TV Shoutout: Orphan Black

Review: Ant-Man (2015)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), a man with a shrinking technology long hidden from government and SHIELD, recruits newly discharged Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) to obtain his technology from an evil competitor, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll).

A few years ago, the idea of Ant-Man movie--a third tier comic-book superhero with silly powers (he's small and he talks to ants????)--might be novel. Today, superhero movies are a dime in a dozen and Marvel had practically made careers out of lesser superheroes. We know Ant-Man is gonna be, at least, good (yes, I'm a Marvel believer). The question is: How good, and how unique?

Uniqueness is definitely not Ant-Man's problem. Ant-Man's format is decidedly new in the superhero realm--it's a heist movie. In it, Scott Lang had just got out of prison and decided to take on One Last Job (Which is like, every heist movie ever, but that's actually not a bad thing. It's a cliche because it works). It also takes on a wholly different dimension than what we usually see and experience, and there's the fact that Ant-Man literally talks to ants. A lot of the unexpected, subversive, and hilarious moments simply come from the fact that there's this little guy with tremendous power, and there's absolutely no shame to revel in that (while it's still new). Ant-Man definitely do not have a problem setting itself apart from other movies.

But how good was it? Good enough, but not amazing.

Ant-Man had its share of humor, but it actually had less wisecracking than your average Avengers or Iron Man movie. Either that, or half of them didn't stick the landing. Not that being funny is a requirement for a good movie, but I can't help but feel that in an attempt to "toughen up" Paul Rudd's character, practically half of his life got sucked out of him. He's a damn good "subdued" comic actor, but most of the humor was delegated to his friend, Luis (Michael Pena) instead (he was hilarious, actually). I like Paul Rudd enough in this movie and I think he's a great actor and did good job in Ant-Man, but I am tempted to say that he might be miscast. What I'm saying is, while he was good in his role, Paul Rudd did not occupy his superheroic persona as well as Chris Pratt or Chris Evans did theirs.

Another shortcoming might come from a lack of any real villain, and therefore, any real direction. Darren Cross was quite servicable as an evil capitalist/scientist/sheep-killer, but he was Hank Pym's nemesis and not Lang's, so Lang was left without any real direction aside from general heist movie plot. Yellowjacket was great and menacing, but at the end it was too little too late. Excacerbated by thin relationships of fathers and daughters (either Hank with Hope, or Scott with his daughter), TL;DR Ant-Man could not feel like a truly "full" movie. It always felt like half a movie because it failed to focus on either end of the equation (the character-side vs comic-booky villain-side). Basically, Ant-Man was half a movie away from being great and that's a shame, because the rest of the film was fun and competently made.

While Ant-Man--being a heist movie--did not have a lot of action, the ones that were there were truly great. The heists were great too and there were genuinely exciting moments in between. Also, the cameos, the mid and also end credits scenes were hella exciting! Cannot wait for Civil War!

Review: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Rating: 4.0 of 10.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: 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: Fast & Furious 7 (2015)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Furious 7 (obviously my preferred alternate title), naturally, is the 7th installment of Fast & Furious franchise, and every ounce of it just oozes everything we have come know and love of the franchise. TL;DR Basically if you love the previous movies you'll love this one, and if you loathe those films then... why are you watching this one anyway? The franchise, which had lived for an outstanding 14 years, had the money-making formula down to a science (it had to if it wants to stay on top of box office), but still managed to scramble new things from here and there. So let me break down the formula for you.

Family Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) is all about family, a principle that he had carried from even back then in the first movie. The previous movie was quite clever at inventing a villain the exact opposite of Dom: someone that meant business and only business. In 7, the reversal was reversed again. This time, the villain Deckard Shaw (the always intimidating Jason Statham) was loyal to his family as much as Dom to his own, avenging his brother who died in the hands of our protagonist. In Dom's side, the loss of Han was palpable and a gaping hole was left, in the way that is rarely felt in an action-based movie when a brother was lost.

Insane car chases + amazing fights The theme this week is flying cars, ladies and gentlemen! Seriously, I've never seen that many cars flying in the air in any single movie, ever. It was like the writers were talking about how to make the car chase sequences exciting again, and one of them exclaimed in a half joking manner, "We make them fly!" and lightbulbs lit up in every one of them, scrambling to write ideas in their teeny tiny notebook. And every single moment of it was glorious. Was it realistic? Abso-freakin'-lutely not. But do we care? Not in the slightest.

The man-on-man (or woman, either way) combats were great too. It also includes incredible hand-to-hand combat between Vin Diesel and Jason Statham because otherwise, why the hell do you hire both of them in the same movie. And Dwayne Johnson firing machine guns to conclude things, because reasons. But my favorite moment was not even a fight, it was when Dom and Shaw goes on head to head with their car, and nobody flinched. It wasn’t only crazy, it was a great character moment too, showing how determined and relentless they both were.

The action sequences does run a bit heavy and long, leaving very little time for proper plotting or character building, but for the most part they still tread the line between excitement and overabundance pretty carefully.

Scantily clad women Some of you might be lying if you say you didn't come to watch Fast & Furious (aside for the cars, obviously)for the girls in bikinis who are not anywhere near a pool. The good news for you that do: yes, there are those girls. The good news for me and the ones that don't come for them: they were shot in such over-the-top way that I'm pretty sure they were added as a kind of mockery. It was bullsh*t and the movie knows it. Especially when there was a scene in the same movie in which Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) rescued Ramsey (Nathalie Emmanuel) after unsuccessful attempt by other guys, then Ramsey asks, "But who's gonna rescue us!?" and Letty answers in the most reassuring, "Nope, we're it." In this universe, women rule too.

Everybody's a badass It came to my attention that Fast & Furious is one of few action franchises that is truly inclusive. Everybody, not limited to race, age, and gender, can be a badass: from the furiously skilled Thai villain (Tony Jaa); a blonde, female bodyguard backed up by uniformed women in hijab; a female Spanish FBI agent; to middle-aged white guy (Kurt Russell), all had chance to shine. In a more intellectual role, there's also the English, woman-of-color hacker Ramsey. I was glad to see that Furious 7 followed the same pattern that the previous movies started.

Goodbye Paul Walker (mild spoiler) The biggest blow to the movie was the sudden death of Paul Walker who played main protagonist, Brian O'Connor. The filming was completed with the help of his brother as stand-in and CGI (yes, it was still as creepy as when Tron: Legacy tried to pull it off with CGI Jeff Bridges), but the result was a very sweet coda. Brian was shown retiring from his dangerous life to live with his happy family—his story concluded with a peaceful drive with his "brother" Dom. It was particularly heartbreaking if you realize that when Dom said he'd never say goodbye to Brian because he's his brother, probably Vin Diesel really meant it for Paul Walker too (they were really close in real life to, to my knowledge). Also heartbreaking: when they were in Han's funeral and they were all saying, "No more funerals." Damn, if only we knew.

As of now, Fast & Furious 8 might be happening in the future, even without Paul Walker. Like they said in the movie, it will be different, but hopefully it will be just as fun.

Review: Interstellar (2014)

Rating: 7.5 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Introduction

Hi, my name is Inka Saraswati and this is my movie blog.

Sooo for a little background story, I signed up for this new tumblr account because I wanted a new house for my movie reviews. You see, I've been writing and posting reviews in Rotten Tomatoes for quite a while, but they recently changed their layout and user flow and basically I didn't like it. So I decided to leave and make my own site instead.

For reasons above, I'll slowly roll out my existing reviews from RT into here and of course I'll add new ones along the way. I, at its core, am a sci-fi fan so it couldn't be helped if my coverage skew towards that particular genre but I'll definitely cover various films from various genre, including older and odder films.

Also I might occasionally write about TV, music, poetry, pop culture news, or even post some tumblr-iffic stuff, but the backbone of my site will always be movie reviews.

So enjoy!

You can also find me in deviantArt for photography and whyd for music collection. 

Review: Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them (2016)

Rating: 8.8 of 10

Five years after the last Harry Potter movie, and fifteen years after the first, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is the first cinematic continuation of the universe that does not directly include Harry Potter himself.

In the center of the movie is Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, a mild-mannered beasts expert from the British Ministry of Magic. He has this demeanor about him—a little hunched back, soft spoken, never really look at people straight on—that is so endearing you’d never want to take your eyes of him whenever he’s on screen. He befriends Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), a wide eyed No-Maj who dreams of something bigger; Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), a quirky yet determined MACUSA employee; and Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol), Tina’s sister and coworker and a bubbly mind-reader. Fantastic Beasts is full of fun and memorable secondary characters that help make the universe felt so rich. 

Also, we get to see the culture of wizardry in the US and the workings of MACUSA  (US’s version of Ministry of Magic), that includes an Auror played by Colin Farrell (he is unexpectedly perfect as a wizard, and also has the coolest outfit. Although I may or may not want to steal everybody’s wardrobe from this movie). The titular wild creatures are also infinitely weird, cute, and strangely endearing. 

Fantastic Beasts is not a perfect movie, but honestly, you won’t really care. The second act should feel draggy and aimless, but the whole time you’d be too busy being mesmerized by all the wonders and charm the movie, the beasts, and the characters had to offer. By all means, Fantastic Beasts will definitely fill that Harry Potter-shaped void in your heart.

There are 2 major plots in Fantastic Beasts: Plot A is about Newt and his friends running throughout New York to find his missing beasts, while Plot B is about Grindelwald and the Second Salem movement that will eventually tie into the rise of Voldemort in later years. They both have very different atmostphere about them, and it’s pretty amazing that they didn’t feel disjointed at all. Newt’s subplot with the creatures and his friends is cute and charming, while the Second Salem goes way, way darker than you’d expect.

Ultimately, Fantastic Beasts is a fluff piece. It’s cute and light and whimsical (when it’s not directly tied to Grindelwald) but I wouldn’t have it any other way. As of now, there are talks for sequels that will focus further into the story of Grindelwald, and less into Newt Scamander. That makes me sad, really, because it’ll be a shame to say goodbye to these lovable characters and creatures.

TLDR; Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is as whimsical as you'd expect from Harry Potter universe, and indeed, fantastic. (I regret nothing writing that.)

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?

Review: Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

First and foremost, I might be the only person in the world who were torn between Pitch Perfect 2 and Mad Max: Fury Road. You see, I loved Pitch Perfect. I had been waiting for the sequel for a while and Anna Kendrick is kind of my spirit animal. I have never even seen any of the Mad Max movies and know practically nothing about it except the broadest overview (I know, I'm a bad geek) and the trailers for Mad Max: Fury Road didn't quite move me. BUT then everyone and their grandfather started raving about Fury Road up to the point where I can't ignore it. As you might have guessed, after a brief moment of soul searching, I decided on Fury Road.

And really, I basically dropped my jaw to floor for the whole 2 hours, it was insane. In a world where action movies (or even non action movies) are frequently big and loud, Fury Road was BIG and LOUD. Fury Road was non-stop—it was basically 2 hours of Max's (Tom Hardy) life, and that life ain't quiet. But most importantly, it was also beautiful. A lot of movies are beautifully shot (heck, if nothing else, even the Transformers movies are beautifully shot) but Fury Road brought everything to the next level. Every scene is like a painting. The movie didn't even have proper script for its shooting, it had a mountain of storyboards instead, and it shows. Basically, Fury Road was an artwork. It wasn't just pretty, it was poetry—if poetry can be made of gasoline, greased wheels, and dirt, that can only brought upon by George Miller, the original creator of Mad Max.

In Mad Max's world, the world had ended and the ones left were living under tyrant named Immortan Joe. I honestly don't know if he were supposed to have backstory in the previous movies or not, but I know jackshit about him and the War Boys, and I loved it. Fury Road has this enormous, enormously rich world where everything is crazy and nothing is explained, and actually I love that about the movie. It made me feel like we literally have only seen one second worth of glimpse at its madness—and looking at the amount of creativity in it, we definitely only have seen so little of its world. Every inch of its character designs told a story, and there were plenty of story to tell: Citadel, War Boys and War Pups, Breeders, Gas Town, Bullet Farm, Many Mothers, we really are just scratching the surface.

But the main spectacle were definitely the fights and chases, and boy, what a spectacle it was. Almost everything were done with practical effects instead of CGI and you just can see the effort and detail that went into it. The cars were rigged with spikes, poles, and grenades, and you have never seen anything more beautiful than them. The chases were batshit crazy and complicated, that it made Fast & Furious 7's scenes looked like they were made with your niece's toy LEGO cars. But honestly, as R-rated and artful as it is, we can't really deny that Fury Road is basically a 13 year old's wet dream in which cars explode randomly on contact, and rock music during battle is the pinnacle of coolness. In short, it was nothing but full-on gloriousness.

One thing, though: Charlize Theron was a capital-B, bold letter Badass. With a buzzcut and a warpaint, Charlizes Theron's Imperator Furiosa was a heroine worthy of Sigourney Weavers's Ripley status. Tom Hardy, who played the titular character, has always had enormous presence and he was perfect as the wild-but-strangely-rarely-speaking Max. But it was Imperator Furiosa who moved the story forward. Trapped within action sequence after sequences, Theron was able to bring depth to her character, just enough to make we love her and want her to succeed. I also need to have a little shoutout for Nicholas Hoult who played Nux. Being a fan from his Skins days, I was always delighted to see him taking on a new, interesting character and he did a marvellous job. We witness you, Nicholas Hoult, and we welcome you.

It was really hard for me to remind myself that the original Mad Max, a cult favorite, is a 36-year-old property. TL;DR Somehow, Mad Max: Fury Road felt so fresh, so breathtaking, and had eased itself to the cracks of today's filmmaking so completely that you know it wasn't a miracle, it wasn't luck; it was the work of a seasoned filmmaker who knew exactly what he's doing, doing what he does best.