Music Shoutout: Whilk And Misky

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

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

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

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

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

Full story at avclub.com

Review: 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.

TV Shoutout: Marvel's Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D

What better way to start TV Shoutout other than with Marvel's Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D?

What it is about: S.H.I.E.L.D is a secret organization that exists to deal with superpowers, alien artefacts, and highly-advanced science that no other agency is prepared to deal with. In post-Avengers world, Agent Phil Coulson, one of the best agent of S.H.I.E.L.D, had just handpicked his new team. (Yes in case you're wondering, we're talking about that Marvel, that Avengers, that S.H.I.E.L.D, and that Coulson).

Despite its connection to Marvel, you don't have to like superhero movies to like this show. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D (AoS for short) is decidedly a different kind of beast, made to tell the other side of the fight involving ordinary humans namely the agents.

Why you should watch it: AoS was developed by Joss Whedon. For those uninitiated, he's famous for his trademark touch of funny one-liners balanced with great character development as evidenced in critically-acclaimed works like Buffy The Vampire Slayer series, Firefly series, and Marvel's The Avengers.

Now (I should emphasize the "now", more on that later), the series is one of the most riveting drama/action series out there. The funny things are there keeping things light while never shying away from the hard stuff. It has truly magnificent character development, heartbreaking relationships (romantic, almost romantic, or otherwise), and engaging villain. AoS season 2 is a must-see TV in every way.

Who should watch it: Those who wanted to know more about Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Those who love Joss Whedon. Those who love good action and drama in their series. Basically everyone who loves good TV with great characters.

Where you should start: Now is the part where I warn you that this show started out rough. By rough I mean it looked like the most mediocre, cookie-cutter procedural ever. Which is fine for the most part (A LOT of TV procedurals out there are mediocre), but not great. But somewhere in the middle of season 1 it found its footing, did a complete 180 degrees in its storytelling and started to pump up real punches. The characters became rounded human beings, humor started to set in, and sh*t started to get real. SEASON 2 IS AWESOME guys, so you don't want to miss it.

The series is now in season 2. Starting in the beginning of season 2 is okay, but season 2 "broke" most of its characters so you could only appreciate the subtleties if you've seen season 1. For those of you who don't want to watch first season in its entirety (because well, a lot of the early episodes were crap), there's a handy internet guide for a selection of episodes. Jumping in the middle of season 2 is okay too if you understand the gist of MCU (basically S.H.I.E.L.D = good, H.Y.D.R.A = bad) because you could always pick stuff along the way, but again, subtleties. Subtleties are what made this show excels above any other shows.

What you should remember is that since AoS is part of MCU, there will be some spoilers if you're not up to date with what happens in MCU (particularly The Avengers and Captain America 2). You don't have to watch the movies to understand AoS because it is pretty much self-contained, but some things will definitely carryover into the show due to its connected nature. If you're fine with being spoiled though (or don't necessarily care about the movies), it's completely okay to watch AoS without the movies.

Status: Season 2 ongoing

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.

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: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer sharing a witty banter? If it's not your idea of Christmas, it will be after you watch Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, a wonderful tounge-in-cheek outing from director Shane Black. He was practically a no-name then, along with the formerly catastrophic Robert Downey Jr., but now the bigger world might recognize them as director-actor pairing who made Iron Man 3 happened. Today Robert Downey Jr. is famous as the equally witty Tony Stark, worth millions of dollars, and belovedly nicknamed by the world as RDJ, but I believe this is the movie that started it all.

The basic gist is Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey Jr.) was a petty thief who was accidentally spotted to become an actor and was sent to LA, where he met his long lost high-school lover Harmony (Michelle Monaghan), and a private detective "Gay" Perry (Val Kilmer). And oh, he also had the worst luck ever on Christmas, when he witnessed two guys dumped a body in a lake. Eventually, the three of them decided to do some detective work on their own.

This is an action/black comedy movie, and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang had done everything right on every level. It was full of action and black humor. It had the right attitude; the dialogues are fast, smart, witty, and fresh. And highly quotable too, because in the end that is what matters isn't it? 

TL;DR It was a definite fun ride and it delivered everything on the right note. The fact that you've just found a new way to insult idiots is just a bonus.

Review: Zero Dark Thirty (2013)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Zero Dark Thirty. A chronicle about how United States, by the brain and determination of one CIA analyst (played wonderfully by Jessica Chastain), eventually found and killed Osama bin Laden; the man responsible for one of the most horrible terrorist attack on recent memory, the 2001's World Trade Center attack. Portraying anything close to 9/11 will definitely be hard, and from the very beginning Zero Dark Thirty took a brave jump into the sorts of raw emotions that surrounded the tragedy with audio recordings of the event. That's the kind of movie we're dealing with (and it just so happens that this movie is directed by Kathryn Bigelow who also directed one of my favorite, and trippiest movie, Strange Days, which I'll write a review on some time in the near future).

In watching a "based on true story" movie, I'm always wary about accuracy, especially for something as topical as Osama bin Laden's death and al-Qaeda. There are always sacrifices (in terms of accuracy) to be made for dramatic and narrative purposes, but Bigelow, for the most part, thread the line gracefully. She made great effort to keep the story not only as accurate as a movie can be, but also felt as real and as raw. The chase is long, winding, and full of desperation; the tortures pointless; the missions suspenseful and confusing; and in the end there wasn't victory, there was just relief. The story is gripping because it is, and Bigelow sees that it doesn't really need embelishments. In fact, the movie is quite hard for me to review because everything is understated, everything is in the right place, and there wasn't really anything left to say other than it was a stunning movie. 

TL;DR A gripping, suspenseful, and brilliantly crafted* movie.

*The truth is I stole that sentence from the film's Rotten Tomatoes Critics Consensus, just because that is the truest and most concise way of describing the film that I can't think of anything else. Damn you, brain.

Review: The Martian (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Space is dangerous, but it's also endearing.

Never the fact has ever been more apparent in the movies, than in The Martian. Set in the near future, The Martian is about a group of astronauts in the early days of human exploration on the Red Planet who were forced to leave because of a heavy storm--leaving one of its members, Mark Watney (Matt Damon), on the surface. For months, intelligence and ingenuity were the only things keeping him alive until he could be rescued.

The Martian, for me, was an important movie because it showed what being an astronaut really is about. Space is a dangerous thing, and the movie never downplay on that, but The Martian also puts space in an endearing light that makes us never wonder why did we ever go to space in the first place. Because the answer will always be: why not? Why not be the first? Why not find out, for the greater human race? For anyone intimate with space travel, when Watney gave lecture about being an astronaut and basically says, "When you're up there, at some point you're gonna think you're gonna die and maybe you will," you know that it's 100% true but you also know that doesn't mean you don't wanna go up there in a heartbeat. It's hard to depict a balanced portrayal about the dangers of space, but The Martian nailed it.

Science is also definitely the hero in this film, which is a surprisingly rare occurrence in popular fiction. Not only did Watney repeatedly was shown applying basic science concept to solve his problem, the film also pretty accurately depicted the workings of NASA; how astronauts, ground control, and teams of scientists work hard and thoroughly to reach a common goal. Aside from being very capable, scientists and astronauts in this film were also pretty humorous--and it's important because real scientists love their jokes too, but are almost never depicted as such. It's a very science-positive movie and I appreciated it.

At one point in the movie, Matt Damon's character, who was a botanist exclaimed, "Mars will come to fear my botany powers!" asserting his conviction to grow food on the surface of Mars--something that hadn't been done by any humans before, ever. That, among many other scenes in the movie, was a clear example of the giddiness, humor, and determination of scientists existed in the film.

But in the very core of the movie, The Martian is about human’s determination to live, that everyone can relate to.

The Martian also nailed it with the casting. Matt Damon has the perfect charisma and cockiness about him, but I mostly want to commend the casting choices for the other characters. The most prominent members of the space crew were women (Jessica Chastain, Kate Mara), and at least half of other supporting characters were of minorities (of African, Chinese, Mexican, and Indian descent). Hollywood movies about space can too frequently feel a bit jingoistic (with NASA obviously being an American organization), but The Martian never felt like that the slightest. From the start, The Martian is a humanistic effort.

Directed by veteran director Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Prometheus, Black Hawk Down), The Martian looked beautiful, and the movie flowed beautifully as well. The threats were terrifying as hell, and there were no fake or newfangled technologies so everything stayed grounded. But despite all the hardship Watney was against, it’s a strangely hopeful film.

TL;DR The movie is an obvious bait for people like me--who loves movies, space, and science in the equal amount--but it's also a damn good thriller about survival that everyone could enjoy.

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?

More cast photos should be like this