Review: The Nice Guys (2016)

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: 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.

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: 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: 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.

Review: Interstellar (2014)

Rating: 7.5 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Gone Baby Gone tells the story of Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck), a young private detective, who along with his partner (Michelle Monaghan) were asked by a confused and angered couple to help the police finding their lost young niece. Amanda MacCready, the missing child in question were already missing for a few days. The detectives working on the case could not have been more reluctant on letting him in on the case, and so was Helene (Amy Ryan) the drug addict mother. That is the general synopsis but more importantly, Gone Baby Gone tells the story of flawed people in a bruised and battered city, stuck eternally in less than ideal situations.

Ben Affleck, formerly famous as an actor and had just found a new renaissance in directing, put his little brother in this flick and thereby delivered one of the highlights in both of their filming career. Ben Affleck handled the story like a painting; carefully with a swift but firm hand that was only loud when he needed to. He showed incredible restraint as a newbie director, and I think that showed incredible talent. Meanwhile, Casey Affleck was able to give not only a very specific form of authority and dignity, but also a dash of naivety that could only come from a young age and sensitivity that clearly came from strength of character. Casey was able to put those traits into a blender and made a living breathing person, one that is flawed and compelling. Due to its amazing cast, similar praise can be said for the rest of the characters too, from Amy Ryan's Helene to Michelle Monaghan's Angie and Ed Harris' Detective Bressant. Writing-wise, the plotting is tight and unpredictable, and the amount of pathos in this movie is incredible, adding only to its richness.

TL;DR Gone Baby Gone is a gripping drama; is a tense thriller/mystery; is a story of questionable morality and of people lost in conspiracy. And in the end, it is the sort of movie that you'll never forget because it shares with you an unanswerable question: what is a good deed in a bad world?

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

Rating: 4.0 of 10.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (2014)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (or “Dawn” for simplicity) is that rare smart summer blockbuster, but I won’t talk much about the the actual movie other than it is a great and satisfying experience and you should go see it. What I’m gonna talk about is what I think “Dawn” is to Hollywood. It’s an interesting movie, but it also brings out A LOT of interesting points about modern blockbuster landscape in general. Which is, I might say, a sign of an even better–and possibly transformative–movie. 

Being both a sequel (to “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”) and a prequel (to the general franchise), “Dawn” lands itself in a very weird and difficult spot. Sequels too frequently feel like a “been there done that” exercise, especially if the sequel refuses to stray away from whatever formula that succeeded in the first installment. And prequels, by definition, are predestined journeys and generally don’t leave enough room for surprises. Matt Reeves (director) smartly chose to set “Dawn” 10 years after the events of “Rise”, which means: skipping the viral outbreak entirely, making the apes the main characters instead of the humans, and shying as far away from previous movie’s James Franco’s character as possible. In other words, a completely different movie than “Rise”. 

He, however, could not set “Dawn” completely free from the trappings of a prequel. We know that apes would eventually rule the world. Intelligently, we (and Reeves) knew. In fact, plotwise, “Dawn” is not much of a surprise. Some humans want peace, some want war. Some apes want peace, some want war. Several confusions, betrayals, and bad timings later, war ensues. But “Dawn” made itself not necessarily about what happens, but how it happens. It is a journey of emotions, and boy, did “Dawn” pack up some real emotions. The moment we see Caesar’s son’s (Nick Thurston) eyes stared blankly at the person who killed his friend is the exact moment we weep. We’ve long reconciled with the fact that humans are hateful and unsalvageable, but now we see a brand new species pick up on that hatred and ran with it with apparent ease. It is shocking, it is jarring, and it is exactly how it should make us feel. 

All of that emotion is conveyed largely by CGI and motion capture, which is an incredible feat in itself. All praises should go to Weta that worked on the effect, and also Andy Serkis and all the motion capture actors. Yep, I mentioned them as actors, which is what they should be recognized as. It only takes a quick minute to peek into the behind-the-scenes and see the kind of emotionality and physicality that they bring into the characters. 

(BONUS: Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes motion capture clip)

Tangentially, internet listed “Dawn”’s budget as $120 mill which is not at all surprising or that big (or even downright cheap) for a summer blockbuster with heavy effects. Hmm, I’ll just let that sink in for future reference. The very good news is, “Dawn” is a success critics-wise and box-office-wise. It gained an impressive $70 mill in the first weekend (overperforming previous predictions and knocking out Transformers 4 from first place), which means that audience are ready for and apparently like a nontraditional, smart movie. 

Why, nontraditional, you might ask? The general preconception of Hollywood blockbuster (especially for the more fantastical stories) is that general audience need a surrogate. Like Alice in Wonderland, we just need Alice as that normal character that acts as a filtering window to the strange world. That’s why we have Jake Sully of Avatar, Neo of The Matrix, Bella of Twilight, heck, even Frodo of The Lord of The Rings (who is considerably more normal than wizards and elves). That’s why, in almost every fantastical or alienesque world, there’s always a human (or at least human-like) character. There’s a human character in “Dawn”, alright, but if there’s any surrogate it’s not Malcolm the human (Jason Clarke). It’s Caesar the leader of the apes (Andy Serkis). He is the first character we saw, and it is through him we view and feel the ape community. Granted, he is the most human-like of them all (being the one ape who lived so long with a human. But one could argue that Koba (Toby Kebbel) is also human-like in a different fashion), but the preconception that audience couldn’t relate with what isn’t human? Gone with this movie.

Also, maybe half of the movie is practically mute. Granted, there are sign languages and subtitles but Hollywood execs thought that audience hate subtitles too. Who would’ve thought that wild moves like these ones would pay off and audience would relate to the characters no problem? Filmmakers who don’t underestimate the audience and refuse to bow down to the lowest common denominator, that’s who. Hopefully future filmmakers will learn from this movie and succeed even more. 

TL;DR To sum up, “Dawn” is not only a good movie but also a breath of fresh air, because it is what happens if filmmakers respect their audience and try to tell an interesting story instead of hitting bulletpoints.

Review: Hail Caesar! (2016)

Rating: 7.9 of 10

The latest film by producer-writer-director duo, Ethan and Joel Coen (The Big Lebowsky, No Country For Old Men, Inside Llewyn Davis), Hail, Caesar! is not an easy film to explain at first glance. It doesn't have a clear, definable premise, except maybe this decidedly vague description in its synopsis: Hail, Caesar! follows a single day in the life of a studio fixer who is presented with plenty of problems to fix.

I may warn you now that this review is written by someone who's not a fan of Coen Brothers work--but I'd also remind you that I always, always try to see movies objectively. Their movies are always artistically and narratively outstanding, but I always find their movies to be a tad too uncomfortable for my taste. There's actually an excellent video essay (by Every Frame a Painting, watch it here) on exactly how Coen Brothers’ shots differ from “standard” filmmaking, which actually made me feel relieved because it turned out there's an actual cinematographical reason on why I don't like to see their films despite them being of high quality.

But Coen Brothers don't really care about making things "commercial" or "accessible", they just do what they want to do--and in result they always succeed in making one-of-a-kind movies with singularly unique voice. They are experts in what they do so it’s no wonder that the critics love them, and in a lot of ways, The Coen Brothers are the guardians of the art of filmmaking.

Now back to the actual movie. Set in the 1950s, the leads are played by Josh Brolin as studio man Eddie Mannix, and George Clooney-in-silly-haircut as actor Baird Whitlock. There are also a number of cameos from big stars like Scarlett Johansson, Tilda Swinton, Ralph Fiennes, Channing Tatum (in a scene that included singing and tap dancing), Jonah Hill, and more. If that sounds a bit sporadic, it’s because Hail Caesar! is indeed somewhat sporadic, if only because of the nature of the story. The crux of the story is about George Clooney’s character who is kidnapped, but there are a lot of things going at once that are only connected by the end of the film. However, with a lot of things going on, they do not feel jumbled or overstuffed at all. Especially with how gleefully absurd those cameos are, you don’t really mind because they really do make the soul of the movie.

There are a lot of talents involved in this movie, but there are definitely some standouts worth mentioning such as Alden Ehrenreich (soon to be young Han Solo in upcoming Star Wars prequel movie), Veronica Osorio, Channing Tatum, and Tilda Swinton who are just charming in each of their roles. In midst of deadpan hilarity and caricatured characters, Coen Brothers also managed to sneak-in a few commentary/satire on things like religion and Christianity, capitalism, communism, and even on the movie industry--which lend some weight to the movie instead of being just another well-made absurd comedy. 

TL;DR While it’s not the best movie that the Coen Brothers had ever made, Hail Caesar! is an excellent film, although for me, it’s just refreshing to see something as blatantly original as Hail Caesar!. But if you’re a fan of the Coen Brothers--or a fan of something that I can only describe as uncomfortable comedy--then this movie is definitely for you.