Review: Black Sheep (2006)

Review: Frank (2014)

Rating: 9.2 of 10

What do you do when you cast Michael Fassbender in your film? Not cover his face for the entirety of the film, unless your film is Frank.

Frank follows the story of an amateur keyboardist, Jon (Domhnall Gleeson), as he becomes the newest member of experimental rock band The Soronprfbs, lead by titular character Frank (Michael Fassbender) who wears a fake big head and never takes it off.

It's a bizzare concept to begin with (which was actually inspired by a true “big head” musician), but the movie, somehow, felt normal. Despite its heavily unusual premise, Frank isn't avant garde at all--it's just a drama about a few weird people intermixed with a few weird songs, and basically that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. Frank is honest, a little disarming, but an ultimately charming film. In a weird way, Frank is about what it feels like to be a mediocre artist--and in another way, about how it’s like to be with the mentally ill.

The most important thing to be discussed about Frank, for me, is the acting and/or casting. Domhnall Gleeson is cast quite often as an "everyman" type of character, and for good reason. He's not only got the range, he also is able to infuse unexpected shades of personality into his characters. Jon is wide-eyed as he is misguided, a visionaire as he is a cynic, and hopeful as he is selfish.

But Michael Fassbender as Frank, is definitely something special. We can't see his face, but we emote to him instantly. With every way he stands, sits, talks, and twitch his hands, you'd never once at lost as to how he is feeling. It's a beautiful performance that we almost never think twice about, which is a hard feat considering he wears a literal fake giant head. But my favorite part of him is (mild spoiler alert) actually how his demeanor changes when he doesn't wear the head. It's subtle acting that definitely makes a movie. Even Maggie Gyllenhaal is kind of restrained in her role as the troublemaking band member, Clara.

But acting isn't the only thing that works in this film. Its score was a delight, especially in the early part of the film which sounds so whimsical and airy--almost kid adventure-like--sending Jon off into his journey. In general, the movie Frank is filled with restrained but effective directorial choices, without trying too hard or being too muted (which for me, is the case with a lot of indie films). It’s a wonderful film to watch.

"Road to fame" band films are a dime in a dozen, but TL;DR Frank, with the help of few amazing performances from its actors, brings a new twist worth seeing.

Review: Rurouni Kenshin Trilogy (2012-2014)

Overall rating: 9.0 of 10

Rurouni Kenshin, adapted from popular manga and anime of the same name (popularized in North America and Indonesia as Samurai X, referring to his cross-shaped scar), tells the story of one skilled assassin from Japan’s Bakumatsu Era who turned into a wandering pacifist, helping people along the way and vowed to never kill anyone again.

The live action trilogy consists of Rurouni Kenshin: Meiji kenkaku roman-tan (titled simply Rurouni Kenshin in the English world) which was released in 2012, followed by two-parter Rurouni Kenshin: Kyoto taika-hen (Rurouni Kenshin: Tokyo Inferno) and Rurouni Kenshin: Densetsu no saigo-hen (Rurouni Kenshin: The Legend Ends), both released in 2014. I just binge-watched all of them so it made more sense to me to do a comprehensive review of the trilogy. Besides, I just thought it’d be just a tad boring to read me raving about Takeru Sato (who played the titular character) three times over.

The biggest accomplishment these movies achieved, aside from hiring the right director for obvious reasons, was casting Takeru Sato as Kenshin Himura the Manslayer Battosai. Kenshin Himura was a difficult character to get right. He was a small, unassuming, baby-faced, soft-spoken person who had the weight of all Japan on his shoulders and swordsmanship skill of a god. Not only Sato looked exactly like how Kenshin would look like in real life, he was able to play just about every range of Kenshin’s in the most unobtrusive way, from Kenshin’s trademark goffiness, kindness, to his restrained composure, deafening sadness and powerful regret, and the bombastic rage that he eventually let out. Every once in a while he lets out quiet words of wisdom that are so excessively true your heart breaks, because you know it took a great deal of pain and mistakes to be able to say them.

The rest of the casts were great too, each one of them dissolved nicely into the characters that we have come to know and love from the manga and anime (I never read the manga, admittedly). Animes in particular are difficult to adapt into live action because animes in general operate in a wholly different reality. Jinei Udoh’s and Shishio’s powers weren’t exactly realistic, for example, but director Keishi Ohtomo was able to make them at least plausible. Even small things like clothes, hair, and behaviors of characters from animes might be harder to translate from animation into live action but Rurouni Kenshin was able to bring them come to life with grace.

The film was also absolutely beautiful to watch. The colors and cinematography were absolute striking, and so was the fighting scenes. Each of the fights are fluid, absolutely clear and delightful to watch, and definitely captured the magic of samurai fights that we have come to expect.

But the truth is, the three movies weren’t created equal. The first movie did a great job at introducing and sucking us into its world, for reasons above. TL;DR It was a great origin movie of a compelling character, surrounded by a hoard of interesting supporting characters. But more intellectually, what I really appreciated from this particular movie is that they hit the tone right with the violence. They were dirty, they were bloody (not overly so that it’s unwatchable) but enough to bring home the fact that killing, no matter the cause, is an ugly thing to do.

I found Kyoto Inferno to be the weakest installment. Shishio was a brilliant arc in the manga and anime, partly because they spent considerable amount of time building into the arc. The movie had such little time to tell its story in comparison that it was understandable that it would not have the same effect, but TL;DR I also found the film to have problematic pacing, and it felt particularly heavy and overwrought.

That said, The Legend Ends was brilliant. It started as the slowest of the bunch, and I appreciated the change of pace (without resorting to spoilers I'll just say it was refreshing to see someone who looks down on Kenshin for once). I have to say it built up nicely into the climax though, so don’t worry, it was every bit as intense as the others and the fights were every bit as exciting. TL;DR The Legend Ends was a very focused movie, especially compared to Tokyo Inferno, and that’s why I found it to be the best.

If I had to assign individual ratings for each film, I maybe would give them 9.0, 8.0, and 9.5 respectively (and a completely unscientific overall rating of 9.0). Collectively, they were such a great adaption that if you’re a Rurouni Kensin fan by any means, you maybe should watch them.

TV Shoutout: Orphan Black

Of course I had to do a Shoutout for Orphan Black, I don't know why I haven't done it yet!

What it is about: A streetwise con-artist, Sarah (Tatiana Maslany), witnessed a woman who looked exactly like her committing a suicide, and subsequently stole her identity as an opportunity to get away from her own life. (And it turns out, the woman was her clone. Oops.)

Why you should watch it: Tatiana Maslany, Tatiana Maslany, Tatiana Maslany, Tatiana Maslany. Seriously.

As already stated, Tatiana Maslany plays the central character, Sarah, who was just one among a set of clones, all also played by her. She was able to play so many different women in one or separate screens, and still be instantly recognizable as different, consistent characters with their own personality and personal lives. There really is no way to accurately explain the kind of acting that she does, other than: just watch her performance. She would, on consistent basis, make you forget that basically half of the regular cast were played by a single actress because each of them were all just that different. Fun fact: Maslany's mother, at one time, actually verbally asked the crew, "When is Tatiana coming back?" all the while watching her daughter filming as another character. She, literally, didn't recognize her own daughter in front of her eyes while acting. That's the kind of acting that Maslany does.

(This is actually a behind-the-scenes video, but I think you can get a pretty good grasp of Maslany as the 3 main clones: Sarah, Alison, Cosima. It's also a very interesting to see the technicality behind it.)

The fun really starts when you see her playing a clone pretending to be another clone (for example, Sarah pretending to be Alison). You can clearly see it was not Alison, but rather Sarah trying her best to be Alison—which is really an almost impossible feat considering they look exactly alike. Really, by that time, you might think that she's just showing off (and you'd still be totally impressed).

Enough about Maslany, now about the actual story. If you're intimidated by the word "clone", don't. The clone thing is just a setting, but the core is really about sisters and family. After accepting their unique bond and condition, they found solace in each other and ended up protecting each other at all costs. Orphan Black is indeed a very suspenseful show as the clones were hunted and monitored, but it is also a very fun one. Characters like Felix, Vic, Donnie, even suburban-mom Alison give plenty of comic relief—not to mention Helena's neverending quirkiness. It's actually a little bit cheesy and soap-opera-esque (in the best way), but it's also suspenseful as heck with a good amount of action and detective work. In short, Orphan Black is the best of both worlds, in terms of (the absurd) masculine vs. feminine dichotomy on TV.

Who should watch it: Due to its inclusion of many genres, I think everyone, men and women will enjoy it, but maybe not for kids because there were some, sparse partial nudity.

Where you should start: If you don't mind missing things out, you basically can start anywhere. Otherwise, you should start from the beginning because it's fun anyway.

Status: Season 3 running.

(all the Felix gifs! Because why not!)

Review: Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

I've never really admit it before but I've always loved kid-becomes-spy movies like Spy Kids (2001), Agent Cody Banks (2003), and Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker (2006), even if quality is sometimes secondary. For me they're the ultimate wish-fulfillment: to be young with a very cool secret, gadgets, weapons, the ability to kick ass and escape from our boring lives, and maybe even get a pretty girlfriend along the way. And in Kingsman: The Secret Service, we could be very, very British too—which is always a code for being damn classy.

Before we start, although I did mention the (family-friendly) movies above, I have to remind some audiences that Kingsman is in fact closer to Wanted (2008) and Kick-Ass (2010) (fun fact: all three were based on Mark Millar's graphic novels but I won't open that can of worms), with the latter also directed by Kingsman's and X-Men: First Class (2011)'s director, Matthew Vaughn. If you are not familiar with those films, basically what they have in common is that they all have genuinely fun, inventive—borderline wacky but definitely cathartic—action and violence. It's not overly bloody or anything (most of them consist of quick-cuts or scenes that are so stylized they're beautiful) but it does require you to at least crack a smile when people's heads are blown off, otherwise you're missing half the fun. But don't worry, they're the bad guys.

The kid in question is Gary or Eggsy (Taron Egerton), whose father trained to become Kingsman but died when he was little. Agent Galahad (Colin Firth) is grateful of Eggsy's father for saving his life and wanted to return the favor by taking Eggsy into Kingsman too. And hence began young Eggsy's training to become a proper British spy.

And when I say British, I really do mean British. I don't know what it is about England (maybe a leftover from the popularity of James Bond), but the best fictional spies are frequently from that side of the pond. With Kingsman it's easy to see why. There's something reassuring (and effortlessly cool) that our hidden saviors are good-mannered gentlemen in exquisite suits with respect for top-shelf bourbon and impeccable gunwork. They have Arthurian code-names and weapons disguised as umbrellas, it doesn't get much more British than that. Colin Firth, our resident dapper Englishman, is surprisingly badass as Agent Galahad. Egerton is also brilliant as a working class kid trying to survive in the streets of London—also quintessentially British, in another way. 

The movie (and Matthew Vaughn himself) states its love to "old" spy movies before the dark, grim, and gritty era: back when those movies actually had fun and less tortured, complete with its trademark crazy villains with crazier plans. The villain in this movie is Samuel L. Jackson with a lisp and name like Richmond Valentine, accompanied always by his false-legged killer butler/bodyguard. If that's not an old-Bond movie logic, I don't know what is. While expressing its love to old movies, Kingsman always felt new and shiny. It doesn't bow down to tropes and it really is a testament to the strength of the script that I never once felt like anyone is save, ever (and people do die in this movie). The action sequences are as exciting as they are beautiful, and they also have good use of music in action scenes, not unlike Kick-Ass whose soundtrack I loved.

TL;DR All in all, if you like good action movie, or just plain fun movie, you owe it to yourself to see this film. Just look at those gifs (or trailer). They're glorious.

Review: Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? 2 (2016)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

The first Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? (2002) told the unlikely teenage love story between the literary junkie, anti-establishment, mysterious Rangga (Nicholas Saputra), and the “it-girl” of her high school, Cinta (Dian Sastrowardoyo). A movie full of romantic poems and je ne sais quoi chemistry between the two leads (think Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles in 10 Things I Hate About You (1999)), AADC was a historic hit in Indonesian film industry, and 14 years later, we finally get to see what happens next.

Cinta and Rangga are now adults, and 10 years had passed without any contact from one another. Rangga now lives in New York, US and Cinta is engaged to be married to Trian (Ario Bayu), but one faithful day brought them together again in Yogyakarta.

True to its spirit, of course, Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? 2 also brought back Maura (Titi Kamal), Karmen (Adinia Wirasti), and Milly (Sissy Prescillia) as Cinta’s BFF (Alya’s disappearance is addressed in the movie, if you’re wondering). They do still have distinct personality--Maura is girly, Karmen is protective, and Milly is the slow-one--but I’m relieved to say that they do not adhere to their stereotypes too much, which is a flaw I found in the first AADC. Surprisingly, Milly is an excellent ice-breaker and comic relief, and she actually ended being one of my favorite characters, along with her husband and fellow former AADC co-star, Mamet (Dennis Adishwara). Karmen is the only one to show any sign of passage-of-time in her character, although a lot of times her signs of growth conveniently goes away when its not related to plot.

But why are we back if it’s not for Rangga and Cinta, anyway? A true definition of a whirlwind romance in its first movie, AADC2 managed to update their story into a grown-up world. 10 years of feelings dumped into a few hours, AADC2 is filled with love, heartache, and nostalgia. But oddly, AADC2 is very understated in each approach, as if to say that “Yep, we’ve grown up, alright”. In fact, instead of its own predecessor, AADC2 reminds me a lot of Before Sunset (2004) instead (which is not a bad thing at all), especially when AADC2 walks us though all these different faces of Yogyakarta that we don’t often see. Rangga is also a little bit different in this movie--less standoffish, more loving--which makes sense for the character, although unfortunately we get to see much less of his subplot than Cinta’s. However, Cinta is every bit as how we remember her last time, and all of it ultimately paid off with a sweet, although somewhat clunky, ending.

TL;DR With a more adult approach to love, Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? 2 is a worthy continuation of the story of Cinta and Rangga.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Automata (2014)

Rating: 8.2 of 10

So I've told you guys that my heart beats for sci-fi. What you don't know is that I've basically made it my life's mission to watch every smaller science-fictional movies that come into my town (because well, there aren't a lot of them). Yes, even if reviews out there aren't that favorable. The thing is, as much as I want otherwise, the film industry is still an industry and that means supply-and-demand rules the world. Me, or any of you for that matter, buying a ticket for a movie is like raising a hand and shouting, "There's a market for this kind of movie!" While by Sturgeon's Law not all of them can be good, there are gems to be discovered, time and time again, in supporting smaller and odder movies. One particular example that stuck in my mind is the undeniably fun and awesome Attack The Block (reviewed here. Still one of my favorite movie viewing experience) that played at blitzmegaplex in 2011. The lead actor John Boyega has since went on to do greater things, including being the leading man of JUST THE BIGGEST MOVIE FRANCHISE IN THE UNIVERSE in next year's Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The point is, we need to encourage filmmakers and distributors to take chances by supporting the wildcards because that's how we get new and awesome things, the new(!) Star Wars included.

But enough of the preamble, the topic today is Automata that is currently playing at 21 Cinema franchise in my town. This one features a pretty recognizable actor, Antonio Banderas, which might be a draw for some people so the movie had that going for them. Banderas played Jacq Vaucan, an insurance agent that encountered a malfunctioning robot or automata—one that can repair itself. In Automata, the robots were programmed with a variation of Asimov Laws of Robotics: 1) They cannot harm any living being, and 2) They cannot make any kind of alteration unto itself. In this world, it was unfathomable that any robot can repair or upgrade itself. It required too much cognition, and most importantly, it would have violated the law.

The world building in this film is amazing. It has the right mix of new and old technology like a real world should; from the 3D holograms, the old cars, the clunky fax machines and pagers (fax machine and pagers! In the future! But it makes sense!), the practicality of the plastic trench coats, to the rigidity of the robots and the fact the the shiniest thing in that world is a hooker robot like it was the only thing that makes sense. I also love little touches like collarless suit that Banderas wore, because despite everything, fashion always evolve (did the movie invent it? Because I've never seen anything like it). In this movie, everything feels real, like you can touch them and feel the dust. Antonio Banderas as the lead actor is solid as well, so are the rest of the actors. Banderas was great casting because not only he provided star power, but he has the right amount of both self-deprecation and gravitas that is so hard to mix and pull off.

The movie touches all the obligatory themes that robot movies often touched, (yes, including Blade Runner) but a trope is a trope is a trope. Sometimes things are done because they simply work and relevant. The movie deals with a lot of questions, but subtle enough for us to not get hammered by them. Are they living? Are they not living? What do they see in themselves? What do they think of us? Do they see us as a creator, a friend, a parasite? Will they ever kill a human being? What do they want once they get to the other side of the world? While it is a bit surprising to see a movie in which the biggest threat is robot than can alter itself—not because they harm a human being—but the question remains: Once they found out that humans can/sometimes can kill one another, will they ever be a harm to us? The movie paints the robots as neutral; neither friendly or malicious, which is really the only logical thing.

There are plenty to like about this movie. While the theme is not new and the script might veer off into strange land in some ways (but that's what made me like the film, actually), but the atmosphere is solid and unbreakable. Gabe Ibanez, the director, was apparently a visual effects artist and that shows. The props and robots were not only beautiful but also meaningful, like every little thing on screen was meant to convey something. TL;DR If nothing else, Automata is beautiful, atmospheric science-fictional film with a burning question in its heart.

Review: Oldboy (2003)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

Oh Dae-Su (Choi Min-sik), a drunken and crass office-worker, was locked up in a mysterious hotel room for 15 years for no apparent reason. He was confused and desperate at first, and ended up just plain angry. When he eventually got out, with the help of one sushi-bar worker, he was determined to find out why he was held and the identity of his captor to take revenge.

Oldboy (actually based on a Japanese manga of the same name) is one of the most popular and acclaimed example of South Korean cinema in international stage, frequently listed as one of the best movies of all time and is firmly ingrained in the minds of modern cinephile. After earning cult status with Oldboy, Director Park Chan-wook eventually directed his first English-speaking movie, Stoker, in 2013 with Nicole Kidman and Mia Wasikowska, and Oldboy itself was remade by Hollywood with Spike Lee directing and Josh Brolin as lead (with less critical acclaim). I can’t tell you the merits of those two films, but I can tell you that Oldboy is very deserving of its cult favorite status.

Lacking normal social skills due to more than a decade being confused and alone, it was clear that Dae-su was a changed man, forever scarred by the absurd circumstance of his life. Dae-su was volatile and dangerous, a far cry from his previous buffoon self, and Choi Min-sik was equally believable as both. With range not unlike Robert de Niro in his best years, Choi Min-sik frequently changes from incredibly cold and menacing, to incredibly sad and pitiful without a blink of an eye.

With the absurdity of its premise, Oldboy had a perfect tone. Definitely not a typical grim-revenge story, it managed to keep a degree of surrealness—palpable from the moment we see Dae-su nagging in the police station but cemented the moment the octopus-eating scene arrived—only grounded by the sight of violence and blood. Inventive and highly stylish in its violence, the film is definitely not for the squeamish, but the actual horrors was largely visceral and psychological instead of purely gross visual. Oldboy is also partly a detective tale and partly a coming-of-age story (whatever age that is), providing much more layers to a simple vengeance story.

TL;DR With memorable images and moments throughout, Oldboy is a fascinating, heartbreaking, and stylish work about revenge.

Review: 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

10 Cloverfield Lane is about 3 people, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Howard (John Goodman), and Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), who are trapped in a bunker because of some mysterious attacks that poison the air above ground.

If the title sounds a bit familiar, it’s because 10 Cloverfield Lane is named after 2008 film, Cloverfield. But wait! It’s not a sequel or prequel, instead 10 Cloverfield is a “spiritual successor” or “blood relative” of Cloverfield, according to producer JJ Abrams. Honestly, that sounds incredibly confusing and pretentious–usually jargons like those are red flags–but trust me when I say 10 Cloverfield Lane is good. In fact, it’s a great movie and it’s one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in recent years.

I was skeptical when I heard this “Cloverfield 2″ project was happening because while I loved Cloverfield, it had too many gimmicks (the found-footage format, viral marketing, always-on-the-corner-of-your-eye monsters) for it to work the second time. I’m happy to tell you that 10 Cloverfield is nothing like the original Cloverfield. It’s a whole new story and setting, with a set of new characters. So if you wanted a Cloverfield sequel then you need to adjust your expectations, but that also mean those of you who hated 2008′s Cloverfield with a passion (or have never seen that movie and couldn’t care less) can see 10 Cloverfield without reservation.

I WON’T tell you anything about the story in 10 Cloverfield Lane. The best thing you can do is to go in blind, and experience the ride you’re going to have without any spoilers. Don’t read any spoiler-filled review, don’t look up any interview, don’t watch the trailers on Youtube. Just go off the internet and watch this movie as soon as you can. In fact, just in case you need a small taste of the movie to convince you that you need to see this movie (it’s also worth noting that this movie currently sits at 90% in Rotten Tomatoes), I’ll share you this teaser trailer–and only this. Don’t look up any other trailers, because  the other trailers still reveal too much.

10 Cloverfield Lane sets up an unsettling vibe from the very beginning, that you could never quite shake off even when the movie gives you a warm, cuddly scene. In a movie that is set in claustrophobic bunker, the movie never goes to places you expect. There are so many twists and turns, and then there’s the ending. The ending has a MAJOR twist, that frankly, some people might think is too jarring. I, for one, loved the twist. In fact, that’s why I love this movie so much. It gives an excellent dramatic payoff that lines itself quite nicely with the franchise, and it brings an added perspective into an already layered story.

Was the threat chemical? Nuclear? Was it human? Monsters? Aliens? Throughout the movie you’d keep guessing, and the best thing about 10 Cloverfield Lane is that whatever answer you have in your head, you’d still be surprised. 10 Cloverfield Lane also tend to give you hints and not straight answers, and that is one of the reason the movie has so much depth than you’d expect.

TL;DR Crafted with masterful writing, acting, and direction, 10 Cloverfield Lane is an intense thriller that you don’t want to miss.

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!