First Impressions: Garuda Superhero (2015)

Review: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer sharing a witty banter? If it's not your idea of Christmas, it will be after you watch Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, a wonderful tounge-in-cheek outing from director Shane Black. He was practically a no-name then, along with the formerly catastrophic Robert Downey Jr., but now the bigger world might recognize them as director-actor pairing who made Iron Man 3 happened. Today Robert Downey Jr. is famous as the equally witty Tony Stark, worth millions of dollars, and belovedly nicknamed by the world as RDJ, but I believe this is the movie that started it all.

The basic gist is Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey Jr.) was a petty thief who was accidentally spotted to become an actor and was sent to LA, where he met his long lost high-school lover Harmony (Michelle Monaghan), and a private detective "Gay" Perry (Val Kilmer). And oh, he also had the worst luck ever on Christmas, when he witnessed two guys dumped a body in a lake. Eventually, the three of them decided to do some detective work on their own.

This is an action/black comedy movie, and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang had done everything right on every level. It was full of action and black humor. It had the right attitude; the dialogues are fast, smart, witty, and fresh. And highly quotable too, because in the end that is what matters isn't it? 

TL;DR It was a definite fun ride and it delivered everything on the right note. The fact that you've just found a new way to insult idiots is just a bonus.

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: The Martian (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Space is dangerous, but it's also endearing.

Never the fact has ever been more apparent in the movies, than in The Martian. Set in the near future, The Martian is about a group of astronauts in the early days of human exploration on the Red Planet who were forced to leave because of a heavy storm--leaving one of its members, Mark Watney (Matt Damon), on the surface. For months, intelligence and ingenuity were the only things keeping him alive until he could be rescued.

The Martian, for me, was an important movie because it showed what being an astronaut really is about. Space is a dangerous thing, and the movie never downplay on that, but The Martian also puts space in an endearing light that makes us never wonder why did we ever go to space in the first place. Because the answer will always be: why not? Why not be the first? Why not find out, for the greater human race? For anyone intimate with space travel, when Watney gave lecture about being an astronaut and basically says, "When you're up there, at some point you're gonna think you're gonna die and maybe you will," you know that it's 100% true but you also know that doesn't mean you don't wanna go up there in a heartbeat. It's hard to depict a balanced portrayal about the dangers of space, but The Martian nailed it.

Science is also definitely the hero in this film, which is a surprisingly rare occurrence in popular fiction. Not only did Watney repeatedly was shown applying basic science concept to solve his problem, the film also pretty accurately depicted the workings of NASA; how astronauts, ground control, and teams of scientists work hard and thoroughly to reach a common goal. Aside from being very capable, scientists and astronauts in this film were also pretty humorous--and it's important because real scientists love their jokes too, but are almost never depicted as such. It's a very science-positive movie and I appreciated it.

At one point in the movie, Matt Damon's character, who was a botanist exclaimed, "Mars will come to fear my botany powers!" asserting his conviction to grow food on the surface of Mars--something that hadn't been done by any humans before, ever. That, among many other scenes in the movie, was a clear example of the giddiness, humor, and determination of scientists existed in the film.

But in the very core of the movie, The Martian is about human’s determination to live, that everyone can relate to.

The Martian also nailed it with the casting. Matt Damon has the perfect charisma and cockiness about him, but I mostly want to commend the casting choices for the other characters. The most prominent members of the space crew were women (Jessica Chastain, Kate Mara), and at least half of other supporting characters were of minorities (of African, Chinese, Mexican, and Indian descent). Hollywood movies about space can too frequently feel a bit jingoistic (with NASA obviously being an American organization), but The Martian never felt like that the slightest. From the start, The Martian is a humanistic effort.

Directed by veteran director Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Prometheus, Black Hawk Down), The Martian looked beautiful, and the movie flowed beautifully as well. The threats were terrifying as hell, and there were no fake or newfangled technologies so everything stayed grounded. But despite all the hardship Watney was against, it’s a strangely hopeful film.

TL;DR The movie is an obvious bait for people like me--who loves movies, space, and science in the equal amount--but it's also a damn good thriller about survival that everyone could enjoy.

Rant: Being A Good Person On TV

Being a superhero is hard, but everybody knows that. They've got tons of people to save, friends to protect, and villains to defeat--all while maintaining secret identity and a full-time day job. Considering how evil and able their enemies tend to be, it's not hard to comprehend that sometimes they might be tempted to go down to less than noble means--whether that means killing, cheating, lying or whatever. I sometimes imagine that maybe, in their position, I'm gonna be more "creative" too, but that's not the case with the heroes I'm gonna talk about in this post.

Particularly, Barry Allen of The Flash, and Scott McCall of Teen Wolf.

(It's easy for me to talk about The Flash with some degree of dignity--since the show was well received by critics and fans, but I'm actually a bit nervous to talk about Teen Wolf. Yes, that remake of a failed old movie that nobody asked for, that has "Teen" on its title, airs on MTV that no longer stands for “Music”, and its entire existence probably piggybacked on the popularity of the tween-monstrosity called Twilight. And I assure you now, it's legitimately good.)

We live in a cynical world, especially in entertainment. Morally-grey and morally-ambiguous protagonists aren't only numerous but seems to be a trend that only gets stronger: most popularly started with The Sopranos and cemented today with the likes of Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Girls, Scandal, and Game of Thrones, people seemed to devour their stories and it's easy to see why. People love relatability, and people always want a good redemption story (whether it's earned or not). We like to see characters that don't always do good, or don't always do evil, because we know we sometimes do both. People were always drawn to flawed characters (case in point, Hamlet), because we know that we are flawed too.

A hero who's perfect is boring, because we always know what that person would choose in any given time. That is like an unspoken mantra of TV and film, and I used to firmly believed in it. Superman would never work on screen, they say, because he’s too good. But after watching and enjoying Teen Wolf and The Flash for years, I know that that’s not the case anymore.

In stark contrast to it's sister show Arrow, The Flash had decidedly different tone: it was fun, lighter, and more optimistic. Barry Allen (Grant Gustin), its central character, also had one determining characteristic that set him apart from Oliver Queen (Stephen Amell) from Arrow: that Barry is the kind of hero that always find another way (in Felicity's words). Whenever things get tough and the only solution in sight is to kill or let someone get killed or hurt, Barry would always try to find another way to save the day, sometimes in no regard of his own safety. Actually, Oliver would usually eventually get there too, but more than often not, it was only after much deliberation and plea from his friends and colleagues. But Barry is such an inherently a good person who just would NOT compromise to evil, a rarity among the Batmans, Daredevils, even Man of Steel’s Supermans of today, and other bunch characters--superheroes or not. And obviously the show’s formula works extremely well too, because The Flash quickly became CW’s most popular show (even surpassing its parent show), earned hardcore fanbase, received critical praise, and concluded its first and current season with a satisfying finale.

Similar thing could also be said about Scott McCall of Teen Wolf. His defining character is that he wants to save everyone and everything (even his enemies), and he trusts basically everyone (even his enemies). He is a good person almost to a fault, and I believe he is actually the better example of the two regarding the point I'm trying to say, because of 2 things: One, Teen Wolf has been going for 5 seasons and is a living example that it's not only possible to make compelling show (excepting the terrible season 4. Ugh.) out of a genuinely decent character, but it's also sustainable. Two, for its dark overall tone. It's easy to think Barry's shameless optimism is due to the fact that The Flash is an light-toned show, but Teen Wolf isn't particularly light (it's a horror series) and most times it has a general sense of looming dread. So tone shouldn't be a hindrance to having a goody-two-shoes lead protagonist.

We don’t really know the direction that The Flash is going with its second season--maybe Barry's belief would evolve into something more morally grey, we don’t know. But with Teen Wolf, I think, it’s save to say that an honorable lead character is doable. The show handled it the right way, too. They made Scott’s goodness not only central to the heart of the show, but also to the plot (with him being a True Alpha). We also get to see how he influences the people around him, and how he consistently made his friends become better persons. And Scott’s not even the extent of a “good” character on the show: ordinary people such as Sheriff Stilinski can be relentlessly good too. And that’s the important message, I believe, that we can be good if we try. It doesn’t get more uplifting than that.

I’m sorry that this rant is a bit vague if you’ve never seen the shows because I don’t have enough memory to spit out any specific examples (I’m terrible at remembering plot) but the point is, being a good person isn't boring. Actually, being a good person is fuckin' hard. Have you ever tried to do exactly zero bad thing in a day--no lying, no running over the red light, no badmouthing your coworkers and overtiming your lunch break, no using work’s copy machine for personal use, no sneering at that bum across the road, and no disturbing that sleeping kitten? It’s effin’ hard. But if you have time-traveling impostor or body-altering supernatural doctors chasing after you? I bet that’d be an extra, extra hard thing to do and the struggle they go through to just not give in is worth a watch.

My point is, I think it’s time to abandon the long held belief that good people are boring. On the contrary, in my opinion, how they can stay noble regardless of obstacle is a journey worth seeing.

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.

TV Shoutout: Marvel's Agent Carter

Marvel's Agent Carter is ending its first season this week and it's time for another TV Shoutout!

What it is about: Agent Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) returned from the war and fighting alongside Captain America, to being a glorified secretary in covert agency SSR (Strategic Scientific Reserve) and she was none too pleased because of it. When Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) came calling about a raid on a vault full of his inventions, she decided to help her friend.

Why you should watch it: Because Peggy Carter kicks ass. End of story.

Well, not end of story, because what makes Agent Carter special is that it's also a rich period piece. When World War II ended, men came back from the war and women sidelined once again, so it was only up to Carter's determination to push herself above and beyond sexism of the era. Agent Carter is about her journey blasting through all the expectations of how a woman should be in that time. The show also have great, fulfilling script and 3-dimensional supporting characters all around, male and female alike; from Jarvis (Stark's original butler, played by James D'Arcy), Howard Stark, and the people Carter worked with.

For Marvel fans, Agent Carter acts as a sequel to Captain America: The First Avenger and prequel to the others, so this is obviously for you if you ever wonder about what happened in between. Surprisingly, this season did not dwell into S.H.I.E.L.D and HYDRA (considering we know that Carter later founded S.H.I.E.L.D) at all, opted out instead for another "evil" organization as the villain, but the show is none the worst because of it.

Don't be intimidated with the ever expanding universe of Marvel Cinema though, Agent Carter practically have no direct connection to any previous movies or show, except maybe Captain America. Even then, it was only as an emotional basis for Peggy Carter (sobs!) and none of the plot directly related to it. The show is pretty much self-standing.

Who should watch it: Those who wants to see strong, well-rounded female and male characters, great action and spy-work, and just general 1940's period class.

Where you should start: Oh come on, don't be lazy ;) It's just 8 episodes so start at the beginning!

Status: It's first season is an 8-episodes mini-season devised to fill the slot of Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D  during hiatus. There are still no words regarding second season (fingers crossed), but the showrunners are up for it if opportunity arises.

*See my Shoutout for Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D here.

Review: Inside Out (2015)

Rating: 8.5 of 10

Have you ever wondered what’s going on in a person’s mind? Why do they feel sad, or happy, or bored, or elated? In the case of Inside Out, you don’t need to wonder anymore.

In Inside Out, our protagonists are the tiny workers inside Riley’s head. We have Joy, Sadness, Disgust, Fear, and Anger all work alongside each other, each representing one emotion that Riley feels, depending on who’s taking the lead.  It’s a pretty simple premise--and one that allows for a pretty powerful emotional impact.

An emotional movie about emotions? It’s almost a given, if you ask me, but Inside Out wrapped it all tightly with Riley’s journey. In that delicate age of 11, Riley’s loving-but-busy father had to move his family to another town. Away from the town that she loves, she has to move to a less-than-perfect home and go to a new school without her old friends. It’s a coming of age story that feels so real and intimate, because it’s the one that many of us had to live through at some point in our lives--and it hit us hard. My favorite moment is the scene in which Riley’s mother had a talk with her when she tucked her in, and I imagine it’s also the hardest hitting moment for parents and children alike.

But Inside Out isn’t as novel as some reviews led me to believe, mainly because I think Wreck-It Ralph did it first. Inside Out visualizes the workings of the human brain, just like Wreck-It Ralph did it with arcade games. Inside Out has Imagination Land and Dream Production Company, while Wreck-It Ralph had Sugar Rush and Hero’s Duty. Even the end lesson is basically the same; Joy can’t be meaningful without Sadness, in the same way heroes need villains. But both are great films, and it’s great we get to see such nuanced themes discussed in family movies.

TL;DR It’s not Pixar’s best (Wall-E, Up, Toy Story, and The Incredibles still take the cake), but it’s still a pretty powerful movie that may leave you needing for tissue.

Review: War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

15 years after the breakout of Simian Flu (in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, or “Rise” for simplicity)--which leaves most of human population dead and the apes’ intelligence uplifted, the ape society that Caesar (Andy Serkis) lead is forced to hide in the forest after Koba’s--Caesar’s former frenemy--fateful attempt to wage war against humans (in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, reviewed here). In War for the Planet of the Apes, Caesar still tries to prove that the apes meant no harm. But then, one particularly vicious attack changed him forever.

Based on the title, I fully expected for the movie to be about an all out war between the apes and humans, but I was definitely wrong. In fact, “War” is basically the complete opposite of that. Although the scene began with a brutal attack between apes and humans, the rest of “War” is a very quiet, introspective movie of Caesar’s conflicted mind, and somehow the titular war is actually between two factions of human groups. But I figured thematically it makes sense, since “Dawn” was all about the war between two factions of the apes.

Science fiction is the best when it explores humanity through a new lense, and “War” is definitely one of those instances. We see apes dealing with every kind of human emotion, and we see the humans coping with the rise of new intelligent species and possible extinction. “War” is a very interesting study of human and humanity, although I must say it’s not the most fun movie, to say the least.

If there’s any flaw about the movie, it’s the extremely bleak view of humanity, to the point that it feels forced. Colonel’s (Woody Harrelson) faction of humans are basically the living embodiment of the worst side of humanity, while Caesar continues to make worse and worse decisions. Which is a shame, because “Dawn” used to have a much more nuanced discussion of the matter. I mean, “War” work extremely well as a grand study of humanity, but I do find myself wishing the movie would have chosen a slightly different perspective. 

TL;DR It does make for an excellent sci-fi and a moving movie experience, but I did walk away from the cinema feeling incredibly sorrowful, instead of hopeful for a new day. But it definitely speaks of the strength of the movie that it could move me so much. I still would definitely recommend this movie, although maybe, get the tissues ready.

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.

Review: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

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

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

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

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

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