Music Shoutout: The Libertines - Anthems For Doomed Youth

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 Review: Patriot

Today is a rather special TV Shoutout, featuring Indonesia’s miniseries Patriot. This time, it’ll be more of a review.

What it is about: Patriot follows the story of 5 special ops soldiers tasked to rescue a village attacked and taken over by an international drug cartel.

What I have to say about it:

First of all, I have to give an overview about the state of Indonesian storied television. Basically, it’s atrocious, and I’m not even talking about CSI: Cyber or CW’s Beauty and the Beast level of atrocity. Our scripted series are almost completely consist of soap operas (our so-called “sinetron”) with complete disregard of any storytelling or technical principles that they’re so painful to watch (just try and watch this). Some stuff has been okay, but there’s been a recent surge in true serialized storytelling, particularly spearheaded by new channel NET. that hosted Patriot. Being a movie and TV aficionado that I am, of course I have to try see and support our local TV.

Seeing Patriot, it’s a definite massive improvement from typical Indonesia’s TV series. Patriot has a lot of things going for it. For instance, it has a great production value, beautiful scenery, and is almost movie-like in its approach. It still have traces of Indonesia’s trademark habit of over-relying on music to create emotions, but at least the soundtrack itself is pretty good and effective so I shouldn’t complain too much.

Each of the main cast are believable as soldiers, the bad guys as bad guys, even the villagers and extras are spot on. My personal pet peeve in Indonesian films is that a lot of times, the acting ability of the extras (the ones that speak for 5 seconds) are so horrendous they’d take you right of the film, but I don’t really have that problem with this series. I also rather enjoyed the villains. Panglima Timur (Aqi Singgih) is slightly deranged and borderline wacky, and the arrow-wielding Bunian (why can’t I find the actor’s name on the internet???) has this comic-book villain quality about him.

As for the story, Patriot immediately built pretty strong emotional basis for each of the soldiers, and they each are pretty badass. The plot itself throughout the series is rather simplistic and very linear, but it’s also a pretty breezy 7-episode miniseries so it still works. I would love to see the workings of the cartel more, I hope they’re saving it for potential season 2. The personal drama, however, maybe with the exception of Charles (Maruli Tampubolon) and his father (Dorman Borisman), are very typical. The drama of Samuel (Dallas Pratama) and his cardboard-personality girlfriend is particularly uninspired with terrible handling of the issue. The inclusion of veteran soldier Kapten Rustam is a very nice touch, though.

I have to say I’m a bit underwhelmed with the female characters in this show. Laras (Ranggani Puspandya), wife of Kolonel Bayu (Rizky Hanggono), has a special brand of feminine strength but her story is very limited, and the less I write about Karin, Samuel’s girlfriend, the better. I liked Indah, the villager of Mapu, but is disappointed with the treatment of her character. She is a strong, assertive female character when she’s on her own or with other women and children, but completely lost her assertive quality when she’s in the same scene with other male characters--or worse, became a walking plot device, especially with her attempted rape story.

I just want to point out this important thing: RAPE STORY IS (almost) ALWAYS A NOPE. Especially flirting after attempted rape? DOUBLE NOPE. No thank you. I want to tell every writer that rape is a lazy storytelling device, but that's another rant. (But seriously writers or wannabe writers, please read this, this, and this article to give you some perspective before you attempt to write any rape scene). 

Where you can watch it: The whole series is in its official Youtube channel, but is in Indonesian with no English subtitle.

Status: The 7-episode miniseries is already completed, and no official word if there’s going to be any season 2.

Mini-Review and Rant: Monsters University, Anti-femininity, and Some Other Stuff

So, this time I am going to have a little rant. I always think that feminism is important, but I usually try not to hit my readers over the head about it. But not today. Because oh boy, I have a lot to say about Monsters University.

I am not sure why Monsters University particularly irritated me. Probably because it’s Pixar, and I do expect better from them. Pixar is famous for producing high-quality, critically acclaimed children’s animation movies, some of which are my absolute favorites. They are also usually excellent at handling femininity and masculinity, and the majority of their movies are non-gendered (neither a girl’s film or a boy’s film). The second reason is probably because I just finished Pop Culture Detective’s thoughtful video essay about “The Complicity of Geek Masculinity on the Big Bang Theory”, so the topic about masculinity and femininity is fresh in my mind.

Anyway, let’s review Monsters University! (Includes spoilers for Monsters University and Monsters Inc.)

Monsters University (or MU for simplicity in this review/rant) is a prequel to Pixar’s Monsters Inc. (or simply Inc). MU tells the story about how Mike Wazowski and James P. “Sulley” Sullivan met in university, way before they worked for Monsters Inc. In MU, Mike is not a scary monster, but he is determined to be a Scarer and works hard for it. Sulley, on the other hand, is a preternaturally gifted Scarer and serves as Mike’s rival for most part of the film.

MU, on its own, is a good film. It has good set up, a definite arc, and satisfying conclusion. It has characters we care about, and it’s pretty funny too. But it’s when we think beyond the scope of the film that things start to get… shakey. First of all, the story arc of MU is immediately undermined by Inc. MU is about how Mike works to achieve his dream to be a Scarer in the company, but we know in Inc that Mike does not even get to be a Scarer. In Inc, Mike serves as Sulley’s partner, which is basically an assistant. So during MU’s runtime, we already know that all of Mike’s hard work in MU eventually will never pay off and he will forever live in Sulley’s shadow.

Also, Inc’s whole premise is about how Mike and Sulley revolutionize their industry by retiring Scream Energy and switching to Laugh Energy instead, because they met Boo. But instead, all of MU is about glorifying the act of scaring. I know, the events in Inc happens after MU, so Laugh Energy is not a thing yet, but there are ways to incorporate a more cohesive theme throughout the two movies. Probably one of their friends from Oozma Kappa could make an off-hand remark about how they wish there’s another energy source other than children’s scream–just something to foreshadow what will happen in Inc. But there’s no such thing in MU, instead MU is laser-focused at idolizing the scaring industry. Which, again, is fitting when we think about Mike’s arc in just MU, but completely falls apart once we consider the broader theme from Inc. 

And that’s all I can say about MU, from the filmmaking standpoint. From here on out, I want to discuss about the representation of social themes in MU. Let the rant begin!

Our protagonist is Mike. Kind, small, with big round eyes, and is underappreciated for his whole life. While the antagonists, the fraternity brothers of Roar Omega Roar or ROR (pictured above)--and also Sulley to a certain degree--are big and muscular, cocky, aggressive, and intimidating. I think it’s safe to assume that ROR is meant to represent the ultimate form of masculinity (they’re fraternity bros, for starters), and, as a consequence Mike and the Oozma Kappas (pictured below) represent a more feminine form of masculinity. You might accuse me of “reading too much into it”, which I think is fair assessment if every other little thing does not reinforce my point.

I also know what you’re thinking: Isn’t it a good thing for feminism, that our protagonists (Mike and the Oozma Kappas) are the more feminine of the bunch? Not in MU, because their whole arc is that they really, really want to be like Sulley and ROR. Also, the movie is relentless at making fun of characters for their femininity. In fact, baking and hospitality, which is usually viewed as a part of femininity, was literally spelled out loud as “L-A-M-E” by the movie. When the movie wants to make fun of a character, they used glitter, flowers, stuffed animals, heart signs, and dream journals with unicorn and golden stars.

The message of Monsters University is clear: masculinity is coveted, while femininity is viewed as lesser and deserves to be made fun of.

I think it’s no coincidence that there’s no notable female character in MU, aside from Dean Hardscrabble. Hardscrabble is one of the good things in MU–she’s legitimately scary, firm, but kind. Other smaller female roles are Squishy’s mother (who is mostly used as comic relief), and sorority groups HSS (the goth one, pronounced “hiss”, who I don’t even think has any speaking role) and PNK (pronounced “pink”, because they’re girls. GET IT??). PNK consists of six non-descript, identical cheerleader-type girls, because…. GURRLS, am I right?

In a comedy movie, it’s important to ask ourselves, “Who do we laugh at and, and who do we laugh with?” Answer: We laugh at the Oozma Kappas. Always. So eventhough Oozma Kappa eventually wins the Scare Games, the takeaway is that they won despite their more feminine form of masculinity, not because of it.

Which is a shame, because none of that animosity towards femininity exist in Inc. No character in Inc is outright masculine or feminine, except the ultra-feminine and flirty Celia (Mike’s girlfriend) but she’s never shown in a particularly negative light. Sulley in Inc is not even particularly masculine. In fact, his defining characteristics in Inc are his kindness and his paternal relationship with Boo.

And I want to emphasize that even though I am here to talk about the portrayal of femininity in MU, it is not about the women. It is about the men. With MU as example, it is clear that feminism is not just a woman’s fight–it’s everybody’s fight. Look at how miserable Mike’s life is in MU. Even though he is kind, smart, and works hard, he is belittled because he does not fit the standard definition of masculinity. Mike is only miserable because of the arbitrary societal rule of “how men should be like". So it is clear that misogyny not only affects women, it affects men too. As Emma Watson once wisely said (paraphrased) about feminism, we can only be truly free if women are allowed to be strong and men are allowed to be sensitive. But even in the end of MU, Mike and the Oozma Kappas still end up conforming to the idea of toxic masculinity.

There’s another thing that I want to discuss about MU. I did point out that the entire plot of MU is about glorifying the scaring industry, which is fine in itself because it fits Mike’s arc (a Scarer is not a real career choice anyway). But the movie also goes out of its way to depict other geekier career choices like scream-can architect, or more creative ones like dancer, as–for lack of better word–lame. So MU basically teaches children who watches the movie that a career in STEM and in Arts is neither an important nor fulfilling career choice (Direct quote from the Dean, “Scariness is a true measure of a monster. If you’re not scary, what kind of a monster are you?”). That’s totally not cool, Monsters University, not cool. (I could add a paragraph’s worth of rant about how MU depicted Scarer as an ultimate “masculine” career choice, but I digress. The article is as long as it is.)

So… yeah. This rant/review is all over the place because I have a lot of things to say, but I hope this will give you a new perspective. Pixar, you could do better.

Review: Jennifer's Body (2009)

Rating: 8.9 of 10

Jennifer (Megan Fox) is the most beautiful girl in Devil’s Kettle High School, while her best friend Anita “Needy” (Amanda Seyfried) is a frumpy, simple girl. Needy have been loyal to Jennifer for all of her life, but she just might have to fight Jennifer when she turned evil–not just “high school evil”, but “evil, evil.”

Let me say this: Jennifer’s Body is really good, but sadly it flopped at the box office (and received only lukewarm, some might even say negative, response from the critics), because nobody knew what to expect. The somewhat tacky poster gives the impression of a hormone infused B-movie, the demonic premise implies a scary movie, and the “comedy” label tacked-on on promotional pieces lead people to expect more laugh-out-loud moments. Instead, Jennifer’s Body is none of that–or all of that and more, depending on your point of view.

I would say the best way to describe Jennifer’s Body is that it’s a teen drama movie, with some horror/supernatural stuff mixed in. Think Mean Girls, but with actual murder. Both Jennifer’s Body and Mean Girls have the same wit, the same commentary on high-school female friendship dynamics, and the same emotional resonance between the two lead girls. Okay, Jennifer’s Body is not as funny as Mean Girls and not nearly as quotable, but I don’t think it was ever meant to be as funny as Mean Girls (I meant it when I said Jennifer’s Body barely qualifies as a comedy, but I do think Jennifer’s Body and Mean Girls have the same spirit). The horror stuff are an integral part of the story, but they’re clearly not meant to shock or scare you “just because”. It's pretty funny, but not at the expense of its story. It’s also sexy, but in the way that serves the story. At the core, Jennifer’s Body is just a drama between two friends–and a very effective one at that. It’s also worth noting that Jennifer’s Body is written and directed by women, and that makes Jennifer’s Body a uniquely female horror movie. I understand that not everybody’s gonna understand what Jennifer’s Body is trying to do, but I definitely enjoyed it. 

I also believe, it flopped because audiences have rock-bottom expectations of Megan Fox. Megan Fox has been the poster girl of bad movies and bad characters (although not nearly half of it are her fault), that people just assume that Jennifer’s Body will be terrible and not go see it. But after Amanda Seyfried’s flawless performance as Needy, Megan Fox is actually one of the highlights of the movie. Yes, her character Jennifer is shallow, promiscuous, and manipulative, but Fox played her with such degree of self-awareness that it’s a delight to see.

TL;DR If you’re looking for a fun, sexy horror movie with emotional weight, Jennifer’s Body might be the one for you.

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.

Music Shoutout: Mark Ronson - Uptown Special

No one could escape the popularity of Uptown Funk. No one. Hand delivered to us by featuring artist Bruno Mars, it was one of those popular singles that came out of left field--entirely unexpected in today's music climate, but devoured by all.

English musician, DJ, and record producer Mark Ronson is the man behind the album, Uptown Special. And Uptown Special is nothing if not a groovy work of art.

In actuality, Uptown Funk is my least favorite song of the album (I know, right?). Not because it’s a bad song--it’s an excellent song--but because for me, that particular song aims for “flashy” in the ways that the other songs from the album don’t try to be. The rest are less flashy (but in absolutely no way are less funky) and they show how meticulous the actual production were.

A smoothie of R&B, funk, and soul with contemporary touch, Uptown Special is filled with guest stars of famous and lesser names alike: Bruno Mars, Stevie Wonder, Mystikal, Kevin Parker of Tame Impala, Andrew Wyatt of Miike Snow, Keyone Starr, Jeff Bhasker, and Ronson treated each of them as crucial ingredients in each of their songs--but never outshines the song itself. 

Highlights of the album, excluding Uptown Funk. for me are I Can’t Lose (ft. Keyone Starr), In Case of Fire (ft. Jeff Bhasker), and the many versions of Crack In The Pearl. While the album was definitely derived from aforementioned genres, it’s amazing how versatile and ageless the album is, but I definitely think the album is best consumed in its entirety. Basically if Mark Ronson is a curator of talents, then Uptown Special is a museum that you can dance into. Weird analogy, I know, but I’m perfectly okay with that.

Review: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Finally, it's time for Star Wars: The Force Awakens (TFA for short)! I'll try to keep this review vague because I don't want to delve into any spoiler, but first, let's talk about how this is an actual NEW Star Wars movie! I was meh for the prequels (and did not see them on the theaters either), and wasn't alive yet for the original trilogy so I never experienced what the hype felt like. When I went for TFA, I couldn’t shake a jarring feeling when the theater darkened, the stars and the title font appeared, then the crawl text came into view and I read it and it's a text I haven't read before. My mind couldn’t comprehend that it was a new Star Wars movie I was watching, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who felt that way, so it goes to show how important it was for this movie to be good (arguably we could also say that about the prequels, and we lived through them, so take that as you will). Of course, there were the Expanded Universe and animated series, and while they're good (I particularly kept hearing about how good The Clone Wars was), they're not the same. This time, it's a cinematic movie, and everyone is excited.

One thing I could say about TFA is that it's definitely a Star Wars movie. It wasn't like how JJ Abrams tried to "translate" Star Trek from the 60's to 00's; TFA is Star Wars. It's more Star Wars than what the prequels ever hoped to be. I might even go as far as saying that it does have all the good, but also bad, of the originals, but for the most part it's a very entertaining and well-executed movie.

TFA is basically a homage to the originals, and that's the only way for any Star Wars sequel can be done, honestly. The cast and crew are fans too, and they can't just ignore the huge legacy of the franchise. And they did it brilliantly, I say. In TFA, Jedi had evolved into a myth, in the same way that Star Wars had lived and grown in cultural conciousness throught these years. However, TFA very obviously drew its DNA from the original trilogy. Depending on the person, it could be a good thing or a bad thing. Nostalgia is abound (not in a bad way) and you could basically pin point which traits in each new characters are like Han, Luke, Anakin, etc. I myself didn't mind, because it wasn't like A New Hope (or as some others would call it, simply Star Wars) had the most original story ever. But what’s most important for me, all the visual spectacle and world building that made the franchise so famous, were there too. The various aliens, the lived-in technology, the dog fights, the visually cool villains--even down to the cantina, and also the appearance of sand (not Tatooine), and ice (not Hoth), and green (not Endor) planet. There's a shot that I particularly liked; it was about the first time we see new character Rey (Daisy Ridley), in a long shot near a spaceship wreckage, and it was both beautiful and had amazing sense of scale. It was the moment I knew the movie wouldn't disappoint me for being Star Wars.

Rey, Finn (John Boyega), and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) are the new additions to this movie, and viewers won't have problem falling in love with them. Kylo Ren is especially interesting, psychologically, and I'd like to know more about him. The old characters too, namely Luke Skywalker, now General Leia Organa, and Han Solo are also worthy and natural addition to the story. And BB-8! I was a fan of R2-D2 and BB-8 is an excellent progeny of R2-D2, and an even cuter one. And oh, the movie is extremely funny. It had great comedic timing that don't interfere with the actual movie and it's very fun.

TL;DR A fun, hearty movie with great worldbuilding unique to Star Wars, this movie won't disappoint newly introduced viewers or old fans.

Review: Cek Toko Sebelah (2016)

Rating: 7.0 out of 10

Cek Toko Sebelah is the second feature film from Ernest Prakasa, an Indonesian stand-up comedian turned writer/actor/director. Cek Toko Sebelah tells the story of Erwin (Ernest Prakasa), a succesful young man on the verge of a promotion, his screw-up brother Yohan (Dion Wiyoko), and their father Koh Afuk (Chew Kin Wah) who leaves Erwin with his small business.

Cek Toko Sebelah has a simple but powerful premise, and it has a promising start. It establishes characters pretty well, filled with witty dialogue including some laugh-out-loud moments, but everything seems to go downhill from there. Ultimately, Cek Toko Sebelah is a typical Indonesian movie, played out in a typical Indonesian fashion: very linear, unimaginative storyline with one dimensional characters. In Cek Toko Sebelah, the story writes itself, and not in a good way. Everything plays out basically exactly like you'd expect with little to no surprises, especially during the first and second act. The characters' storyline does not intertwine in any meaningful way, with minimal character development. The movie does offer good laughs, but everything else is not enough for me. Fortunately on the third act, things started to get a little more exciting, and it does slightly redeems itself.

What's frustrating is, Cek Toko Sebelah has the potential to be an extremely good character-based family drama/comedy. Instead, it only reaches for the easy low hanging fruit, and is either unwilling, or unable to aim higher. Erwin's character is ripe for conflict, but ultimately, he has given nothing to lose. The writer thinks that everything that's being thrown at Erwin is conflict, but Erwin is not given time to process it--and neither was the audience--so ultimately they did not become conflict. They were just stuff. Stuff that happens. Cek Toko Sebelah is a film that does not dare to hurt the characters, therefore it becomes a relatively uncompelling viewing experience. Yohan's dark past is hinted, but is wholly unexplored, and the movie is afraid to put obstacles in front of him. Natalie (Gisella Anastasia), Erwin's girlfriend, has exactly one purpose in the movie (being the nagging girlfriend), and the only attempt to give Ayu (Adinia Wirasti), Yohan's wife, a dimension besides being, y'know, "Yohan's wife", falls flat. The only compelling character is Koh Afuk, largely because of Chew Kin Wah nuanced portrayal. This father figure is not perfect: reserved, cynical, stubborn, but he cares deeply about his family and his employees. He does not say much, but Kin Wah was able to carry it all with authenticity and wit, that we could not help but to fall in love with his character.

Aside from family, there's another theme explored in this movie: living as a Chinese-Indonesian in Indonesia. On that account, Cek Toko Sebelah is very successful in showing the nuances of their everyday lives. Ernest Prakasa himself is Chinese-Indonesian, and he frequently talks about it back from his stand-up comedy days, so it's not surprising. Diversity overall, is a win here. But there are also some problematic social treatments in this movie. I was really hoping that this movie would be above resorting to male gaze for jokes, but with how the males treat Anita's (Yeyen Lidya) character repeatedly, apparently not. In general, the female characters in this movie are uninspired at best. It also features typical Indonesian representation of an LGBT character (a comic relief that other characters laugh at), which while it is funny, only cements the stereotype.

I hope I do not come across as mean or nitpicking, or unsupportive of local films. I really, really do hope for quality filmmaking in Indonesia and this is my way of supporting it. TL;DR Cek Toko Sebelah offers good diversity, some pretty funny moments, but serviceable characters.

Review: Deadpool (2016)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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.