Review: Beck (2010)

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: 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: Short Term 12 (2013)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

By almost coincidence, I watched two teen-themed movies today (or three, if you count Veronica Mars season 2. I guess I'm on some sort of a roll here). One is of course, Short Term 12, and the other one is We Are The Freaks which I'll review later. Both have very different approaches and outlooks on teenagehood.

Short Term 12 is a safe house for troubled kids and teenagers, and Grace (Brie Larson) is one of the supervisors. She's dedicated, she's kind, she's good at her job—but she's also, almost as troubled as the rest of her kids. A revelation regarding her relationship with her co-worker (John Gallagher Jr.), and the arrival of a new kid (Kaitlyn Dever), shakes her up and starts to undo her at the seams.

If that seems like run-of-the-mill synopsis for an indie drama, it might be is, but I think Short Term 12 excels because it does not try to be melodramatic or bleak for the sake of bleakness in the way that indie movies sometimes do; it's just human. "Human" really is the best way to describe this movie—complete with human heartbreaks and determination to heal. 

"Compassionate" is a close second, and it describes the movie exactly as well as it describes Grace. It may cause no wonder because she's the center of the movie after all, but Brie Larson's performance made sure of that. Larson is beautiful as Grace, almost in an unassuming way, but her beauty is striking (both inside and outside) and by extension she makes the movie beautiful. Her character is flawed but compassionate, determined, with deep-seated anger of an unfair world, and an ocean worth of quiet strength. Basically she's the perfect feminist leading lady (although no one's calling her that), and in another world she would be a perfect character for a superhero. Wait, scratch that. She is a superhero to those kids, along with every real-life social workers and counselors in the world.

Grace is indeed the anchor of the movie, but she's also surrounded by other well rounded characters. Jayden is an obvious stand-in for Grace's childhood (not to belittle her story), but Marcus' story just kills. His rap was one of the most gut-wrenching moment I have ever experienced from a film. Mason's background with his foster parents, and Nate's inexperience with "underprivilege" was also interesting to see.

Short Term 12 revels in realism. Nothing overplayed, nothing underplayed—everything is just is, and it's actually a very tricky thing to achieve in a drama without feeling drab or boring. The movie is striking in its earnestness, and only thanks to Cretton's direction that it could be achieved. TL;DR Engrossing, compassionate, and optimistic, what more could you want in a movie?

Rant: Why Is There No Science-Fiction Culture In Indonesia?

The recent release of two Indonesian science-fictional movies made me think: what happened to Indonesian science-fiction (SF) culture, or the lack thereof? The movies in question are, of course, Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh which was based on popular novel of the same title and Garuda Superhero, an original Indonesian Batman-esque superhero. I reviewed Supernova and intended to review Garuda Superhero (I ended up just writing a first impression of the trailer). For my failure to fulfill my promise regarding the latter, I'm sorry. I know it may look like I'm a hypocrite, but by the time I found the time to watch it, it had vanished from my chosen theater and before the end of its second week it disappeared completely from all theaters in Jakarta except for one single viewing. I read other people's reviews and the bottomline is that Garuda Superhero is more or less as atrocious as my first impression and apparently is almost as terribly received by moviegoers. Most of the reviews states that aside from being extremely derivative, Indonesia isn't ready to make this kind of film. The question is, why?

To answer, we have to understand what is SF and where did it come from? So in this article I'd discuss the history of SF as we know it (namely Western SF, the biggest SF culture in the world) and also in other parts of the world especially Asia and Indonesia.

Disclaimer: I did read some sources regarding the topic, but by and large this article is absolutely non-academic and might just be the ramblings of a misguided, naive, ignorant 24 year old girl, but I try to do this article justice. Discussions are more than welcome, of course. And brace yourselves, it will be a long post.

SF, with a "science" modifier to its "fiction", is defined by the existence of "novum" of the scientific kind in its stories. Novum literally means "new thing"; that twist that differs it from a tale about ordinary life. So a man in love with a woman is not SF, but a man from 2400 that time-traveled to 1958 and then fall in love with a woman is SF. That example is a crude classification, and there are always some works with arguable definition of novum or science (James Bond and his gadgets sit nicely in the fringe of SF), but that is the general idea.

Hearing the word "science fiction" most people would picture complicated technology and unintelligible conversations about quantum physics and buzzwords about melting positrons. Deriving from that alone, it's not hard to imagine why Indonesia seemingly have no SF culture. Indonesia isn't and never was the cradling bed of science and technology. Not to belittle the work of great Indonesian scientists and engineers (BJ Habibie, Sedijatmo, Warsito Taruno are the famous ones, among many others), but scientific attitude is never part of the building blocks of Indonesian living.

The thing is, in actuality SF (as far as it is from gods and demons) had its roots deep in mythology. You can still see it to this day as SF and Fantasy are frequently classified together (and sometimes collectively called as "genre", which I admit is weird. A genre called genre.). Many people are a fan of both and both are usually featured in the same ;cons, and writers sometimes jump from one genre into the other. Stephenie Meyer, for example, who wrote the notorious vampire love story Twilight series, went on to write The Host about alien invasion (or for more hardcore SF fan: Ursula K. Le Guin wrote both The Left Hand of Darkness and the Earthsea series). SF and Fantasy are both very similar because they both have nova, although one in scientific sense and one in the supernatural. So the question is: how can Indonesia, that is forehead-deep in mythological nova, is so poor of SF? Why hadn't it evolved into SF?

The origin of Western SF can be traced back to "voyage extraordinaires" stories in Ancient Greece. Those are stories about adventures to new and foreign lands, sometimes even to the sky or the moon and stars. Of course physically they were unreachable at the time but they saw the moon etc and thought, what if? What if we could go there? In Indonesia, an overwhelming amount of folk and ancient stories were about good vs. evil and cautionary tales, but there were extraordinary voyages too like the wayang story of meeting Dewa Ruci deep into the ocean. Not only that, there were also other fantastical, marginally SF stories like the folk tale of Timun Mas, which for all we know might actually involve genetically modified infant. We even have Gatot Kaca, who is basically the ultimate superhero before superheroes.

But then Copernicus "emerged" in Europe. The history of western SF was a bit incredible to me because of how specific its development was, sometimes even (roughly) traceable down to a single person. In the 16th century it was Copernicus, with the outrageous (and accurate) Heliocentric theory. The church held the believe that the earth is the center and the only significant body in the universe, but with Copernicus's new theory came the realization that we are just a fraction of whole universe, and an insignificant one at that. Voyage extraordinaires stories still existed, but changed. Before Copernicus, the sky and the moon were usually portrayed in the divine or spiritual sense (as the extension of heaven or the heaven itself). But after, they became material—in the sense that they became an actual place protagonists could visit and meet wacky new creatures. That paradigm change was important in igniting true SF.

There were similarly important figures throughout the years who paved the road for today's SF: Mary Shelley ("Frankenstein" unified contemporary scientific advancement, fantastical elements, and realism to create the first real SF work), H.G. Wells (of The War Of The Worlds fame, whose primary influence is grounding/connecting SF to "the mundane and the present"), Hugo Gernsback (who popularized SF with the rise of pulp magazines), and..... George Lucas (whose Star Wars had HUGE impact in cinematic SF—or cinema, period.). And here is my reminder for readers that those are oversimplication in the most absolute sense. There were TONS of other influential people that I didn't mention like Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov, John W. Campbell, George Orwell, Philip K. Dick, Ursula K. Le Guin, William Gibson, Douglas Adams, the list could go on and on.

I am absolutely tempted to say that the reason Indonesia developed no SF is because we have no Copernicus, but that is cheating. Plenty of other regions developed SF from a separate branch than the west. Voyage extraordinares also existed in the middle east, and the Arab world had identifiable proto-SF work as early as the 12th century. Now middle eastern SF is still not as popular as the western, but genre work in Arabic language is said to be on the rise, although back in 2009 there was an op-ed lamenting the lack of Arabic SF (much like what I do now).

There were several notable SF-esque Japanese old tales like The Tale Of The Bamboo Cutter, but 1900s saw one of the first true SF work in Japan. After the world wars, Japanese SF were more influenced by American fiction but they were distinctively Japanese. Gojira (or Godzilla), for example, were conceived as physical portrayal of nuclear attack--an unfortunate but uniquely Japanese experience. Today, SF theme is very big in Japan and there are countless and countless Japanese SF work in the form of live-action, manga, anime, or even game. Many of them reached high recognition in the SF world, like Akira (the poster child of SF anime), Ghost In The Shell (definite inspiration for The Matrix movie), Paprika, Gundam/Macross/Evangelion franchises (oh yeah I had just lumped those into one!), 20th Century Boys, 1Q84, Battle Royale, Casshern, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, etc.

Basically, SF emerged all over the place like a natural evolution, and that made the lack of it in Indonesia is all the more stark. "Everything not forbidden is compulsory" is a "rule" in quantum physics, and I believe it applies to literature too. People throughout history had always incorporated fantastical elements in their stories, some of them by rule must be of the scientific nature. There is a space or even need of SF in Indonesia, and somewhere, someday that niche will be filled. And, for reasons I'll explain, I'm actually optimist that it will be soon.

I must elaborate that when I say there's no SF culture in Indonesia, I don't mean there is absolutely no SF. There are recorded works, but they are patchy or hard to find (sometimes even with questionable quality). Djokolelono's Jatuh Ke Matahari (Falling Into The Sun), published in 1976, is regarded as the first Indonesian SF novel (which I observed is 100 years too late than others). If there was ever SF before and not long after 1976, it completely fell into the cracks of cultural history and I'd argue is therefore insignificant to its development. SF only regained its life again in 2000s, when novels like Supernova (Dee, 2000), Area X: Hymne Angkasa Raya (Eliza Handayani, 2003), Anomali (Santopay, 2004), etc. were published. To this day, Djokolelono also wrote several SF and Fantasy books for children, young adult, and adult. There were actually quite a lot of SF works in 2000s if we try to list them all, but few of them reached significant popularity or longevity and I'd argue the SF culture is still practically non-existent. Case in point; there is no SF section in the bookstore that makes browsing the bookstore painstaking, confusing, and likely result in no SF bought. I can't remember the last time we had local SF movie and it felt forever until we eventually have Garuda Superhero (and some still say that "we're not ready for it"). Also, aside from few enthusiasts like me, basically no one's talking about SF. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong set of friends, I don't know.

That said, Indonesia is not special in its stagnation. Several other SF culture in other countries struggled too. India's SF, despite its popularity, is regarded as "mediocre and derivative". Chinese radio, TV, and film authority issued guidelines to discourage, among them, time travel stories. And don't forget the aforementioned arabian essay.

But the 100 year gap of SF in Indonesia (only first emerged in 1976) compared to other regions is curious, to say the least. Provided that were true and there were no significant SF work of that period that fell into obscurity, SF in Indonesia have no direct line to the rest of Indonesian literature history (Jatuh Ke Matahari's author Djokolelono is actually a working book translator too, and it seems reasonable to say he was rather influenced by western literature). Lacking real sources about this matter, I resorted to wild guesses. In 18th and 19th century—a significant time of SF history in which it branched out to a notably distinctive genre—Indonesia was under the colonism of Netherlands (actually, Indonesia was colonized way before that by the Portuguese and Spain, since early 16th century). I know it's fashionable to blame things on the colonials (we do like to blame things on them colonials, don't we?), but I figured something must have happened around that time that made situations inconducive for the birth of SF. Proper education for native people were limited only to the elite and therefore, science were too. The development of science and technology is crucial to the emergence of SF, for obvious reasons. Science and technology eventually came to us, but they came fully formed from the west. We never had that anxiety of invention, which is important for the heart of SF. I'm just armchair-philosophing here, but that reasoning seemed probable enough for layman me. Although one might think that the influx of western literature especially during the time of VOC, combined with insurgent situation at the time should be a fertile ground for SF, but hey, apparently not.

Now that we've understood the history of SF here and in the rest of the world, it's time to ask: what should we do next? Quite a few of Indonesian SF lifted elements from Indonesian mythology, which is a great effort to make them "ours" and I hope people would keep tapping on that endless resource. But selfishly I'd like to see something that are more contemporary and speak more loudly (in a true SF fashion) about our condition now, because for me SF are best when they speak with social resonance (if you have a recommendation for Indonesian work, let me know). Poverty, gap of the rich and the poor, corruption, religious anxiety—mixed in with a little alien or dystopia—might be a recipe for truly compelling SF. I kept thinking something akin to Lord Of The Flies, which is weird because it's not SF but it could have been (it certainly is speculative fiction), would be awesome for us. In the realms of movies, I'd like to see more script-based SF (instead of pure visual spectacle), from independent and commercial filmmakers alike. There's no reason we can't produce lowkey projects like Pi, Safety Not Guaranteed, Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World, Timecrimes, 28 Days Later, etc (yes, I'm basically spitting out every title that comes into my head).

But the truth is, we may not realize it but SF in Indonesia is slowly and surely rising. Even now, there are two superhero movies slated for release in the next couple of years (Volt and Gundala Putra Petir remake, if fate permitting), and superheroes Bima Satria Garuda and Nusantaranger are gaining good grounds. Hopefully, other subgenres will follow. I hope the next time I write about the state of Indonesian SF, it will be in a completely different circumstance (possibly raving about The Golden Age that Indonesian SF were having).

Sources: The bulk of western SF's history is from Adam Roberts' book The History of Science Fiction. Other sources can be found through the link.

Edited to add (6/02/2015): So I had a trip to the bookstore today and gave myself time for a thorough browse. I found 5 seemingly-SF books (if not, then certainly speculative fiction): Zombie Aides (Satria Satire), Bumi (Tere Liye), Spora (Alkadri), Gerbang Trinil (Riawani Elyta), and Time[s] (Aya Swords). So SF lives, but some genre savviness (knowing the kinds of title and cover SF usually comes in) definitely help to pick them up from the rest. I bought 2 of them, Bumi and Gerbang Trinil, and maybe I'll give them a shoutout if they're good.

Review: Room (2015)

Rating: 9.3 of 10

Room is the whole world. At least that's how it is for Jack (Jacob Tremblay) who was born to his mother Ma (Brie Larson), in the whole 5 years of his life. They are, of course, held captive in a 10 ft. by 10 ft. space but Jack doesn't know that. What he knows is that Room is the whole world, there is him and his mother, and then there are the TV planets, and that's it.

Room guides us in the first half of the movie, as we see how exactly Ma and Jack live their bizarre lives, day to day, while Ma tries to give her son a sense of normalcy. Jack greets their furniture every morning as they are the only friends he has--in tight close-ups that almost feels claustrophobic, but also, in a sense, comforting. In Room, Ma is the one pillar of normalcy that Jack has, and Jack is the only thing left worth fighting for in her life. Brie Larson is amazing in this, continuously displaying strength, desperation, and sadness that a mother should have. She eventually won Best Actress in Academy Awards 2016 for her performance.

After a chilling escape (it's not really a spoiler, it's in the trailers), we finally see how Jack and Ma adjust themselves to the real world. The movie handles this part sensitively and with respectful ambiguity, as we and the characters realize that being free doesn't mean instant happiness. (How okay could you be after 7 years of captivity?) There’s the inevitable media circus, the happy and apprehensive family members, and a real question of whether or not Jack and Ma will ever be able to lead normal lives, and so on. But even so, there's a palpable sense of hope, and an unbreakable sense of love living between the mother and the son.

Unmistakably, Room selects incredible talent from director Lenny Abrahamson (Frank: reviewed here); writer Emma Donoghue (who also wrote the original best-selling book); cinematographer Danny Cohen (The Danish Girl); and also actors Brie Larson (Short Term 12: reviewed here, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World), Joan Allen (the Bourne series), and last but not least, Jacob Tremblay. Jacob Tremblay as Jack displays incredible nuance to his character: wide-eyed, scared, and confused, but exudes hope and innocence. His acting is a bit of an incredible thing to witness, especially remembering he is such a young actor. All of those talents combined in one film, really makes an outstanding, fearless movie with deceptively light touch of the matter at hand.

TL;DR A drama with an unmistakable sense of honesty, Room is the kind of movie that will stay with you for days.

So. Excited.

Teaser for new season of Orphan Black, BBC America.

4.18.15

Save the date, #CloneClub.

Review: Pitch Perfect 2 (2015)

Rating: 7.7 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

TV Shoutout: Marvel's Agent Carter

Marvel's Agent Carter is ending its first season this week and it's time for another TV Shoutout!

What it is about: Agent Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) returned from the war and fighting alongside Captain America, to being a glorified secretary in covert agency SSR (Strategic Scientific Reserve) and she was none too pleased because of it. When Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) came calling about a raid on a vault full of his inventions, she decided to help her friend.

Why you should watch it: Because Peggy Carter kicks ass. End of story.

Well, not end of story, because what makes Agent Carter special is that it's also a rich period piece. When World War II ended, men came back from the war and women sidelined once again, so it was only up to Carter's determination to push herself above and beyond sexism of the era. Agent Carter is about her journey blasting through all the expectations of how a woman should be in that time. The show also have great, fulfilling script and 3-dimensional supporting characters all around, male and female alike; from Jarvis (Stark's original butler, played by James D'Arcy), Howard Stark, and the people Carter worked with.

For Marvel fans, Agent Carter acts as a sequel to Captain America: The First Avenger and prequel to the others, so this is obviously for you if you ever wonder about what happened in between. Surprisingly, this season did not dwell into S.H.I.E.L.D and HYDRA (considering we know that Carter later founded S.H.I.E.L.D) at all, opted out instead for another "evil" organization as the villain, but the show is none the worst because of it.

Don't be intimidated with the ever expanding universe of Marvel Cinema though, Agent Carter practically have no direct connection to any previous movies or show, except maybe Captain America. Even then, it was only as an emotional basis for Peggy Carter (sobs!) and none of the plot directly related to it. The show is pretty much self-standing.

Who should watch it: Those who wants to see strong, well-rounded female and male characters, great action and spy-work, and just general 1940's period class.

Where you should start: Oh come on, don't be lazy ;) It's just 8 episodes so start at the beginning!

Status: It's first season is an 8-episodes mini-season devised to fill the slot of Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D  during hiatus. There are still no words regarding second season (fingers crossed), but the showrunners are up for it if opportunity arises.

*See my Shoutout for Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D here.

Web Shoutout: Academy Originals

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

This episode, I’m going to talk about Academy Originals, a Youtube channel of video series produced by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, of the Academy Awards (or might be best known as The Oscars) fame. For all the problems existing inside The Academy Awards, almost surprisingly, Academy Originals consistently puts out extremely sincere and inspiring videos about people working in the industry. They usually feature dedicated, extremely talented people of professions closely linked to filmmaking--sometimes even professions you might have never heard about or thought about. They talk about why they do what they do, and how they do it, and they always leave me inspired (and makes me wish I can be that person). For anyone who loves to find love in filmmaking processes, this channel would certainly feed your soul every Monday.

Just check out these videos, hand-picked from the channel!

1. “Credited As: Creature Performer” -  Tom Woodruff (Aliens, Jumanji, Zookeeper)

2. “ Academy Close-Up: Conservators” - Conservation team of Academy's Margaret Herrick Library

3. “Creative Spark: Theodore Shapiro” -  Theodore Shapiro, Composer (The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Tropic Thunder, The Devil Wears Prada)

4. Questions: What Was The First Movie That Scared You?

Subscribe to Academy Originals.

Review: Earth To Echo (2014)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

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

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

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

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