how to fold a green screen (it's surprisingly hard and easy at the same time), even as simple as how to hold a boom.

Aside from that, RocketJump Film School also have 101 classes as well as master classes, field trips, and podcasts (talkshow-type follow-up video to their previous content)--which, for lack of better word, are all kinds of awesome and full of information. If you don’t go to film school, it's the second-best place to learn and appreciate all the little things behind the art of film. And if you can believe Youtube comments, even people who actually went to film school frequently say that they learned something the were never taught at school. More than anything, I think that speaks a lot about the quality and dedication of the RocketJump FIlm School crew. Basically, it’s a channel that is chock full of information, if you are at the slightest bit interested in learning what happens behind the scenes, RocketJump Film School is a treasure.

Subscribe to RocketJump Film School.

Review: 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

10 Cloverfield Lane is about 3 people, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Howard (John Goodman), and Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), who are trapped in a bunker because of some mysterious attacks that poison the air above ground.

If the title sounds a bit familiar, it’s because 10 Cloverfield Lane is named after 2008 film, Cloverfield. But wait! It’s not a sequel or prequel, instead 10 Cloverfield is a “spiritual successor” or “blood relative” of Cloverfield, according to producer JJ Abrams. Honestly, that sounds incredibly confusing and pretentious–usually jargons like those are red flags–but trust me when I say 10 Cloverfield Lane is good. In fact, it’s a great movie and it’s one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in recent years.

I was skeptical when I heard this “Cloverfield 2″ project was happening because while I loved Cloverfield, it had too many gimmicks (the found-footage format, viral marketing, always-on-the-corner-of-your-eye monsters) for it to work the second time. I’m happy to tell you that 10 Cloverfield is nothing like the original Cloverfield. It’s a whole new story and setting, with a set of new characters. So if you wanted a Cloverfield sequel then you need to adjust your expectations, but that also mean those of you who hated 2008′s Cloverfield with a passion (or have never seen that movie and couldn’t care less) can see 10 Cloverfield without reservation.

I WON’T tell you anything about the story in 10 Cloverfield Lane. The best thing you can do is to go in blind, and experience the ride you’re going to have without any spoilers. Don’t read any spoiler-filled review, don’t look up any interview, don’t watch the trailers on Youtube. Just go off the internet and watch this movie as soon as you can. In fact, just in case you need a small taste of the movie to convince you that you need to see this movie (it’s also worth noting that this movie currently sits at 90% in Rotten Tomatoes), I’ll share you this teaser trailer–and only this. Don’t look up any other trailers, because  the other trailers still reveal too much.

10 Cloverfield Lane sets up an unsettling vibe from the very beginning, that you could never quite shake off even when the movie gives you a warm, cuddly scene. In a movie that is set in claustrophobic bunker, the movie never goes to places you expect. There are so many twists and turns, and then there’s the ending. The ending has a MAJOR twist, that frankly, some people might think is too jarring. I, for one, loved the twist. In fact, that’s why I love this movie so much. It gives an excellent dramatic payoff that lines itself quite nicely with the franchise, and it brings an added perspective into an already layered story.

Was the threat chemical? Nuclear? Was it human? Monsters? Aliens? Throughout the movie you’d keep guessing, and the best thing about 10 Cloverfield Lane is that whatever answer you have in your head, you’d still be surprised. 10 Cloverfield Lane also tend to give you hints and not straight answers, and that is one of the reason the movie has so much depth than you’d expect.

TL;DR Crafted with masterful writing, acting, and direction, 10 Cloverfield Lane is an intense thriller that you don’t want to miss.

Review: Oldboy (2003)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

Oh Dae-Su (Choi Min-sik), a drunken and crass office-worker, was locked up in a mysterious hotel room for 15 years for no apparent reason. He was confused and desperate at first, and ended up just plain angry. When he eventually got out, with the help of one sushi-bar worker, he was determined to find out why he was held and the identity of his captor to take revenge.

Oldboy (actually based on a Japanese manga of the same name) is one of the most popular and acclaimed example of South Korean cinema in international stage, frequently listed as one of the best movies of all time and is firmly ingrained in the minds of modern cinephile. After earning cult status with Oldboy, Director Park Chan-wook eventually directed his first English-speaking movie, Stoker, in 2013 with Nicole Kidman and Mia Wasikowska, and Oldboy itself was remade by Hollywood with Spike Lee directing and Josh Brolin as lead (with less critical acclaim). I can’t tell you the merits of those two films, but I can tell you that Oldboy is very deserving of its cult favorite status.

Lacking normal social skills due to more than a decade being confused and alone, it was clear that Dae-su was a changed man, forever scarred by the absurd circumstance of his life. Dae-su was volatile and dangerous, a far cry from his previous buffoon self, and Choi Min-sik was equally believable as both. With range not unlike Robert de Niro in his best years, Choi Min-sik frequently changes from incredibly cold and menacing, to incredibly sad and pitiful without a blink of an eye.

With the absurdity of its premise, Oldboy had a perfect tone. Definitely not a typical grim-revenge story, it managed to keep a degree of surrealness—palpable from the moment we see Dae-su nagging in the police station but cemented the moment the octopus-eating scene arrived—only grounded by the sight of violence and blood. Inventive and highly stylish in its violence, the film is definitely not for the squeamish, but the actual horrors was largely visceral and psychological instead of purely gross visual. Oldboy is also partly a detective tale and partly a coming-of-age story (whatever age that is), providing much more layers to a simple vengeance story.

TL;DR With memorable images and moments throughout, Oldboy is a fascinating, heartbreaking, and stylish work about revenge.