Review: The Spectacular Now (2013)

Review: Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Rating: 9.5 out of 10

2016 is indeed the year of superhero battles. So I can’t really do this review without first mentioning Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice (reviewed here), which was previously released this year, because one is a masterclass of what not to do, while the other is a prime example of how to do it right. While BvS shat all over the characters in an overwrought and boring plot, Captain America: Civil War let all 12 of the characters shine and treated them with the utmost respect.

Respect is one thing that jumped to me the most. While having major disagreement in their opinion, Steve Rogers (a.k.a Captain America, played by Chris Evans) respects Tony Stark (a.k.a. Iron Man, played by Robert Downey Jr.) so much, and vice versa. Differences aside, they and the rest of their team genuinely considers each other as friends, and it pains them that they’re not on the same side. It’s a difficult situation to be in, and as unlikely as it may sound, Civil War succeeded not just as pandering of epic fight sequences; it’s also a character-based drama.

Civil War does have its trademark Marvel quick quips and fun moments, but for the most part, it’s an emotionally heavy film. I was almost emotionally exhausted after the end of the film–but for good reason, it was something you only feel after a really good film. Avengers movies (let’s be honest, Civil War is practically an Avengers movie) have always had big stakes, but they always had lighter feel to it, primarily because they usually have clear-cut victories. Civil War, though, typical for these “versus” kind of films, have a largely Pyrrhic victory that leaves both sides kinda broken. I repeat, which is a good thing, because that means the filmmakers treated the story with the gravity it deserves. Hat-tip to Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely as writers, and Russo Brothers as directors (all also worked in Captain America: The Winter Soldier), my favorite MCU film.

If I made it sound like it was an excruciating movie, I’m sorry, it really is not! It was still a really fun film that made me laughed out loud quite a few times. Spider-Man especially was one of the highlight of the movie. While I was initially unsure with the decision to de-age Peter Parker and the casting of Tom Holland, eventually it worked so well within the movie. The amateurish vibe of Spider-Man contrasted so well against our veteran heroes who carry the weight of the world on their shoulder. Also, the comments that come out to and from Spider-Man are just gold (”Remember that really old movie Empire Strikes Back?”). Black Panther also made memorable first appearance. In the limited screentime that he has, Chadwick Boseman played the character with such grace, dignity, and power definitely fit for a prince and a superhero–with enough glimpse of his backstory to get us excited for his upcoming solo movie.

The fight scenes are downright amazing. Its street fights are as amazing and as inventive as the ones in The Winter Soldier, but the superhero fights are on another level. Remember the ballet-like final fight in The Avengers? Civil War definitely rival that with 100% more excitement because they’re not fighting faceless minions, they’re fighting each other with each of their own “gimmick” and style.

But as much as Marvel tries to make each movie accessible to new filmgoers, Civil War is definitely more geared towards the people who’ve followed Marvel Cinematic Universe (particularly the Captain America and The Avengers movies) for a while. New viewers definitely would understand the plot, but they wouldn’t necessarily understand the gravity and details of the whole situation.

The plot is as simple and as difficult as you make it to be. The backbone of the story is simple: after the destruction of the town Sokovia (in The Avengers: Age of Ultron), United Nations wants to take lead of The Avengers because they deem the heroes dangerous if they go unchecked. Some of The Avengers agrees, some don’t. Even now, I’m not sure who I’m siding with, and the movie itself does not tell you which side is right one. Honestly, as much as I love Steve Rogers as a character, I’m more inclined to siding Stark (though I’m sure it’ll backfire one way or another in the future), and it pains me so much that Rogers couldn’t agree with him. Also, I’ve been wanting to tell you about a specific scene, I might as well put it here: In a scene that mirrors his first appearance in Captain America: The First Avenger, with the last of his strength, Rogers stood up from the ground against Iron Man–all in his Captain America glory–and says, “I could do this all day.” (If you’ve watched the first Captain America, you’d understand the significance.) It was a heartbreaking scene that floored me, but that’s a testament of how much the filmmakers understand the characters that they created.

TL;DR Not your run-of-the-mill superhero movie, Captain America: Civil War is a dense character-based drama with a whole lot of action. Heads up though, while this is a Captain America film, due to the nature of the story it really has an equal screentime between Rogers and Tony Stark, in case you have different expectations about it.

Review: Pitch Perfect 2 (2015)

Rating: 7.7 of 10

A sequel about an all-female college a capella group, The Barden Bellas’ fall from grace and rise to victory--there are a lot of things I appreciated in Pitch Perfect 2. I liked the fact that we were not forced to retread the same things all over again, even though there were similarities. I liked the fact that they didn’t shoehorn random conflicts between Beca (Anna Kendrick) and Jesse (Skylar Astin). I liked how they didn’t seem to aim for “bigger, faster, louder” approach that too often happen in sequels (and then ended up being worse), even though there were a bunch of celebrity cameos (even President Obama!) and that was quite fun.

There were also, a lot of flaws. The script was okay, but what hurt the movie the most was that it had uneven pacing, and sort of aimless. Until this time, I don’t even know who is supposed to be the lead character: is it Beca (most likely), or is it Emily (Hailee Steinfeld)? That is, honestly, the most damning thing I can think of when we talk about movies. Emily was cute and quirky enough but was absent too often from the scenes, while Beca was too distant for us to actually care. Anna Kendrick was gravely, gravely underused in this film, especially considering she was actually the focus of the movie. Those things could be alleviated if only the movie had stronger directing, but sadly, ultimately Pitch Perfect 2 was too “loose” to be a good movie. The movie improved a bit after the Bellas went into retreat and came out a group again (which was, admittedly, the point of the movie), but it was too little too late.

The rest of the characters didn’t fare any better. In the previous movie, the supporting characters (Cynthia Rose, Stacie, and Lilly) were also treated as comic relief and spoke almost entirely in one-liners, but they had something resembling character development and we ended up caring for them. This time, they were held back so far into irrelevance and almost completely replaced by one Guatemalan member, Flo (Chrissie Fit), who was the subject of 100% exclusively racist jokes with 0% development. Maybe they had ulterior motive--that they were using comedic lines to communicate the terrible things that happen there? Honestly, I don’t even know but it sure didn’t feel like it. 

There’s one other character that I hoped were used more: Jesse (Skylar Astin). I understand why he had such a small role in Pitch Perfect 2--there’s no place for him in the story--but I just wish we see him more because I actually think his charm might save the movie. Instead, we see Benji (Ben Platt) and Bumper (Adam DeVine) in his place. Benji was cute enough, but he doesn’t have Skylar Astin’s charm, and Bumper was too annoying for my taste in such extended role.

At the very least, Pitch Perfect 2 was still quite funny. Thankfully Fat Amy (Rebel Wilson) was still Fat Amy, and it was still glorious. Pitch Perfect’s humor always stood on the side of wrong and sharp, and I loved it.

The songs were good, but sadly not as memorable as the ones in the first Pitch Perfect, because I think they’re less unique. That didn’t stop me from toe-tapping, of course, and I still enjoyed them immensely (especially the Das Sound Machine ones). TL;DR That, sadly, also summarizes Pitch Perfect 2 perfectly: good but not memorable. 

Review: Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Rating: 7.0 of 10

The truth is, Jupiter Ascending is not a bad movie. It's just a completely mediocre one, and honestly that's almost as bad--or even worse--than being plain bad.

A space opera straight from the hands and minds of the Wachowski siblings (from the legendary The Matrix, Cloud Atlas), Jupiter Ascending tells the story of Jupiter (Mila Kunis), a young house cleaner unhappy with her life. After being chased and prodded around by mysterious creatures, with the help of one ex-space military (Channing Tatum) she found out that she was the exact genetic copy of a galactic queen and was set to inherit the Earth. (It might worth mentioning that Tatum's character, Caine, was said to be half-dog and half-human. Take that as you will.)

One thing I could say about Jupiter Ascending is that the visual is very striking. If anything, the Wachowski are gifted with excellent eyes for uniquely breathtaking science-fictional images and technologies. There’s more creativity in the design of this single movie than a dozen blockbusters in recent years combined, but unfortunately they felt empty because there's no plot or soul to back it up. The clothes and spaceships were astonishingly beautiful, the planets magnificent, the flying boots were really, really cool, and the action were actually pretty exciting, but there's a large sense of "So what?" looming over the entire film.

The core of the movie was meant to be held up by the romance between Jupiter and Caine, and that's where the movie falters. Not only there were no chemistry between the two lead actors, the protagonist herself was completely unengaging with almost no agency, and it made that much harder to connect and emote. There's a world of ideas buried beneath the intricate visuals--I even quite liked the randomness of the plot as it introduces us to multiple characters, if only a little meandering--but I ended up caring for the characters as much as I care for a paperbag. Which makes it a shame, because Jupiter Ascending really do have a potential to be great.

TL;DR In the end, Jupiter Ascending is a very pretty movie without a purpose, with it's only saving grace is that it has a really, really cool title*.

*Yes, I really do love planet Jupiter.

Surprisingly dark and layered, 2003′s underrated Peter Pan movie is my favorite Pan story. Please read and watch the movie (instead of the awful 2015′s Pan ;) )!

The best Peter Pan film is the one you’ve forgotten about

Look even a little past the surface, and Peter Pan is revealed as the tragic figure he is at heart. Yet only one version of the story has really acknowledged this. Not coincidentally, it’s by far the best one: P.J. Hogan’s 2003 film Peter Pan.

The Peter Pan of this film (Jeremy Sumpter) is a wounded creature. Like many troubled children, he reacts with hostility and violence when attacked, though the dangers that set him off here aren’t the physical kind posed by Captain Hook, but emotional ones that are threatening in their adultness. The film sees through his familiar traits, revealing his trademark cockiness and mischievousness as masks over underlying pain. When claims he wants only to be a boy and have fun, Wendy calls bullshit: “I think it is your biggest pretend.”

Remember that Pan’s ability to fly is contingent on not just fairy dust, but optimism; if he lets unhappy thoughts into his head, he will quite literally fall. This doesn’t result in a joyful character, but one in denial. When he plays a kind of word association game, pairing “jealousy” with Tinker Bell and “anger” with Hook, he claims ignorance at the word “love,” hissing that “the sound of it offends me.” While it’s never underlined in close-up, there’s a scar running across Sumpter’s heart.

Full story at avclub.com

Trailer: Pitch Perfect 2

Despite for my love for everything dark, I'm unashamed in my love for Pitch Perfect. So here's a trailer for the sequel! Out May 15th 2015, starring Anna Kendrick, Hailee Steinfeld.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TV Shoutout: Mr. Robot

Mr. Robot is a fresh new show, but it quickly captured our attention and we don’t want you to miss it!

What it is about: Elliot Alderson (Rami Malek) is a socially-challenged cyber-security engineer who moonlights as a hacking vigilante, and discovers a hacking group with a mysterious endgame.

Why you should watch it: Plenty of things, from big to small details, set Mr. Robot apart from other courses we usually have on TV. Firstly, it is one of very few shows on TV that accurately portrays hacking—and the life and technology around it (Sam Esmail, the creator, was a coder I believe). For the ones who care, it is a very big deal since the portrayal of technology in most TV and movies has generally been... questionable.

Secondly, Mr. Robot explores the ongoing, and very relevant, fight between 99-percenters vs 1-percenters. Which might sound too vague and nebulous for some, but Mr. Robot smartly keeps the focus small—focusing on Elliot and the people he encounters instead. To keep things short, I’d just say Elliot himself is also a very interesting character, brought to life by Rami Malek’s intense talent.

Mr. Robot is also a very beautiful show to watch with a cinematic flair, and there are little touches that makes the show feel inherently progressive. Although definitely not in any significant roles (except one, for now), an Indian man, a Chinese, a gay, and young woman with hijab had all been portrayed during the total 2 episodes that had aired. It also recognizes the presence of misogyny in the tech world, and in general Mr. Robot is a very prescient show.

And it’s a damn good thriller.

Who should watch it: The ones who enjoy psychological thriller—especially Fight Club in regards to Elliot’s psychological state and Mr. Robot’s nihilism (and fans are calling it, there might be Tyler Durden-esque twist coming!)—or just general thriller, really. The techies. The paranoids, the secret anarchists, and just general TV/movie lover.

Where you should start: It’s been only a couple of episodes, so yeah, from the start. You can jump ahead to whatever episode airing, but you’ll miss the brilliant, movie-like pilot.

Status: 2 of 10 episodes already aired, and second season has been greenlighted due to strong buzz!

Bonus: The first 4-minute clip of Mr. Robot, watch!

Coming soon: Avengers: Age Of Ultron (2015) Review

We have early release here (and I’ve seen it), but I’ll hold off the review until this week’s Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Stay tuned!

Review: Rise Of The Guardians (2012)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

From Dreamworks and the group of people who brought How To Train Your Dragon to life (according to the poster), here comes another animated tale called Rise Of The Guardians. And it was just as brilliant.

Jack Frost (voiced by Chris Pine), is a menace. He is a far cry from Santa Claus a.k.a. North (Alec Baldwin), Easter Bunny (Hugh Jackman), Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher), and Sandman who each did hardwork and vowed to protect and care for the children for ever. But somehow, when a new threat in the form of Pitch “Boogeyman” Black (Jude Law) came into town, Jack Frost was picked to help the rest of The Guardians.

The premise is not exactly new, and the choice of characters are definitely not new. Santa? Easter Bunny? They each have been portrayed in stories hundreds of times before (or thousands in the case of Santa Claus), but not quite like this. Santa, or North as the movie calls him, is two-parts Russian/one part biker/one part pirate/one part handicraftsman. Bunny is the ultimate macho-man, Tooth is a woman-bird-dragonfly hybrid with tiny little helpers, and Sandman is the cutest mute sandy being of all time. Jack Frost is a punk, and Pitch Black is a skeevy, slithery villain in black robe who turns dreams into nightmares (I’m amused that he’s Jude Law, in a role I always imagined him to be). Every hero (yes, because they’re basically superheroes protecting the children) and villain is definitely fully inspired by the myth and lore we are familiar with, but with clear enough twist to make the universe felt new, exciting, and lived in. Did you know that Yeti, not elves, is the one that makes toys for Santa? 

And more importantly, they built on the characters. Each of the characters have their own backstory but when you realize that each of the Guardians used to be living, breathing humans it all became that much more poignant. 

Leaving out of the theater, I started to think that maybe the biggest message from the film is not for the kids but for the adults. Sure it teaches kids that the world is full of wonder and possibilities, or that bad things might exist but we need not fear them—it even teaches self-worth and sense of duty. But we, the adults, are also reminded that the world is a magical place and we need that wide-eyed attitude in life. When North told Jack about his Matryoshka doll, or Tooth explained why she always collects children’s teeth, you start to understand the importance of childhood. Hence, it is not a coincidence that this movie is one of the most magical children’s movie I’ve ever seen.

The genius thing is, while Rise of The Guardians is not a properly holiday movie (unless you count Easter as a proper holiday—I don’t) it felt absolutely festive. It has genuinely exciting action sequences too, and in general the animation is absolutely beautiful. We slide and fly along with the Guardians and it gets ever more exciting each time. Yes it does not have an absolutely unique storyline (it follows the general trajectory of a “rise to a hero” story), but it pays its existence with a genuine heart, a sense of wonder, and believable characters.

TL;DR With its plentiful action sequences and a hint of darkness it imparted at some places, Rise of The Guardians is a magical ride perfectly suited for bigger and more cynical kids—kids, being “real” kids and the kids inside all of you.

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.