Review: Paddington (2014)

Review: Rise Of The Guardians (2012)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

From Dreamworks and the group of people who brought How To Train Your Dragon to life (according to the poster), here comes another animated tale called Rise Of The Guardians. And it was just as brilliant.

Jack Frost (voiced by Chris Pine), is a menace. He is a far cry from Santa Claus a.k.a. North (Alec Baldwin), Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman), Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher), and Sandman who each did hardwork and vowed to protect and care for the children for ever. But somehow, when a new threat in the form of Pitch “Boogeyman” Black (Jude Law) came into town, Jack Frost was picked to help the rest of The Guardians.

The premise is not exactly new, and the choice of characters are definitely not new. Santa? Easter Bunny? They each have been portrayed in stories hundreds of times before (or thousands in the case of Santa Claus), but not quite like this. Santa, or North as the movie calls him, is two-parts Russian/one part biker/one part pirate/one part handicraftsman. Bunny is the ultimate macho-man, Tooth is a woman-bird-dragonfly hybrid with tiny little helpers, and Sandman is the cutest mute sandy being of all time. Jack Frost is a punk, and Pitch Black is a skeevy, slithery villain in black robe who turns dreams into nightmares (I’m amused that he’s Jude Law, in a role I always imagined him to be). Every hero (yes, because they’re basically superheroes protecting the children) and villain is definitely fully inspired by the myth and lore we are familiar with, but with clear enough twist to make the universe felt new, exciting, and lived in. Did you know that Yeti, not elves, is the one that makes toys for Santa? 

And more importantly, they built on the characters. Each of the characters have their own backstory but when you realize that each of the Guardians used to be living, breathing humans it all became that much more poignant. 

Leaving out of the theater, I started to think that maybe the biggest message from the film is not for the kids but for the adults. Sure it teaches kids that the world is full of wonder and possibilities, or that bad things might exist but we need not fear them—it even teaches self-worth and sense of duty. But we, the adults, are also reminded that the world is a magical place and we need that wide-eyed attitude in life. When North told Jack about his Matryoshka doll, or Tooth explained why she always collects children’s teeth, you start to understand the importance of childhood. Hence, it is not a coincidence that this movie is one of the most magical children’s movie I’ve ever seen.

The genius thing is, while Rise of The Guardians is not a properly holiday movie (unless you count Easter as a proper holiday—I don’t) it felt absolutely festive. It has genuinely exciting action sequences too, and in general the animation is absolutely beautiful. We slide and fly along with the Guardians and it gets ever more exciting each time. Yes it does not have an absolutely unique storyline (it follows the general trajectory of a “rise to a hero” story), but it pays its existence with a genuine heart, a sense of wonder, and believable characters.

TL;DR With its plentiful action sequences and a hint of darkness it imparted at some places, Rise of The Guardians is a magical ride perfectly suited for bigger and more cynical kids—kids, being “real” kids and the kids inside all of you.

Review: Ex Machina (2015)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

Caleb Smith (Domnhall Gleeson, of Harry Potter’s Weasley fame), a young programmer and employee at Blue Book (a Google-like company), was chosen by lottery to visit his boss’ (Oscar Isaac) house in the middle of nowhere. That’s not the end of story, of course, because he was actually invited to perform modified Turing Test on an AI or Artificial Intelligence (played by Alicia Vikander) that Nathan, the boss built.

Written and directed by first-time director Alex Garland (writer of 28 Days Later, Never Let Me Go, Dredd), Ex Machina is visually rich and has an understated sense of suspense throughout the movie, that I’d propose as proof of talent for his hand in directing as well as writing. The visual of the movie really was suspended a lot by the exquisite natural locations, its dastardly gorgeous house, and juxtaposed beautifully with the clean lines of technology around it.

For those unfamiliar, Turing Test is a test in which a human interacts with a machine, and only if he or she cannot distinguish the machine’s response as human or not, then the machine can be considered as true AI. Ex Machina discusses a lot about the how, why, and other philosophical musings around AI--not an uncommon circumstance in a sci-fi movie, but it is quite unique because it doesn’t lecture or present itself in an unnatural way. It’s just that; A discussion. It does have a love story, but in the way that enriches the story instead of traps it. Ex Machina felt like a truly smart movie that doesn’t look down on its audience and more so than not, Ex Machina answers itself in a truly compelling way.

Alicia Vikander was perfect as Ava the AI, as the kind that exudes innocence and raw emotion appropriate for her character. Gleeson and Isaac also perfectly portrayed two programmers on the verge of great discovery--one as the inventor and one as an unassuming component of the test--and the interaction between them was just fascinating to watch. 

There were also other crazy brilliant stuff in it, like the impromptu dance scene. (Not gonna say anything about it, and I’d say don’t Google it because you’d really don’t want to be spoiled. Just watch the movie and come back to me.)

TL;DR In the end, Ex Machina is truly a thought-provoking movie because not only it’s a great thriller built around brilliant science-fictional discussion, but also because it felt real. Aside from her flashy skeleton, Ava really felt like she might be the next Google project a decade from today. Maybe she will be.

Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

In terms of Marvel’s universe, Avengers: Age of Ultron is pretty decent. Because Marvel has been pulling things off left and right throughout these years, any small dip downward will always be felt like a dip. For me unfortunately, Age of Ultron could not reach the heights that was Iron Man, The Avengers, or Captain America: The Winter Soldier, although thankfully it did not rise low like Thor or Iron Man 2.

In Avengers: Age of Ultron, after the fall of SHIELD, Avengers Initiative was continued by Maria Hill under the wings of Tony Stark. They were looking high and low for Loki's Sceptre that was left on earth, and found it in a HYDRA base in Sokovia. They attempted to retrieve it, but they also faced something more: two "enhanced" people, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch (although no one's calling them that). But wait, they're not the villain! The villain was an Artifical Intelligence called Ultron, almost unknowingly built by Tony Stark, who was hellbent on destroying the world like how ultrasmart AI sometimes do.

The movie was fun and exciting, for sure. There were plenty of action to be found in this film, as you would guess from a movie that has Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Black Widow, and Hawkeye together. After all, you can't really accuse a movie that had Hulk vs Iron Man's Hulkbuster Armor to be lacking action. The sequences were big and beautiful as always, and one thing I particularly liked was how determined the heroes were to keep civilians as far as possible. I even liked how they protrayed Scarlet Witch's mind-altering powers visually, she never looked out of place at all.

Despite all that, the movie's strong suit was always when the action stopped. The personal moments were incredibly the best in this film. Hawkeye, who was mostly mind-controlled in the first Avengers, had a lot of screentime dedicated to him and his (surprise) family, and it was sweet. We got to see a whole new side of Natasha and Bruce Banner as they found solace in each other. And Tony Stark? We found out that he was still an arrogant and a genius, as expected. It was always fun to see them hangout over nothing too, like how they did in the party with Thor's hammer (not a euphemism).

Unfortunately, I found the villain kinda meh. Ultron was a very powerful villain, and his very existence was supposed to change the world or something, but he was too strong, too fast, and too vague that it was hard to feel any particular emotion towards him. Mostly I was like, "What's with this guy?" wondering why he got so crazy and ended up with no satisfying answer other than a single Tony Stark's off-handed remark. Ultron was an underdeveloped villain, but the movie itself was already clocking at 2,5 hours that it was an understandable decision. The Vision was pretty cool, though!

And I am excited for the new generation of Avengers!

TL;DR With serviceable villain, Age of Ultron could not be an instant Marvel classic, but it was a spectacle like none other with excellent dramatic moments.

Rant: Being A Good Person On TV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Nocturnal Animals (2016)

Rating: 7.0 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Freaky Friday (2003)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

Music Shoutout: Unique Sounds Worth Checking Out Vol. 1

There are good bands, and there are bands that makes you go, "Whoa, this is something that I've never heard before."

In no particular order and with no particular reason, these are somewhat unique sounds worth checking out. A few of these bands are actually already quite well-known in the indie world, but as with any alternative genre, fame is always relative.

1. Alt-J ( @altjband on tumblr ) In the sea of indie rock, Alt-J is really something else. I won't even try to describe their sound because I'll just fail miserably, but the mix of their nasally voice, weird lyrics, and layered arrangements really pulled everything together in the most distinct way. Their debut album "An Awesome Wave" reached quite the critical and commercial success. Their follow-up album, "This Is All Yours" has a more introspective approach, but is every bit as unique as the single-friendly Wave.

Honorable mention: Glass Animals. I heard Glass Animals being compared to Alt-J a lot by fans, for some reason. I tend to disagree because they don't sound remotely alike and I'm not even sure they belong to the same subgenre, but they do have similar spirit--at the very least, in their refusal to be ordinary. At any rate, they're worth checking out too. Click here to listen to Glass Animal’s “Black Mambo”.

2. Twenty One Pilots ( @twentyonepilots on tumblr ) Rap + indie rock. Their debut album, "Vessel", was cute enough. It was new, it was different, and basically it was a proof-of-concept that such odd pairing can work. "Blurryface" album though, was a piece of art.

3. The Cat Empire Okay, maybe I'm biased because they have "Cat" in their name. I'll also admit that I don't know much of their discography besides of their self-titled album which was released in 2003 (I also heard their newer albums aren't as good, at least a bit different). But with its fusion of ska, jazz, and Latin, damn if "The Cat Empire" isn't one of the most fun albums I've heard in a long time.

4. Wild Belle ( @wildbellemusic on tumblr ) If reggae is your jam, Wild Belle might be for you. Wild Belle is composed of siblings Natalie and Elliot Bergman. Natalie's beautiful thinly voice, along with reggae influences is the focus of their debut album, "Isles". But based on their newest single, it seems like their to-be-released sophomore album will be much different--I guess we'll just see. Recently they also had a collaboration with Major Lazer in "Be Together".

5. Milky Chance 'Stoner song' might be the best way to describe Milky Chance's sound. But don't let that description fool you, Milky Chance's songs aren't stupid nor simple--they're just damn delectable.

I hope you’ll like these bands! If you have any suggestions, I’m open to it. Meanwhile, visit a few of my curated music collection, and follow me for Unique Sounds Worth Checking Out Vol. 2!

Disclaimer: All videos embed and linked above are for promotional purposes only. Please support the artist legally!

Review: Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh (2014)

Rating: 8.2 of 10

Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh is one of those rare products of Indonesian movie industry: a science-fiction! 

Supernova is about Dimas (Hamish Daud) and Reuben (Arifin Putra), two people who met on a fleeting chance and instantly clicked. On a trip (which means, ehem, on drugs) they vowed in the future to write a magnificent opus of science and romance. They invented the characters Ksatria/Knight (Herjunot Ali), Putri/Princess (Raline Shah), Bintang Jatuh/Shooting Star (Paula Verhoeven), and Supernova—an omnicient cyber entity. Their lives, in the most unexpected way, soon intertwined.

The movie is based on the megahit Indonesian novel of the same title, written by Dee Lestari. It was also the first book of the series Supernova which is now down to the fifth book (it's been rumored that it'll continue and be concluded on the sixth book). 

My first impression is that Supernova has excellent visuals; from aerial view of cities and oceans; spacious offices; and rustic loft with strategically placed items; to the trippier parts of the movie, it was all basically perfect. There were galaxies, rocks, and random close-up of objects that any self-respecting philosophical sci-fi movie would have (and I mean that sincerely). Every scene is a vision, and I especially liked the visual of Putri with her perpetually white clothes and pearly white skin, like a proper princess of the heavens untouched by earthly dirt. I also liked the universe that the movie created, like a heightened reality—or as the movie called it, pseudo-Jakarta. The music, whether the songs sung by Nidji or original soundtracks by Tiesto, accompanies the scenes beautifully as well.

The grand idea of human and humanity in this movie is infinitely interesting, but superimposed with a love triangle drowned in tropes and cliches. The story only picked itself up after the twist, but dampened somewhat by the fact that Bintang Jatuh or Diva is such an underdeveloped character. She should be the most interesting character, an enigma, a paradox but instead is the most paper-thin. She has the potential of being the critical voice of us humans, but I guess the three "story" characters (Ksatria, Putri, Bintang Jatuh) were always meant to be stand-ins so were not developed enough. Watching Dimas and Reuben alone discussing Schrodinger's Cat and whatnot indefinitely might be more fulfilling, because maybe after 2 hours they'd solve the Theory Of Everything already or something. That's not to say that the script is atrocious, I for one think it's well done enough from the source material, but I have a feeling some of the Diva's scenes were left on the editing room floor for time or continuity reasons, like things sometimes would.

TL;DR I think by its nature Supernova must end in a somewhat unfulfilling note, because it was always meant to ask questions, not provide answers--and definitely not provide an answer (the fact that it is the first installment of a 6 book saga might tell you something). But in the end, the movie was well worth the effort and honestly I'm just delighted to see the story brought to the big screen.

TV Shoutout: Continuum

Another underrated series of recent years, Continuum.

What it is about: A cop (Rachel Nichols) from the year 2077 gets stranded in present time--making her the only one who can stop future terrorist group Liber8, with no way to go back home.

Why you should watch it: 

Kiera, and basically every other supporting characters

We have Rachel Nichols in cat suit. Need I say more??? Actually, yes, because Kiera Cameron (Nichols) herself is a very interesting character. She’s a very skilled and determined policewoman, but born in a time a lot different than ourselves so she does have different values. She’s also a mother and a wife, and that makes temporal separation from her original time a little problematic, to say the least. She’s not perfect, but she’s perfectly relatable no matter what crazy situation she’s in.

But the rest of the characters are incredible too--both in terms of the actors, or the way the characters’ stories are handled. Throughout its 4 seasons, all of the characters changes and grows a lot, and it’s a beautiful thing to watch. Alec Sadler (Erik Knudsen), the tech-wiz kid who helps Kiera out with her gadgets, has the single most interesting character trajectory ever written, but that’s like picking your favorite child. All of the characters are worth watching for.

No one’s a “good” guy

We thought we knew who the bad guys are, but we actually don’t. I don’t mean it in a doom and gloom sort of way, or in the “anti hero” sort of way--it’s just with Continuum, nothing has an easy answer.

Curveball, curveball, curveball Oh boy, those curveballs. Continuum has this amazing ability to give us twists that NOBODY SAW COMING. Repeatedly. They’re the kind of twists that don’t cheapen the story at all, instead enrich them. It’s damn good storytelling.

Those sweet, sweet tech Obviously, with Kiera and Liber8 coming from the future, we get to see some cool gadgets. Bulletproof suit? Cloaking device? Continuum got it all. We also get to see the future quite a bit, and learn why 2077 isn’t all fun and games.

But in the end, it’s all about humanity I might be a broken record, but I always say that the best science fiction are the ones that are, in its core, about humanity. This is one of those stories. Continuum never stray from the characters, never stray from how our decisions shape us, and never stray from the repercussions of time travel.

Who should watch it: Unfortunately, this is one of a few shows that I could only confidently recommend to those who are familiar with genre or science fiction. Not because it isn’t “good” enough for anyone else, but because it does necessitate the viewers to have a high level suspension of disbelief, a tolerance for timey-wimey plot, and willingness to be challenged about characters, plot, and even politics. I never want to be limiting about genre, it’s just that sci-fi fans are the ones I reliably know would love those qualities in their entertainment, but if it sounds interesting to you, definitely go for it.

Where you should start: It started out as a procedural, so I think anywhere in season 1 is okay. If you start too far into season 2 you’d miss a lot of its worldbuilding so I wouldn’t recommend that. But as with any show worth watching, I’d definitely recommend starting from the very beginning although the second season, for me, is when the show started to gel a lot better.

Status: Just ended last season. It had 4 seasons total, with the final season being a shortened season (only 6 episodes).

Review: Black Sheep (2006)

Rating: 8.5 of 10

Let me explain you this lightly; Black Sheep is a sheep zombie movie (and in case you're wondering, yes the movie's from New Zealand). If that doesn't sound like something you'd like then stay clear, but if it sounds interesting to you then definitely go for it.

In this story, Henry Oldfield (Nathan Meister) comes home to family farm, Glenholden Station, after years of living in the city, only to find out there's more sinister things going on involving genetically engineered sheep.

Black Sheep is a gory, survival horror movie--one that plays off of a bizzarely unusual premise. But it works! It plays off entirely straight, especially at the beginning, but slowly and surely it sucks you in into its absurdity, sprinkled with a healthy amount of dark comedy. It's ultimately a B-movie, that's for sure, but Black Sheep has way more dignity than it has any right to be. It has charming and relatable lead characters, beautiful cinematography, and legitimately good score throughout. It's an unexpectedly competent, ridiculously insane movie.

Also, it has a way better special effects than you'd expect (that still looks good even 10 years later), with both believable animals and gore. It even has a transformation scene reminiscent of that classic werewolf transformation scene in An American Werewolf In London (although not as lengthy), which is not a bad thing at all. Believe me, sheep in this movie are absolutely terrifying.

TL;DR Fully embracing its gleefully absurd, blood-soaked story, Black Sheep is definitely a movie worthy of a cult attention.

Bonus: Trailer for Black Sheep! (viewer discretion is advised, so is for the movie)