Review: Cek Toko Sebelah (2016)

Review: Fast & Furious 7 (2015)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Furious 7 (obviously my preferred alternate title), naturally, is the 7th installment of Fast & Furious franchise, and every ounce of it just oozes everything we have come know and love of the franchise. TL;DR Basically if you love the previous movies you'll love this one, and if you loathe those films then... why are you watching this one anyway? The franchise, which had lived for an outstanding 14 years, had the money-making formula down to a science (it had to if it wants to stay on top of box office), but still managed to scramble new things from here and there. So let me break down the formula for you.

Family Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) is all about family, a principle that he had carried from even back then in the first movie. The previous movie was quite clever at inventing a villain the exact opposite of Dom: someone that meant business and only business. In 7, the reversal was reversed again. This time, the villain Deckard Shaw (the always intimidating Jason Statham) was loyal to his family as much as Dom to his own, avenging his brother who died in the hands of our protagonist. In Dom's side, the loss of Han was palpable and a gaping hole was left, in the way that is rarely felt in an action-based movie when a brother was lost.

Insane car chases + amazing fights The theme this week is flying cars, ladies and gentlemen! Seriously, I've never seen that many cars flying in the air in any single movie, ever. It was like the writers were talking about how to make the car chase sequences exciting again, and one of them exclaimed in a half joking manner, "We make them fly!" and lightbulbs lit up in every one of them, scrambling to write ideas in their teeny tiny notebook. And every single moment of it was glorious. Was it realistic? Abso-freakin'-lutely not. But do we care? Not in the slightest.

The man-on-man (or woman, either way) combats were great too. It also includes incredible hand-to-hand combat between Vin Diesel and Jason Statham because otherwise, why the hell do you hire both of them in the same movie. And Dwayne Johnson firing machine guns to conclude things, because reasons. But my favorite moment was not even a fight, it was when Dom and Shaw goes on head to head with their car, and nobody flinched. It wasn’t only crazy, it was a great character moment too, showing how determined and relentless they both were.

The action sequences does run a bit heavy and long, leaving very little time for proper plotting or character building, but for the most part they still tread the line between excitement and overabundance pretty carefully.

Scantily clad women Some of you might be lying if you say you didn't come to watch Fast & Furious (aside for the cars, obviously)for the girls in bikinis who are not anywhere near a pool. The good news for you that do: yes, there are those girls. The good news for me and the ones that don't come for them: they were shot in such over-the-top way that I'm pretty sure they were added as a kind of mockery. It was bullsh*t and the movie knows it. Especially when there was a scene in the same movie in which Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) rescued Ramsey (Nathalie Emmanuel) after unsuccessful attempt by other guys, then Ramsey asks, "But who's gonna rescue us!?" and Letty answers in the most reassuring, "Nope, we're it." In this universe, women rule too.

Everybody's a badass It came to my attention that Fast & Furious is one of few action franchises that is truly inclusive. Everybody, not limited to race, age, and gender, can be a badass: from the furiously skilled Thai villain (Tony Jaa); a blonde, female bodyguard backed up by uniformed women in hijab; a female Spanish FBI agent; to middle-aged white guy (Kurt Russell), all had chance to shine. In a more intellectual role, there's also the English, woman-of-color hacker Ramsey. I was glad to see that Furious 7 followed the same pattern that the previous movies started.

Goodbye Paul Walker (mild spoiler) The biggest blow to the movie was the sudden death of Paul Walker who played main protagonist, Brian O'Connor. The filming was completed with the help of his brother as stand-in and CGI (yes, it was still as creepy as when Tron: Legacy tried to pull it off with CGI Jeff Bridges), but the result was a very sweet coda. Brian was shown retiring from his dangerous life to live with his happy family—his story concluded with a peaceful drive with his "brother" Dom. It was particularly heartbreaking if you realize that when Dom said he'd never say goodbye to Brian because he's his brother, probably Vin Diesel really meant it for Paul Walker too (they were really close in real life to, to my knowledge). Also heartbreaking: when they were in Han's funeral and they were all saying, "No more funerals." Damn, if only we knew.

As of now, Fast & Furious 8 might be happening in the future, even without Paul Walker. Like they said in the movie, it will be different, but hopefully it will be just as fun.

Web Shoutout: Academy Originals

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

This episode, I’m going to talk about Academy Originals, a Youtube channel of video series produced by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, of the Academy Awards (or might be best known as The Oscars) fame. For all the problems existing inside The Academy Awards, almost surprisingly, Academy Originals consistently puts out extremely sincere and inspiring videos about people working in the industry. They usually feature dedicated, extremely talented people of professions closely linked to filmmaking--sometimes even professions you might have never heard about or thought about. They talk about why they do what they do, and how they do it, and they always leave me inspired (and makes me wish I can be that person). For anyone who loves to find love in filmmaking processes, this channel would certainly feed your soul every Monday.

Just check out these videos, hand-picked from the channel!

1. “Credited As: Creature Performer” -  Tom Woodruff (Aliens, Jumanji, Zookeeper)

2. “ Academy Close-Up: Conservators” - Conservation team of Academy's Margaret Herrick Library

3. “Creative Spark: Theodore Shapiro” -  Theodore Shapiro, Composer (The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Tropic Thunder, The Devil Wears Prada)

4. Questions: What Was The First Movie That Scared You?

Subscribe to Academy Originals.

Review: Frank (2014)

Rating: 9.2 of 10

What do you do when you cast Michael Fassbender in your film? Not cover his face for the entirety of the film, unless your film is Frank.

Frank follows the story of an amateur keyboardist, Jon (Domhnall Gleeson), as he becomes the newest member of experimental rock band The Soronprfbs, lead by titular character Frank (Michael Fassbender) who wears a fake big head and never takes it off.

It's a bizzare concept to begin with (which was actually inspired by a true “big head” musician), but the movie, somehow, felt normal. Despite its heavily unusual premise, Frank isn't avant garde at all--it's just a drama about a few weird people intermixed with a few weird songs, and basically that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. Frank is honest, a little disarming, but an ultimately charming film. In a weird way, Frank is about what it feels like to be a mediocre artist--and in another way, about how it’s like to be with the mentally ill.

The most important thing to be discussed about Frank, for me, is the acting and/or casting. Domhnall Gleeson is cast quite often as an "everyman" type of character, and for good reason. He's not only got the range, he also is able to infuse unexpected shades of personality into his characters. Jon is wide-eyed as he is misguided, a visionaire as he is a cynic, and hopeful as he is selfish.

But Michael Fassbender as Frank, is definitely something special. We can't see his face, but we emote to him instantly. With every way he stands, sits, talks, and twitch his hands, you'd never once at lost as to how he is feeling. It's a beautiful performance that we almost never think twice about, which is a hard feat considering he wears a literal fake giant head. But my favorite part of him is (mild spoiler alert) actually how his demeanor changes when he doesn't wear the head. It's subtle acting that definitely makes a movie. Even Maggie Gyllenhaal is kind of restrained in her role as the troublemaking band member, Clara.

But acting isn't the only thing that works in this film. Its score was a delight, especially in the early part of the film which sounds so whimsical and airy--almost kid adventure-like--sending Jon off into his journey. In general, the movie Frank is filled with restrained but effective directorial choices, without trying too hard or being too muted (which for me, is the case with a lot of indie films). It’s a wonderful film to watch.

"Road to fame" band films are a dime in a dozen, but TL;DR Frank, with the help of few amazing performances from its actors, brings a new twist worth seeing.

Review: Filosofi Kopi 2: Ben & Jody (2017)

Rating: 8.3 of 10

After two years of running traveling coffee shop, Ben (Chicco Jerikho) and Jody (Rio Dewanto) return and re-open Filosofi Kopi in Jakarta. An investor, Tarra (Luna Maya), and new employees bring new opportunities and new challenges.

I really like Filosofi Kopi 2. It’s is a good piece of Indonesian filmmaking, and while I do have some minor criticism towards it, ultimately Filosofi Kopi 2 succeeds in telling a satisfying story.

The biggest and most important part of Filosofi Kopi 2 is the cast. Chicco Jerikho and Rio Dewanto not only brought their A-game in acting, they also infused a lot of personality into their characters. Although the movie did have some efforts in developing Ben and Jody’s characters, the biggest part of their characters come from the physicality that both Chicco Jerikho and Rio Dewanto brought into screen. They really embody their characters perfectly.

But for me, the highlight is Luna Maya’s character. Tarra really surprises me–I often find female characters in Indonesian movies to be lackluster–but she is far from any female stereotype. Tarra is independent, eager to prove her worth to herself, doesn’t care what anyone thinks about her and doesn’t take shit from anyone. As the movie progresses, Luna Maya’s performance really sold Tarra’s depth as a character and she became probably one of my favorite parts of the movie.

Filosofi Kopi 2 also did excellent about the supporting casts. The supporting casts were carefully chosen, providing a lot of personality even for the small, tiny roles. It was clear that the director had a solid vision, and he constructed every little thing to support it. The music, supervised by legendary Indonesian musician Glenn Fredly, had a life on its own and enhances the moviegoing experience. Even the costuming and set design was on point and made the movie more alive.

However, Filosofi Kopi 2 is not without its flaws. It struggled at establishing the characters at first. The plot coasted a bit in the second act. There were also some rough editing moments, and some tiny details that I felt were a bit forced/out of character. However, they did not detract from nor betray the story and ultimately they were paid off by a strong third act.

TL;DR Filosofi Kopi 2 made a compelling story out of good characters with a boat load of personality.

Review: Ant-Man (2015)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), a man with a shrinking technology long hidden from government and SHIELD, recruits newly discharged Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) to obtain his technology from an evil competitor, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll).

A few years ago, the idea of Ant-Man movie--a third tier comic-book superhero with silly powers (he's small and he talks to ants????)--might be novel. Today, superhero movies are a dime in a dozen and Marvel had practically made careers out of lesser superheroes. We know Ant-Man is gonna be, at least, good (yes, I'm a Marvel believer). The question is: How good, and how unique?

Uniqueness is definitely not Ant-Man's problem. Ant-Man's format is decidedly new in the superhero realm--it's a heist movie. In it, Scott Lang had just got out of prison and decided to take on One Last Job (Which is like, every heist movie ever, but that's actually not a bad thing. It's a cliche because it works). It also takes on a wholly different dimension than what we usually see and experience, and there's the fact that Ant-Man literally talks to ants. A lot of the unexpected, subversive, and hilarious moments simply come from the fact that there's this little guy with tremendous power, and there's absolutely no shame to revel in that (while it's still new). Ant-Man definitely do not have a problem setting itself apart from other movies.

But how good was it? Good enough, but not amazing.

Ant-Man had its share of humor, but it actually had less wisecracking than your average Avengers or Iron Man movie. Either that, or half of them didn't stick the landing. Not that being funny is a requirement for a good movie, but I can't help but feel that in an attempt to "toughen up" Paul Rudd's character, practically half of his life got sucked out of him. He's a damn good "subdued" comic actor, but most of the humor was delegated to his friend, Luis (Michael Pena) instead (he was hilarious, actually). I like Paul Rudd enough in this movie and I think he's a great actor and did good job in Ant-Man, but I am tempted to say that he might be miscast. What I'm saying is, while he was good in his role, Paul Rudd did not occupy his superheroic persona as well as Chris Pratt or Chris Evans did theirs.

Another shortcoming might come from a lack of any real villain, and therefore, any real direction. Darren Cross was quite servicable as an evil capitalist/scientist/sheep-killer, but he was Hank Pym's nemesis and not Lang's, so Lang was left without any real direction aside from general heist movie plot. Yellowjacket was great and menacing, but at the end it was too little too late. Excacerbated by thin relationships of fathers and daughters (either Hank with Hope, or Scott with his daughter), TL;DR Ant-Man could not feel like a truly "full" movie. It always felt like half a movie because it failed to focus on either end of the equation (the character-side vs comic-booky villain-side). Basically, Ant-Man was half a movie away from being great and that's a shame, because the rest of the film was fun and competently made.

While Ant-Man--being a heist movie--did not have a lot of action, the ones that were there were truly great. The heists were great too and there were genuinely exciting moments in between. Also, the cameos, the mid and also end credits scenes were hella exciting! Cannot wait for Civil War!

Review: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

So, if you live on Planet Earth, you have probably read reviews/heard from other people about how amazing Thor: Ragnarok is.

I’m not gonna be one of those people.

Alright, I don’t think it’s terrible either. I just think Ragnarok is okay, and somewhat on par with other “okay” Marvel’s Cinematic Universe (*cough* Ant-Man *cough*).

I could say that the one great thing about Ragnarok is that it has a lot of personality. The sin of previous Thor movies were that they were not only forgettable, they felt “cookie-cutter”. They felt like you’ve seen them before, and in fact you definitely have. Meanwhile, Ragnarok is definitely its own beast, and that is for sure thanks to Taika Waititi’s clear vision as director. His vision in infusing fun and humor is definitely something that Thor sorely needs. And that proved to work, as evidenced by its success both critically and commercially.

However, Taika’s brand of humor is not my brand of humor. Because the story is quite thin, Ragnarok definitely hinges a lot on its humor. So if you like Taika (see What We Do In The Shadows) then I guess you’ll like it, but if you don’t get the laughs then you won’t enjoy it as much. I’ve always said that Marvel movies are always unexpectedly funny, but although there were laughs, they were not usually at the expense of the characters. However, Taika likes to make fun of his characters, to the point that he makes them look quite foolish. He probably was trying to make them more “relatable” or something, but for me, they just make me respect our heroes less.

The villain is played by none other than Cate Blanchett. Cate Blanchett just has that enormous movie presence that makes every movie better, but her character Hela was not given the gravity it deserves. Given that Hela is Thor and Loki’s sister (and given what happened to their father Odin), Ragnarok is ripe for a real, emotional family story. But Ragnarok failed on that front. Sure, Ragnarok touches on that in one or two scenes, but they definitely were not enough. An emotional core like that should be ingrained in its story, but instead it just felt tacked on. Just because Ragnarok is a funny movie, that doesn’t excuse the lack of heart in this film. Just look at Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2. That movie was funny as hell, but the emotional content of that movie was through the roof. Sadly Ragnarok couldn’t do anything like that, instead Hela just felt like another Malekith (villain from Thor: The Dark World, if you don’t remember, who was not that good of a villain to begin with).

Ragnarok, though, definitely plays on Chris Hemsworth’s strength. Hemsworth is an incredible comedic actor, and he fits right in this new tone. I couldn’t grasp much of Hulk/Bruce Banner’s character in this movie, mainly because in-universe we have not seen him for 2 years. He has changed a lot but we were not given time to revisit his character more. Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie though, is really great! She is badass and memorable, and is definitely a worthy addition to MCU family. About Loki… I can’t believe I’m gonna say this, but I do think that Loki’s character has definitely run its course. Unless something happens to the character that changes him, I can’t see how Loki could add value to future Marvel movies.

TL;DR If you need some laughs, or you have 2 hours to kill, Thor: Ragnarok is definitely a great movie. But if you’re looking for something more emotionally profound, you’re not gonna get it here.

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: 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.

TV Shoutout: Marvel's Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D

What better way to start TV Shoutout other than with Marvel's Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D?

What it is about: S.H.I.E.L.D is a secret organization that exists to deal with superpowers, alien artefacts, and highly-advanced science that no other agency is prepared to deal with. In post-Avengers world, Agent Phil Coulson, one of the best agent of S.H.I.E.L.D, had just handpicked his new team. (Yes in case you're wondering, we're talking about that Marvel, that Avengers, that S.H.I.E.L.D, and that Coulson).

Despite its connection to Marvel, you don't have to like superhero movies to like this show. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D (AoS for short) is decidedly a different kind of beast, made to tell the other side of the fight involving ordinary humans namely the agents.

Why you should watch it: AoS was developed by Joss Whedon. For those uninitiated, he's famous for his trademark touch of funny one-liners balanced with great character development as evidenced in critically-acclaimed works like Buffy The Vampire Slayer series, Firefly series, and Marvel's The Avengers.

Now (I should emphasize the "now", more on that later), the series is one of the most riveting drama/action series out there. The funny things are there keeping things light while never shying away from the hard stuff. It has truly magnificent character development, heartbreaking relationships (romantic, almost romantic, or otherwise), and engaging villain. AoS season 2 is a must-see TV in every way.

Who should watch it: Those who wanted to know more about Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Those who love Joss Whedon. Those who love good action and drama in their series. Basically everyone who loves good TV with great characters.

Where you should start: Now is the part where I warn you that this show started out rough. By rough I mean it looked like the most mediocre, cookie-cutter procedural ever. Which is fine for the most part (A LOT of TV procedurals out there are mediocre), but not great. But somewhere in the middle of season 1 it found its footing, did a complete 180 degrees in its storytelling and started to pump up real punches. The characters became rounded human beings, humor started to set in, and sh*t started to get real. SEASON 2 IS AWESOME guys, so you don't want to miss it.

The series is now in season 2. Starting in the beginning of season 2 is okay, but season 2 "broke" most of its characters so you could only appreciate the subtleties if you've seen season 1. For those of you who don't want to watch first season in its entirety (because well, a lot of the early episodes were crap), there's a handy internet guide for a selection of episodes. Jumping in the middle of season 2 is okay too if you understand the gist of MCU (basically S.H.I.E.L.D = good, H.Y.D.R.A = bad) because you could always pick stuff along the way, but again, subtleties. Subtleties are what made this show excels above any other shows.

What you should remember is that since AoS is part of MCU, there will be some spoilers if you're not up to date with what happens in MCU (particularly The Avengers and Captain America 2). You don't have to watch the movies to understand AoS because it is pretty much self-contained, but some things will definitely carryover into the show due to its connected nature. If you're fine with being spoiled though (or don't necessarily care about the movies), it's completely okay to watch AoS without the movies.

Status: Season 2 ongoing

Review: Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh (2014)

Rating: 8.2 of 10

Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh is one of those rare products of Indonesian movie industry: a science-fiction! 

Supernova is about Dimas (Hamish Daud) and Reuben (Arifin Putra), two people who met on a fleeting chance and instantly clicked. On a trip (which means, ehem, on drugs) they vowed in the future to write a magnificent opus of science and romance. They invented the characters Ksatria/Knight (Herjunot Ali), Putri/Princess (Raline Shah), Bintang Jatuh/Shooting Star (Paula Verhoeven), and Supernova—an omnicient cyber entity. Their lives, in the most unexpected way, soon intertwined.

The movie is based on the megahit Indonesian novel of the same title, written by Dee Lestari. It was also the first book of the series Supernova which is now down to the fifth book (it's been rumored that it'll continue and be concluded on the sixth book). 

My first impression is that Supernova has excellent visuals; from aerial view of cities and oceans; spacious offices; and rustic loft with strategically placed items; to the trippier parts of the movie, it was all basically perfect. There were galaxies, rocks, and random close-up of objects that any self-respecting philosophical sci-fi movie would have (and I mean that sincerely). Every scene is a vision, and I especially liked the visual of Putri with her perpetually white clothes and pearly white skin, like a proper princess of the heavens untouched by earthly dirt. I also liked the universe that the movie created, like a heightened reality—or as the movie called it, pseudo-Jakarta. The music, whether the songs sung by Nidji or original soundtracks by Tiesto, accompanies the scenes beautifully as well.

The grand idea of human and humanity in this movie is infinitely interesting, but superimposed with a love triangle drowned in tropes and cliches. The story only picked itself up after the twist, but dampened somewhat by the fact that Bintang Jatuh or Diva is such an underdeveloped character. She should be the most interesting character, an enigma, a paradox but instead is the most paper-thin. She has the potential of being the critical voice of us humans, but I guess the three "story" characters (Ksatria, Putri, Bintang Jatuh) were always meant to be stand-ins so were not developed enough. Watching Dimas and Reuben alone discussing Schrodinger's Cat and whatnot indefinitely might be more fulfilling, because maybe after 2 hours they'd solve the Theory Of Everything already or something. That's not to say that the script is atrocious, I for one think it's well done enough from the source material, but I have a feeling some of the Diva's scenes were left on the editing room floor for time or continuity reasons, like things sometimes would.

TL;DR I think by its nature Supernova must end in a somewhat unfulfilling note, because it was always meant to ask questions, not provide answers--and definitely not provide an answer (the fact that it is the first installment of a 6 book saga might tell you something). But in the end, the movie was well worth the effort and honestly I'm just delighted to see the story brought to the big screen.