Review: 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

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.

So. Excited.

Teaser for new season of Orphan Black, BBC America.

4.18.15

Save the date, #CloneClub.

TV Shoutout: Killjoys

What it is about: Bounty hunters Dutch (Hannah John Kamen) and John Jaqobis (Aaron Ashmore) are the best Killjoys working at their side of the galaxy. But a warrant involving John’s brother, D’avin (Luke Macfarlane), lead them to new adventures.

Why you should watch it: Killjoys, contrary to what the name might suggest, is just so much fun. Killjoys never take themselves too seriously, but they never, ever insult your intelligence. It’s just the perfect blend of action, humor, crazy stories, and great characters.

No kidding, Dutch is my favorite female character in TV, ever. She’s the baddest of all badasses–and nobody is gonna argue her for that. She’s strong and tough and soft in the way that I rarely see from other badass female characters.

Her relationship with John is also one of my favorites. They have extremely strong bond as working partners, which serves as the heart of the show. Their relationship is platonic, but extremely warm. Also, John is a badass nerd, so I automatically like him anyway.

Also, set in a somewhat far future, the worldbuilding in Killjoys is amazing. The world feels otherwordly, worn, and lived-in–and most importantly, alive. Believe me, sexy monks is a thing in Killjoys, but they absolutely don't feel out of place. Interplanetary politics, space monk, warlord bartender, killer harem–all of it are in Killjoys, and they all make excellent ingredients to make entertaining stories.

Who should watch it: Anyone who wants fun TV with badass characters! And obviously, sci-fi/space opera fans who yearns for something fresh.

Where you should start: Honestly I think you’re gonna be fine watching any episode because they’re gonna be so much fun you wouldn’t mind if you don’t understand a few things, but like anything worth watching, for best experience start from the first episode for the characters. I guarantee you won’t regret it.

Status: Season 3 ongoing.

Review: Finding Dory (2016)

Rating: 9.4 of 10

The forgetful blue fish from the critically acclaimed Finding Nemo is back, now in her own feature film called Finding Dory.

I have to say that I've been conditioned to hate on unwanted sequels--a symbol of lack of creativity in Hollywood. Franchises are one thing, but to have a completely self-contained story that someone decided to make more of it out of the blue because of, well, money, doesn't sit well with me. Of course, Pixar did make Toy Story 2 and 3 which were excellent, but they also made Cars 2. So I was most surprised at myself that when I walked out of the theater, I quickly decided that Finding Dory might be one of my favorite Pixar film. As someone who didn't love Finding Nemo (it was good, but not special), it was a big deal.

Finding Dory's premise is familiar, but with a twist. Instead of father, Marlin (Albert Brooks), looking for his son Nemo (Hayden Rolence) in the original movie, in this movie Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) looks for her parents who she can only remember fleetingly. Dory's short term memory loss was used mostly as comic relief in Finding Nemo, but her disability is the main focus and theme in Finding Dory .

Finding Nemo had hints of it from the start. Nemo had an unusually small fin--which was almost never addressed, nor did it ever become a hindrance for him, which I liked. But Finding Dory managed to delve into the idea of dealing with your disability much, much more deeply. Having a comedic protagonist with short term memory loss syndrome might sound limiting and frustrating, but Finding Dory handled it with care, sensitivity, and wit that it actually becomes thoughtful and poignant--more than any kids movie have any right to be, even by Pixar's standards. Naturally, the movie presented all the unique ways Dory overcome her unique condition, but it goes deeper than Dory herself. Basically all the other supporting characters has limitations one way or another; from the octopus with only 7 limbs, the near-sighted white whale, to the beluga with echolocation problems, and some others. Finding Dory is a world without perfection, and that's okay.

The plot itself bears resemblance maybe mostly to Toy Story, aside from obviously Finding Nemo. It relies on Dory's loss of memory and remembrance a whole lot, but it still works because of its fast pace and enormous heart. The script itself is masterfully deviced. It uses flashbacks most effectively, but most notably, it pulls details from the original movie then proceed to turn them around on their head.

Finding Dory might not be filled with perfection, but it's definitely gorgeous. I especially loved whenever we're showed the big stretches of ocean because they always look exactly like how I imagine the ocean would be; big, scary, and beautiful. 

Maybe the reason I connected with Finding Dory much more than Finding Nemo is simply because I relate to being a daughter better than being a parent (I'm not a parent yet here). Also, Dory's frantic energy definitely is a plus for me (as opposed to Marlin's neuroticism in 'Nemo), because of the sense of urgency it gives to the movie. But the one true superpower of Finding Dory is indeed its ability to elevate Dory from a thinly written supporting character into a compelling protagonist.

TL;DR A movie full of heart-racing and heart-pulling moments, Finding Dory is a fun yet poignant movie about accepting yourself and pushing your limits.

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: Nocturnal Animals (2016)

Rating: 7.0 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TV Shoutout: Person of Interest

Person of Interest, the best underrated show on TV.

What it is about: A recluse billionaire (Michael Emerson) hires an ex-military (Jim Caviezel) to help people he knows are in danger, from a mysterious source.

Why you should watch it: The series is produced by Jonathan Nolan, brother of movie director Christopher Nolan (Batman's The Dark Knight Trilogy, Interstellar, etc). They do have the same flair and trademark realistic style of filmmaking, but Jonathan is much, much better at portraying character drama.

Basically, there are 2 distinct reasons why Person of Interest is such a great series. One, for it's characters. Person of Interest does an excellent job at developing the characters throughout the series, on a level that you have never seen on a typical procedural. It deals in the grey area of surveillance, organized crime and politics, and there were a lot of subverting tropes that makes it very fresh, and quite a lot genuinely funny moments in a seemingly serious show.

Two, for its portrayal of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (yes, there's an AI in this show). While the show started as a standard case-of-the-week procedural, later it digs more into the nature AI as an all-seeing eye. Very slowly but surely, it turned into a critical discussion on why, what, and how such AI would be like in our world. It portrays AI as a sympathetic but growing entity in a way that, I must again say, is rarely seen on popular entertainment. It might seem unlikely at the start, but Person of Interest has grown into one of the best sci-fi show on television right now, but I can honestly say non-scifi fan would also enjoy it from a pure action, conspiracy, and character perspective. If you don't believe me, just read this 

What else? Because of its top notch, Emmy-level acting (that nobody’s bothered to give awards to)? Because of its badassery? Because Amy Acker is enough to melt your hearts away? Because it has Taraji P. Henson (Cookie in Empire, a great show and actress in their own right)? Because of an adorable dog? Take your pick.

Where to start: Person of Interest is procedural, and I know most episodes in most procedural shows are entirely skippable, but I urge you against skipping anything in Person of Interest even though yes, there are filler episodes. Yes, some episodes contribute less than others to the bigger arc, but a lot of seemingly "case/number-of-the-week" episodes (especially the early ones) helps humanizing and characterizing each of the main characters: Finch, Reese, etc., and even The Machine (the previously mentioned AI). Those character-heavy episodes helped a lot to understand and love each of them.

If you so must insist to skip anything, there's a handy guide to episodes that deal mostly about the bigger arc, but only for first season and the beginning of the second. If you've watched those and liked them, then again I urge you to revisit the episodes you skipped and see if you like them too (I hope you do).

I do have to say though, while I liked Person of Interest from the beginning, it had a shaky start and did not feel particularly special until halfway of the first season (after, I believe, its mid-season break at 11th episode). By that time, they had newfound confidence in the concept of the show and had started to actually have fun with it, although it has always been a compelling show. And there were moments, even in the fourth season, where you might feel things slow down, but it was all for a reason and by the end of the season it will all be worth it. In short: it's not mandatory to watch all of the episodes, but it’s strongly advised if you can.

Where it is at: Fourth season had just ended, and it’s very likely that it’ll be renewed for season 5.

TV Shoutout: Continuum

Another underrated series of recent years, Continuum.

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

Why you should watch it: 

Kiera, and basically every other supporting characters

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

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

No one’s a “good” guy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Doctor Strange (2016)

Rating: 8.5 out of 10

Benedict Cumberbatch is Stephen Strange, a hot-shot neurosurgeon turned master of sorcery, in this latest installment of Marvel Cinematic Universe.

While Thor was being coy about magic and claiming that science and magic are the same in his Thor movies, Doctor Strange (the movie, not the character) never argues about it. Yes, Stephen Strange is a doctor and a skeptic, first and foremost, but as he became a believer, so did we as the audience. From that moment onward, magic was never questioned. And boy, what a pretty magic they were.

Remember Inception? Remember the mind-trippingly iconic manipulation of cities and buildings in that movie? Crank those images you have in your mind to 11, and you'd get something resembling the pure beauty of magic in Doctor Strange. They're gorgeous, dynamic, and intensely mesmerizing. Even when Strange is not running from buildings rolling down the street, or running up in the ceiling, the visualization of magic in Doctor Strange is just breathtaking--and especially, unique.

The cast is also a huge part of why the movie works. Benedict Cumberbatch is subdued enough, but with enough levity and charisma to be an iconic Marvel superhero. (And the fact that he looks almost exactly like the comic book character doesn't hurt either). Chiwetel Ejiofor and Benedict Wong are the perfect sidekicks, and Rachel McAdams is the perfect grounding character. I’m not too pleased with how they leave her character, but McAdams is great. Mads Mikkelsen and his sinister kind of charisma makes a memorable villain, even if he doesn't talk much. Forgetting the controversy around the casting of The Ancient One, Tilda Swinton is reliably splendid as the mystical character.

But while it has pretty solid characterization and plot, enjoyment of Doctor Strange depends mostly on visually immersive experience. For me, the story itself almost felt like a TV pilot. It's basically 100% set up, with teasers of what he might be like as a full-fledged Marvel superhero in the future. Doctor Strange is not a bad standalone movie at all, it's just almost meaningless if you don't take into account that we'll be seeing him again in future installments. However, I don’t mind much because I really do think Doctor Strange is a new stepping stone in MCU, in terms of accepting magic. It has an excellent world-building that doesn’t detach itself from the rest of franchise, and the visual is worth every penny.

I suggest you to see it either in 3D (if you like 3D movies at all, although maybe beware with motion sickness if you’re sensitive) because I think it'll be gorgeous, or at least see it in a good middle seat in your trusty cinema to get the most immersive experience. I saw it in cinema with crappy sound, and I really, really wish I had a different experience.

TL;DR Full of magical visual, Doctor Strange is one more solid Marvel origin story.

Review: Paddington (2014)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Paddington is a famous talking bear of beloved children's illustrated literature in the UK since 1958. (He even has a line of stuffed toys, merchandises, animated series, and even stamps and a statue.) Paddington's original illustrations are instantly recognizable, but as we all know, nothing is exempt from 21st century CGI treatment! So Paddington is now a hyperrealistic bipedal talking bear with a red hat and no pants (which may sound a bit terrifying), but this CGI Paddington is actually very cute, none the least because of his antiquated British manners and Ben Whishaw's mild soothing voice.

Paddington the bear comes from the forest of "Darkest Peru" and arrived at Paddington Station in London, looking for a family. He has been taught manners and how to greet people politely by his Uncle Pastuzo and Aunt Lucy and he hoped he could find family soon, but sadly London has become cynical. Children, or bears, cannot simply arrive at a train station and hoped to be adopted anymore, until Brown family approached him and offered him to give him a night's stay at their house. They agreed to help him finding an explorer who visited the bears years before in Peru, so Mr. Henry, Mrs. Mary, Judy and Jonathan learned to live with him momentarily.

Paddington learns as much as The Browns learns from him, and while the movie is also filled with regular "fish out of water" gags, Paddington's real story is about giving kindness and finding a family and the movie is really great at telling that. Paddington is not even afraid to bring out its sadness factor, which I appreciate because it made things much more poignant. I love children's stories that do not hold back (within reason, of course) because hey, bad things happen and the thing that matters is how we deal with them. TL;DR Throughout the movie Paddington is sweet and reminds us the wonder of a more friendly, civilized world even though he is a literal bear from the wilderness. That paradox is what made him special, and we ended up loving him as much as The Brown Family do.

*Here's a trailer. There's a bodily humor which might gross out some people, although I found it impossibly cute! I must remind you though that it's only a small part of the film and the rest of the film is really lovely.