Review: Short Term 12 (2013)

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.

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.

Web Shoutout: Off Camera with Sam Jones

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

Off Camera is a show, podcast, and magazine hosted by photographer Sam Jones. It is an amazing interview show, with various guests from the entertainment industry--mostly from actors.

Off Camera always provides a fascinating look inside their heads. Sam Jones is a brilliant host--naturally inquisitive, respectful, and is always well-researched--and with his help, we are able to truly understand his guests as a human being: what drives them, what influenced them, what makes them tick. His guests include Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jake Gyllenhall, Andrew Garfield, Ellen Paige, Krysten Ritter, Aaron Paul, Cindy Crawford, Aubrey Plaza, Matt Damon, Tatiana Maslany, Imogen Poots, and a lot of others.

If you remember the Actors on Actors interviews that I mentioned a while back, it’s a bit hard to pinpoint the difference between the two because themes vary with each conversations. But if I can summarize, Actors on Actors usually talk about their craft and how they do it, while Off Camera talks about their experiences as a person and why they do what they do. Either way, both are fascinating interviews, and Off Camera is well worth checking out.

Off Camera is a show on DirecTV and U-verse, and is also fully available on their website to watch with a fee. Short excerpts are available on Youtube, but sadly not the full interview. Five of the seven seasons are also available as a full audio interview on Soundcloud.

1. Kristen Bell: "I Grew Up Thinking The World Was Black and White"

2. Dax Shepard Shares Painful Relationship with His Dad

3. What No One Told Ethan Hawke About Being Famous

4. Olivia Wilde Knew She'd Be an Actress

5. Tony Hawk on Talent vs. Motivation

Review: Interstellar (2014)

Rating: 7.5 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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.

First Impressions: Garuda Superhero (2015)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And there's other stuff...

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

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

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

Review: Doctor Strange (2016)

Rating: 8.5 out of 10

Benedict Cumberbatch is Stephen Strange, a hot-shot neurosurgeon turned master of sorcery, in this latest installment of Marvel Cinematic Universe.

While Thor was being coy about magic and claiming that science and magic are the same in his Thor movies, Doctor Strange (the movie, not the character) never argues about it. Yes, Stephen Strange is a doctor and a skeptic, first and foremost, but as he became a believer, so did we as the audience. From that moment onward, magic was never questioned. And boy, what a pretty magic they were.

Remember Inception? Remember the mind-trippingly iconic manipulation of cities and buildings in that movie? Crank those images you have in your mind to 11, and you'd get something resembling the pure beauty of magic in Doctor Strange. They're gorgeous, dynamic, and intensely mesmerizing. Even when Strange is not running from buildings rolling down the street, or running up in the ceiling, the visualization of magic in Doctor Strange is just breathtaking--and especially, unique.

The cast is also a huge part of why the movie works. Benedict Cumberbatch is subdued enough, but with enough levity and charisma to be an iconic Marvel superhero. (And the fact that he looks almost exactly like the comic book character doesn't hurt either). Chiwetel Ejiofor and Benedict Wong are the perfect sidekicks, and Rachel McAdams is the perfect grounding character. I’m not too pleased with how they leave her character, but McAdams is great. Mads Mikkelsen and his sinister kind of charisma makes a memorable villain, even if he doesn't talk much. Forgetting the controversy around the casting of The Ancient One, Tilda Swinton is reliably splendid as the mystical character.

But while it has pretty solid characterization and plot, enjoyment of Doctor Strange depends mostly on visually immersive experience. For me, the story itself almost felt like a TV pilot. It's basically 100% set up, with teasers of what he might be like as a full-fledged Marvel superhero in the future. Doctor Strange is not a bad standalone movie at all, it's just almost meaningless if you don't take into account that we'll be seeing him again in future installments. However, I don’t mind much because I really do think Doctor Strange is a new stepping stone in MCU, in terms of accepting magic. It has an excellent world-building that doesn’t detach itself from the rest of franchise, and the visual is worth every penny.

I suggest you to see it either in 3D (if you like 3D movies at all, although maybe beware with motion sickness if you’re sensitive) because I think it'll be gorgeous, or at least see it in a good middle seat in your trusty cinema to get the most immersive experience. I saw it in cinema with crappy sound, and I really, really wish I had a different experience.

TL;DR Full of magical visual, Doctor Strange is one more solid Marvel origin story.

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.

So. Excited.

Teaser for new season of Orphan Black, BBC America.

4.18.15

Save the date, #CloneClub.

Review: Deadpool (2016)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

I've been meaning to write a review for Deadpool weeks ago, but life took over... Anyhow, here's my review.

Deadpool has a tricky history in the big screen. He is a Marvel character who’s mainly characterized as a foul-mouthed mercenary/anti-hero, with accelerated healing power and a habit of breaking the fourth wall. He was once thought as an unfilmable character (considering his ultra-violence and less-than-morally-acceptable commentaries) that when he showed up in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, not only he was unrecognizable, he was exactly the opposite of what he supposed to be. The 'Merc with a Mouth' had become literally mouthless (pictured below). It took 7 years and a climate chance in the superhero film industry, for Deadpool to become Deadpool in the movies.

Ryan Reynolds is Deadpool (again, as he also played him in Wolverine), and surprisingly to me, he completely inhabit his role. Deadpool, in the hands of a wrong actor, would become a completely insufferable character, but Reynolds nailed everything on the head. The tone, the comedic timing, the look--everything.

Basically what makes Deadpool such a good a movie is the tone. For me, its action is almost unquestionable. Marvel has always had good action sequences, so it's almost a, "Yeah duh, of course it will have great action." Plot is good 'though true and tested (although it does a new spin with flashbacks). Characters are fun; Colossus is a perfect antidote to Deadpool, and Negasonic Teenage Warhead doesn't have much to do but is very memorable. BUT the tone is amazing. I'm not talking about it being R-rated, but I'm talking about it being purely a Deadpool movie. Self-deprecation, fourth-wall breaking, and its refusal to not knock down everything and anything in its sight (including a diss about Green Lantern's awful CGI suit and X-Men's messed-up timeline), makes a tonally unique movie.

Deadpool isn't the best movie Marvel ever created, it’s not the most daring (Guardians of the Galaxy still wins that crown), and it's definitely not the best movie ever. Honestly, Deadpool isn't even the best R-rated superhero film. 2010′s Kick-Ass still excelled Deadpool for me (primarily because Kick-Ass' soundtrack really elevated the whole movie). TL;DR However, Deadpool was a lot of fun and if you're looking for a faithful Deadpool movie, you can't go better than this one.