Review: Doctor Strange (2016)

Review: Earth To Echo (2014)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

A group of kids on their very last night together (because they were about to move and the neighbourhood about to be torn down to create a freeway) happened to find a crashed alien, and went on an overnight adventure to get him home. If it sounds like a mixture of E.T. and The Goonies, that's because it completely is, but Earth To Echo managed to stand its ground instead of simply being an inferior mimic.

The plot itself wasn't revolutionary--and frankly wasn't that different from E.T.--but what elevated this movie was how genuine the friendship was. The kids, all played by "unknown" child actors (Teo Halm, Brian Bradley, Reese Hartwig, Ella Wahlesstedt), were very natural and felt like real friends. They also acted exactly as kids and not act how sometimes Hollywood thinks children act like. That was the appeal of The Goonies, and that was the appeal of Earth To Echo. A lot of the performances in Earth To Echo were actually improv, so that helped a lot in making sure the scenes play as naturally as possible.

Earth To Echo moved at fairly fast pace and that helps a lot, but the film also packed a lot of genuine emotions. Each of the kids had their own backstory that shaped who they were, and the looming dread of future separation felt real enough and added a layer of poignancy to the story. While the film clearly had connections to 1980s through its spiritual predecessor, Earth To Echo felt very now and didn't try invoke 80′s nostalgia (that could be overbearing in some movies); it had cellphones, GPS, and Google Maps, and a cute little alien with Minority Report-esque aesthetic. Actually, Earth To Echo reminded me of Chronicle more than anything (probably because I’m not a generation of E.T. and The Goonies), and here might be my obligatory mention that Earth To Echo was shot in found-footage style--but for me it wasn’t annoying or overly shakey and it actually had some neat trick regarding Echo's vision.

TL;DR Once you get past the obvious (and lazy) comparison, Earth To Echo is a sweet little movie about kids and friendship--with surprisingly good acting and genuine emotions.

Review: Crimson Peak (2015)

Rating: 8.5 of 10

In its barest bones, Crimson Peak is about a young American woman, Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska), who falls in love with a British aristocrat, Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston), with his own complicated relationship with his sister (Jessica Chastain) and mysterious heritage. Things aren't as straightforward as it seems, of course, and in Crimson Peak, it involves secrets and ghosts in the opulent house of Allerdale Hall.

Crimson Peak is gorgeous. Del Toro's (Pacific Rim, Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) movies are always exquisite in its visual, but Crimson Peak is the most outright beautiful. Rich in color and complex in its texture, the whole of Crimson Peak is a marvel to behold, most notably is their costume and the house of Allerdale Hall. The house itself (a three-storied house, built in a full 7 months, and has 2 complete sets of furniture of varying sizes depending on which scenes they shoot) is a real set built in Canada specifically for the film, and the little details put into it are mindblowing.

All that trouble paid off, thankfully (tenfold, if you ask me). The house has a deep, haunting atmosphere--magnifying its macabre. Despite not being a proper horror movie, Crimson Peak has imageries that haunt you for days if not for how eerie it was, then for how beautiful, or both. Honestly, it’s more than I can say for most horror movies.

One major flaw of Crimson Peak is that it’s not a horror movie, despite the fact that it looks like one and is marketed like one. Instead, it’s a love story that is not particularly scary, but is definitely on the creepy side.

Tom Hiddleston is effortless in playing the many sides of Thomas Sharpe--the dazzling lover, the struggling business man, and the ominous villain. I’m not usually a fan of Wasikowska, but here she is a perfect blend of everything Edith represents and I wouldn’t have her any other way. I was, however, underwhelmed by Jessica Chastain performance for most of the movie excepting maybe the final act. She’s the only chip on my shoulder that makes Crimson Peak isn’t perfect for me, but she doesn’t negate all the things the movie got right. In short, I honestly don’t get why people don’t seem to love it as much as I think it deserves.

TL;DR Creepy and weirdly sensual, Crimson Peak is a hauntingly beautiful piece of art.

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.

Web Shoutout: Actors on Actors

Welcome to Web Shoutout, a series highlighting interesting places in the interwebs about movies and filmmaking! (Check out the previous Web Shoutout here).

This time I want to talk about Variety’s Actors on Actors series on Youtube. These days, I think most people seem to forget that acting is an art--and a very challenging one at that. It’s easy for us to forget about that and get lost in the glitz-and-glam part of a celebrity life, because they don’t really get to talk much about the craft of acting. Most interviews that we see are either promotional interviews or a 5-minute conversation in a talk show (that undoubtedly will include a cute random trivia). Which, they’re not inherently bad but they always leave me wanting more

Distinguishing itself from those kinds of interviews, I find Actors on Actors incredibly delightful to see, if only because it brings me so much joy to see a conversation between two people that relate and respect one another. Obviously, we also get to hear in-depth stories about their experiences as an actor, the roles that they picked, and how they do their craft. I’ll just leave you a with several videos to enjoy, and also don’t forget to take a look at their channel and Actors on Actors playlist.

1. Ryan Reynolds and Taraji P Henson - Full Conversation

2. Andrew Garfield and Amy Adams - Why Playing Spider-Man Broke Andrew Garfield’s Heart

3. Octavia Spencer and Dev Patel - Full Conversation

4. Benedict Cumberbatch and Edward Norton - Full Conversation

Subscribe to Variety’s channel.

Music Shoutout: The Libertines - Anthems For Doomed Youth

First, Let Me Tell You About The Libertines...

(TL;DR If you only want to read about their new album, scroll way, way down below until the next section, below the horizontal line.)

Generally, Music Shoutout is a place where I talk about relatively unknown or (in my humble opinion) underrated bands, and while The Libertines isn’t exactly unknown–even downright legendary, depending on who you ask–they aren’t as famous as one diehard indie rock-fan would like to think. Their names weren’t as recognizable outside the UK, and in my home country Indonesia, you’d be better off talking about These New Puritans or something (meaning: nobody’s really heard of them both, but you’d be hard-pressed to explain how big The Libs’ influence was). So I’m writing this Shoutout as a primer (sort of) for those who aren’t familiar with them, because their heyday was 11 years ago anyway so you were maybe like, 4 years old at the time. 

In honesty I feel a bit unequipped to be talking about The Libertines, because there are already so many articles about them written by actual music journalists who, of course, could form words far more eloquently than I do. But now, obviously, is the perfect time to talk about them since they had just released their third album (!), Anthems For Doomed Youth, after a decade-long hiatus. 

The Libertines is a British indie-rock band, composed of lead frontmen/songwriters/vocalists/guitarists/best friends Carl Barat and Pete Doherty (middle-left and middle-right, respectively, in the first group picture above), bassist John Hassall (far-right), and drummer Gary Powell (far-left). They were formed in 1997 and released their first studio album “Up The Bracket” in 2002, reached critical praise and commercial success, released sophomore album self-titled “The Libertines” as a candid account on the mostly-love-but-also-hate relationship between the two frontmen Pete and Carl, and the band dissolved soon afterwards. Their time was short but eventful–with enough history to fill up tabloids full of gossip and several documentaries–but to summarize, it included drugs and betrayal:

“The Libertines legend is action-packed. The full story involves inter-band burglary, toe-curling TV documentaries, Thai monasteries and EastEnders’ Dot Cotton, but the basic facts are thus: group form in 1997, around the fraternal friendship of Doherty and Barât (along with bassist John Hassall and drummer Gary Powell); write songs indebted to both the Clash and Chas and Dave; break down the barriers between artists and fans like no British group since punk; then fall apart when Doherty’s drug intake becomes too much to handle; Barât boots his best friend out of the band until he cleans up his act; the ensuing drama (involving burglary, jail and more drugs) captivates fans until they begin to realise that the Libertines story was all over before it had even begun.” The Guardian.

They were somewhat notorious-and/or-famous in the UK--and while they weren’t quite as much a phenomenon outside of UK, for those initiated, The Libertines made a lasting impression. With startlingly new(-ish, because they certainly had influences from way back) and shocking sound at the time, the band captivated critics and fans alike. They quickly earned massive and extremely dedicated fanbase, while both of their albums routinely listed in Best Albums Of 2000s lists, if not Of All Time, in various publications. Think Oasis, if only a notch below. They had lasting legacy too, with bands like Arctic Monkeys and Franz Ferdinand would not reach the charts without The Libertines (in a similar way, US’ The Strokes paved the way for The Libertines itself).

To the untrained ear, their music might sound like a mess. They are a mess, so to speak, because of their deliberately rough-edged sound, but if one really listens they’d find great lyrical poetry and beautiful melodies beneath the band’s veil of chaos. (watch: Can’t Stand Me Now, and France). And when fans dubbed Pete as true poet, they aren’t joking. He is actually a published poet, and according to one trivia, at age 16 won a poetry competition and went on a tour to Russia for it. Carl is also a literary fan and frequently cited authors as his influences. (the band’s name is taken from Marquis de Sade’s Lust of the Libertines. The song Narcissist is also inspired by Oscar Wilde’s Dorian Gray). Along with British-style wit, self-deprecating charm, and blue-collar worker spirit, that juxtaposition connected with and enlightened sparks of life inside a whole generation of music listeners; most especially the hardened British middle-class worker ones. (watch: Time For Heroes, based on London May Day Riot of 2000)

“It’s like they say: Oasis is the sound of a council estate singing its heart out, and the Libertines is the sound of someone just put in the rubbish chute at the back of the estate, trying to work out what day it was.” Pete Doherty trying to explain their sound.

But judging The Libertines from their published recordings alone is only ill-advised. The band was defined by their adventures almost as well as their music, if not more. They are one of the bands that pioneered using the internet (in the pre-Twitter world) for directly communicating with fans and built a community around it--and they are also the kind of band that used to brand loyal fans with tattoos, played gigs in their own house that once resulted in police interference and sang through it with The Clash cover like it was just another day (watch that old gig), and also gladly sang through a stage-breaking fan like it was, also, another day (watch The Boy Looked At Johnny live performance with one overenthusiastic fan). In true Libertines spirit, of course, they haven’t stopped. They still do, to this day, play “guerilla” gigs--small, intimate, and mostly impromptu gigs--in teeny-tiny clubs, and most recently deviced a pop-up store and a week-long shenanigans with the band (including pub quiz!) for fans to welcome their newest album. From the start, it was clear The Libertines had their own special presence in the music industry, and they had always brought fans-slash-friends along for the ride.

It’s easy to see why fans felt exceptionally strong bond with the band, but it’s also quite hard to explain exactly the allure of The Libertines to the people who’ve never heard or seen them, and especially hard to explain to those who don’t really understand the appeal of the dirty side of rock n’ roll. Not that I imply that The Libertines is the pinnacle of dirty rock ‘n roll–they clearly aren’t–but they don’t try to be “hardcore” or anything like that, and therefore in my eyes, makes them really, really are. My point is, The Libertines’ charm isn’t quantifiable or even explainable, they’re just something that you believe in. To this day, fans would do pilgrimage to staple places of the band’s history (such as Albion Rooms–Pete and Carl’s old flat in which they sometimes held said gig–or a London alley from Up The Bracket’s music video (watch) in which fans would still inscribe drawings or quotes on the wall). The band’s live performances, of course, are always pure, frantic, and kind of unhinged that the fans will always know that their watching the bands’ true self.

“Other groups sold out bigger venues, had more hits and made better albums – but no other band gave music fans something to believe in quite like the Libertines.” The Guardian. 

In their own way, The Libertines would frequently remind you of a fiendishly fierce whirlwind romance, because maybe they are one. Pete and Carl’s relationship is hard to explain except maybe in one word: soulmates. In an interview talking about how they met, Pete said about Carl, “I was fascinated by ideas he had about himself and the country. I’d never met anyone like him. It was - what’s the word when you can’t take your eyes off someone? …Yes, it was riveting. Despite everything, you knew there was goodness there. Something to believe in. Something which is good, pure and untainted by anything.” And Carl said, “I think I felt a bit trapped before I met Pete. Have you seen The Lavender Hill Mob? Alec Guinness plays this wonderful, colourful person who locks it all up and goes through the motions. I always felt a bit like that. But then I met the Pigman (ed: nickname for Pete) and he said, ‘You can actually knock that on the head and get out.’ So we threw ourselves into eternity. And it worked.” While they most assuredly aren’t couples or lovers (because love comes in more than one kind, we aren’t five year-olds), their relationship was indeed like “first love, and all the jealousy and obsessiveness that comes with that”. Their mutual love and respect continued, even when they were apart and hated each other, and it is that fuel that burns the band. They’re one of the greatest pairing in modern musical world–always bouncing off to one another on stage and have a habit of singing on a single microphone. They’re the ultimate bros, on stage and off stage, and it’s that bond that captivated listeners too.  

An Anthem For Doomed Youth...

A third The Libertines album might sound so far-fetched not even a year ago, but here we are, rejoicing its release and finally listening to their newest album Anthems For Doomed Youth. More than a decade have passed by and no one stayed the same after 11 years, and so didn’t The Libertines. I didn’t really follow Pete’s music during the hiatus (he did have a really good solo album, though), but through Carl’s wildly different stuff throughout the years (Dirty Pretty Things, solo album, Carl Barat and The Jackals) it was clear that no one could stay the same. So The Libertines have evolved, and considering how much of their spirit relied on the chaos of youth--and they aren’t exactly young anymore, that’s good.

The album might sound uncharacteristically clean at first, but every bit of The Libertines is still there--if a little bit more mature, for lack of better word. The album might lack a sense of urgent charm that their albums used to have, but they make it up with a more competent, sympathetic, and introspective touch around their usual themes: intermittent self-aggrandizing and self-pity, lament of lost innocence, and full-on romanticism. Maybe the most stark difference can be felt through You’re My Waterloo, an old track (an ode from Pete to Carl) from the band’s back catalogue. Never been officially released but frequently played, this piano-heavy version have a sweeter, gentler vibe throughout the song that we maybe would not get from the old Libertines. 

Treading the line between glories past and present, Anthems of Doomed Youth is definitely an older, wiser version of The Libertines, but they’re still the likely lads that we knew.. And for new listeners: just sit back and enjoy, it’ll be a good ride.

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.

Music Shoutout: Bernhoft

Bernhoft or Bern/hoft, sometimes also known by his full name Jarle Bernhoft, is a singer and musician from Norway. He's pretty well-known in his home country and part of Europe, but trust me when I say he really should be worldwide famous. With unique musical sensibilities that is drenched in soul and funk, he's the grooviest white man you'll ever meet and you know it.

If you listen to his recorded songs and albums and think, "Eeeeeh, this guy is pretty good, I guess," wait until you see his live performances. With the help of loop machine, he plays all the instruments himself and magically always sound like he has a full band with him. (Basically, for the Orphan Black crowd, he's virtually the Tatiana Maslany of music ;) ) Honestly, it'd be a gimmick if he weren't so good at it, but he somehow makes it all seem so naturally easy.

He already had 3 irresistible solo albums: Ceramik City Chronicles, Solidarity Breaks (buy), and most recently Islander (buy). Each of them had somewhat different vibes, but equally good. Being a well-rounded musician that he is, of course, the "gimmick" isn't all that he is. If you're interested, he also published live performances that he did with orchestral companion (with album Walk With Me (buy)), and also with actual band (in the double CD, 1:Man 2:Band). All of that showed that yes, there is nothing that he could not do. Oh, and he was also nominated for the Grammy Awards for his album Islander, so there’s that.

So, check him out already!

Disclaimer: All videos embed and linked above are for promotional purposes only. Please support the artist legally!

Review: Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them (2016)

Rating: 8.8 of 10

Five years after the last Harry Potter movie, and fifteen years after the first, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is the first cinematic continuation of the universe that does not directly include Harry Potter himself.

In the center of the movie is Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, a mild-mannered beasts expert from the British Ministry of Magic. He has this demeanor about him—a little hunched back, soft spoken, never really look at people straight on—that is so endearing you’d never want to take your eyes of him whenever he’s on screen. He befriends Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), a wide eyed No-Maj who dreams of something bigger; Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), a quirky yet determined MACUSA employee; and Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol), Tina’s sister and coworker and a bubbly mind-reader. Fantastic Beasts is full of fun and memorable secondary characters that help make the universe felt so rich. 

Also, we get to see the culture of wizardry in the US and the workings of MACUSA  (US’s version of Ministry of Magic), that includes an Auror played by Colin Farrell (he is unexpectedly perfect as a wizard, and also has the coolest outfit. Although I may or may not want to steal everybody’s wardrobe from this movie). The titular wild creatures are also infinitely weird, cute, and strangely endearing. 

Fantastic Beasts is not a perfect movie, but honestly, you won’t really care. The second act should feel draggy and aimless, but the whole time you’d be too busy being mesmerized by all the wonders and charm the movie, the beasts, and the characters had to offer. By all means, Fantastic Beasts will definitely fill that Harry Potter-shaped void in your heart.

There are 2 major plots in Fantastic Beasts: Plot A is about Newt and his friends running throughout New York to find his missing beasts, while Plot B is about Grindelwald and the Second Salem movement that will eventually tie into the rise of Voldemort in later years. They both have very different atmostphere about them, and it’s pretty amazing that they didn’t feel disjointed at all. Newt’s subplot with the creatures and his friends is cute and charming, while the Second Salem goes way, way darker than you’d expect.

Ultimately, Fantastic Beasts is a fluff piece. It’s cute and light and whimsical (when it’s not directly tied to Grindelwald) but I wouldn’t have it any other way. As of now, there are talks for sequels that will focus further into the story of Grindelwald, and less into Newt Scamander. That makes me sad, really, because it’ll be a shame to say goodbye to these lovable characters and creatures.

TLDR; Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is as whimsical as you'd expect from Harry Potter universe, and indeed, fantastic. (I regret nothing writing that.)

Review: Beck (2010)

Rating: 7.5 of 10

Yukio "Koyuki" Tanaka's (Takeru Sato) was an ordinary—somewhat a loser — high school student but his life soon changed when he met Ryusuke Minami (Hiro Mizushima), a fellow teenager determined to build a band and make it in the rock world. Beck, also the name of the band (after Ryusuke's dog), follows the band’s story and their rise to fame.

Beck is a live action adaptation of a critically acclaimed and highly popular manga and anime series of the same name. In case you pay attention to the actor's name above, I won't lie that partly the reason I'm interested in it was because it also had Takeru Sato who I loved in Rurouni Kenshin. The other reason, was because my boyfriend recommended me the story many times but I had never made up my mind which version I'd go into first. The actor just tipped the scale a bit into the live action.

That said, while I thought Sato was cute as the shy Koyuki (and I definitely see proto-Kenshin in his character), I found the other actors inhabit their characters much more fully. Mizushima had his swagger dead-on as the charismatic but volatile guitarist Ryusuke (with almost perfect English, too), Osamu Mukai as the cool blooded bassist Taira, Aoi Nakamura as happy-go-lucky Saku, Kenta Kiritani as the unsheathed Chiba, and Shiori Kutsuna as the somewhat-annoyed-but-supportive sister Maho. And from the images I saw, they actually look a lot like their manga and anime counterparts too, which is always a big bonus. They also have incredible chemistry with each other, and immediately felt like brothers from the get go.

The first part of the film felt a little bit clunky as it tries to accommodate both Koyuki's and Ryusuke's sides of life, but immediately gelled after the band formed. It really was a delight to see the band coming and playing together, and it wasn't only because of their chemistry but also because their music was genuinely good (especially for movies). The storyline could be more focused as it tries to fit in various subplots, as is often the case with a lot of adaptation from serialized material, but that is pretty minor.

But the biggest mistake, in my opinion, is having KOYUKI NOT SING AT ALL. Koyuki was billed as the one with angelic voice, capable of silencing thousands of people with awe in their shows, but the movie actually muted him out focusing instead on the instruments. I understand the director's decision to make him not actually sing because whatever they showed might not be on par with what we imagine, but for me it was downright annoying. If you're not familiar with "Chekhov's gun" rule, it is basically a "rule" in storytelling in which, for example, if you introduce a gun in the first act, then by the third act you really should have made them go off. Don't make promises or teases something you can't keep. In my opinion Koyuki really is worse than Chekhov's gun! Especially once I found out that Sato actually did some singing in the past, but like that mattered anyway. They could've easily hire a proper singer to do the singing part if he were not up to par. The movie actually ended in a pretty satisfying climax with the band performing in front of a big crowd, but with Koyuki not singing it was quite hard to not feel at least a bit disappointed. This "little" detail is actually what brought the movie down from a possible 8.0 into a 7.5 for me.

TL;DR In conclusion, Beck is a pretty charming, pretty benign live adaptation —if you could get over from the absence of singing in Koyuki's part.

Review: Cek Toko Sebelah (2016)

Rating: 7.0 out of 10

Cek Toko Sebelah is the second feature film from Ernest Prakasa, an Indonesian stand-up comedian turned writer/actor/director. Cek Toko Sebelah tells the story of Erwin (Ernest Prakasa), a succesful young man on the verge of a promotion, his screw-up brother Yohan (Dion Wiyoko), and their father Koh Afuk (Chew Kin Wah) who leaves Erwin with his small business.

Cek Toko Sebelah has a simple but powerful premise, and it has a promising start. It establishes characters pretty well, filled with witty dialogue including some laugh-out-loud moments, but everything seems to go downhill from there. Ultimately, Cek Toko Sebelah is a typical Indonesian movie, played out in a typical Indonesian fashion: very linear, unimaginative storyline with one dimensional characters. In Cek Toko Sebelah, the story writes itself, and not in a good way. Everything plays out basically exactly like you'd expect with little to no surprises, especially during the first and second act. The characters' storyline does not intertwine in any meaningful way, with minimal character development. The movie does offer good laughs, but everything else is not enough for me. Fortunately on the third act, things started to get a little more exciting, and it does slightly redeems itself.

What's frustrating is, Cek Toko Sebelah has the potential to be an extremely good character-based family drama/comedy. Instead, it only reaches for the easy low hanging fruit, and is either unwilling, or unable to aim higher. Erwin's character is ripe for conflict, but ultimately, he has given nothing to lose. The writer thinks that everything that's being thrown at Erwin is conflict, but Erwin is not given time to process it--and neither was the audience--so ultimately they did not become conflict. They were just stuff. Stuff that happens. Cek Toko Sebelah is a film that does not dare to hurt the characters, therefore it becomes a relatively uncompelling viewing experience. Yohan's dark past is hinted, but is wholly unexplored, and the movie is afraid to put obstacles in front of him. Natalie (Gisella Anastasia), Erwin's girlfriend, has exactly one purpose in the movie (being the nagging girlfriend), and the only attempt to give Ayu (Adinia Wirasti), Yohan's wife, a dimension besides being, y'know, "Yohan's wife", falls flat. The only compelling character is Koh Afuk, largely because of Chew Kin Wah nuanced portrayal. This father figure is not perfect: reserved, cynical, stubborn, but he cares deeply about his family and his employees. He does not say much, but Kin Wah was able to carry it all with authenticity and wit, that we could not help but to fall in love with his character.

Aside from family, there's another theme explored in this movie: living as a Chinese-Indonesian in Indonesia. On that account, Cek Toko Sebelah is very successful in showing the nuances of their everyday lives. Ernest Prakasa himself is Chinese-Indonesian, and he frequently talks about it back from his stand-up comedy days, so it's not surprising. Diversity overall, is a win here. But there are also some problematic social treatments in this movie. I was really hoping that this movie would be above resorting to male gaze for jokes, but with how the males treat Anita's (Yeyen Lidya) character repeatedly, apparently not. In general, the female characters in this movie are uninspired at best. It also features typical Indonesian representation of an LGBT character (a comic relief that other characters laugh at), which while it is funny, only cements the stereotype.

I hope I do not come across as mean or nitpicking, or unsupportive of local films. I really, really do hope for quality filmmaking in Indonesia and this is my way of supporting it. TL;DR Cek Toko Sebelah offers good diversity, some pretty funny moments, but serviceable characters.