Rating: 9.5 of 10
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (or “Dawn” for simplicity) is that rare smart summer blockbuster, but I won’t talk much about the the actual movie other than it is a great and satisfying experience and you should go see it. What I’m gonna talk about is what I think “Dawn” is to Hollywood. It’s an interesting movie, but it also brings out A LOT of interesting points about modern blockbuster landscape in general. Which is, I might say, a sign of an even better–and possibly transformative–movie.
Being both a sequel (to “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”) and a prequel (to the general franchise), “Dawn” lands itself in a very weird and difficult spot. Sequels too frequently feel like a “been there done that” exercise, especially if the sequel refuses to stray away from whatever formula that succeeded in the first installment. And prequels, by definition, are predestined journeys and generally don’t leave enough room for surprises. Matt Reeves (director) smartly chose to set “Dawn” 10 years after the events of “Rise”, which means: skipping the viral outbreak entirely, making the apes the main characters instead of the humans, and shying as far away from previous movie’s James Franco’s character as possible. In other words, a completely different movie than “Rise”.
He, however, could not set “Dawn” completely free from the trappings of a prequel. We know that apes would eventually rule the world. Intelligently, we (and Reeves) knew. In fact, plotwise, “Dawn” is not much of a surprise. Some humans want peace, some want war. Some apes want peace, some want war. Several confusions, betrayals, and bad timings later, war ensues. But “Dawn” made itself not necessarily about what happens, but how it happens. It is a journey of emotions, and boy, did “Dawn” pack up some real emotions. The moment we see Caesar’s son’s (Nick Thurston) eyes stared blankly at the person who killed his friend is the exact moment we weep. We’ve long reconciled with the fact that humans are hateful and unsalvageable, but now we see a brand new species pick up on that hatred and ran with it with apparent ease. It is shocking, it is jarring, and it is exactly how it should make us feel.
All of that emotion is conveyed largely by CGI and motion capture, which is an incredible feat in itself. All praises should go to Weta that worked on the effect, and also Andy Serkis and all the motion capture actors. Yep, I mentioned them as actors, which is what they should be recognized as. It only takes a quick minute to peek into the behind-the-scenes and see the kind of emotionality and physicality that they bring into the characters.
(BONUS: Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes motion capture clip)
Tangentially, internet listed “Dawn”’s budget as $120 mill which is not at all surprising or that big (or even downright cheap) for a summer blockbuster with heavy effects. Hmm, I’ll just let that sink in for future reference. The very good news is, “Dawn” is a success critics-wise and box-office-wise. It gained an impressive $70 mill in the first weekend (overperforming previous predictions and knocking out Transformers 4 from first place), which means that audience are ready for and apparently like a nontraditional, smart movie.
Why, nontraditional, you might ask? The general preconception of Hollywood blockbuster (especially for the more fantastical stories) is that general audience need a surrogate. Like Alice in Wonderland, we just need Alice as that normal character that acts as a filtering window to the strange world. That’s why we have Jake Sully of Avatar, Neo of The Matrix, Bella of Twilight, heck, even Frodo of The Lord of The Rings (who is considerably more normal than wizards and elves). That’s why, in almost every fantastical or alienesque world, there’s always a human (or at least human-like) character. There’s a human character in “Dawn”, alright, but if there’s any surrogate it’s not Malcolm the human (Jason Clarke). It’s Caesar the leader of the apes (Andy Serkis). He is the first character we saw, and it is through him we view and feel the ape community. Granted, he is the most human-like of them all (being the one ape who lived so long with a human. But one could argue that Koba (Toby Kebbel) is also human-like in a different fashion), but the preconception that audience couldn’t relate with what isn’t human? Gone with this movie.
Also, maybe half of the movie is practically mute. Granted, there are sign languages and subtitles but Hollywood execs thought that audience hate subtitles too. Who would’ve thought that wild moves like these ones would pay off and audience would relate to the characters no problem? Filmmakers who don’t underestimate the audience and refuse to bow down to the lowest common denominator, that’s who. Hopefully future filmmakers will learn from this movie and succeed even more.
TL;DR To sum up, “Dawn” is not only a good movie but also a breath of fresh air, because it is what happens if filmmakers respect their audience and try to tell an interesting story instead of hitting bulletpoints.
Hi, my name is Inka Saraswati and this is my movie blog.
Sooo for a little background story, I signed up for this new tumblr account because I wanted a new house for my movie reviews. You see, I've been writing and posting reviews in Rotten Tomatoes for quite a while, but they recently changed their layout and user flow and basically I didn't like it. So I decided to leave and make my own site instead.
For reasons above, I'll slowly roll out my existing reviews from RT into here and of course I'll add new ones along the way. I, at its core, am a sci-fi fan so it couldn't be helped if my coverage skew towards that particular genre but I'll definitely cover various films from various genre, including older and odder films.
Also I might occasionally write about TV, music, poetry, pop culture news, or even post some tumblr-iffic stuff, but the backbone of my site will always be movie reviews.
So enjoy!
You can also find me in deviantArt for photography and whyd for music collection.
Rating: 8.0 of 10
From director Shane Black, comes The Nice Guys, a tale about private investigators, Holland March (Ryan Gosling) and Jackson Healy (Russel Crowe), who comes together to solve a mystery.
If you’re familiar with a Shane Black film, then you’d know that he is a master at black humor and action-comedy, and this film is no exception. Most of you probably has seen his characteristic blend in Iron Man 3, but the project that resembles most to The Nice Guys is definitely his cult-favorite directorial debut, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (that incredibly fun film starring Robert Downey Jr, Val Kilmer, and Michelle Monaghan).
Instead of RDJ and Val Kilmer as the central pair, this time we have Ryan Gosling and Russel Crowe, who both owned their characters. Just when I thought Ryan Gosling probably doesn’t have much range outside of being a stoic or a ladies man, here he’s amazingly perfect as March, a mildly competent private investigator and somewhat terrible father. Russel Crowe also nailed his character as Healy, a straight-to-business kind of guy without being too serious. Teen actress Angourie Rice (also set to appear in the next Spider Man movie, Homecoming) is pitch perfect as March’s daughter. In fact, she serves as the hero of the film as she provides a much needed heart of the film--not just through her relationship with her father but also with her new friendship with Healy.
The strength of this film is definitely in the chemistry between the characters, although the movie doesn’t delve much into their background, which is a bit of a bummer. Plot is amazingly bizarre, but if you’ve seen Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, probably isn’t too surprising. In fact, one criticism I could say for The Nice Guys is that it feels too similar to (and couldn’t surpass) Kiss Kiss Bang Bang--although that probably isn’t a bad comparison for any movie to have. The Nice Guys does have a certain flair to it because of its period setting, but I have to say, The Nice Guys is not nearly as quotable as Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
TL;DR The Nice Guys is a solid dark comedy-slash-action movie with great (not necessarily likable, but relatable) characters.
Welcome to Web Shoutout, a series highlighting interesting places in the interwebs about movies and filmmaking! (Check out the previous Web Shoutout here).
Off Camera is a show, podcast, and magazine hosted by photographer Sam Jones. It is an amazing interview show, with various guests from the entertainment industry--mostly from actors.
Off Camera always provides a fascinating look inside their heads. Sam Jones is a brilliant host--naturally inquisitive, respectful, and is always well-researched--and with his help, we are able to truly understand his guests as a human being: what drives them, what influenced them, what makes them tick. His guests include Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jake Gyllenhall, Andrew Garfield, Ellen Paige, Krysten Ritter, Aaron Paul, Cindy Crawford, Aubrey Plaza, Matt Damon, Tatiana Maslany, Imogen Poots, and a lot of others.
If you remember the Actors on Actors interviews that I mentioned a while back, it’s a bit hard to pinpoint the difference between the two because themes vary with each conversations. But if I can summarize, Actors on Actors usually talk about their craft and how they do it, while Off Camera talks about their experiences as a person and why they do what they do. Either way, both are fascinating interviews, and Off Camera is well worth checking out.
Off Camera is a show on DirecTV and U-verse, and is also fully available on their website to watch with a fee. Short excerpts are available on Youtube, but sadly not the full interview. Five of the seven seasons are also available as a full audio interview on Soundcloud.
1. Kristen Bell: "I Grew Up Thinking The World Was Black and White"
2. Dax Shepard Shares Painful Relationship with His Dad
3. What No One Told Ethan Hawke About Being Famous
4. Olivia Wilde Knew She'd Be an Actress
5. Tony Hawk on Talent vs. Motivation
Rating: 9.0/10
I'm not usually the one for end of the year reviews and all that (or start of the year, as the case may be now), that's why I've been avoiding doing that kind of stuff until now. But I'm in the mood to post something and I just thought, why not write a review on (IMO) the best film of 2014?
Locke is a prime example in the defense of a small-world storytelling. In the age of blockbusters in which somehow all movies seem to have the whole world, or the entirety of humankind, or all levels of reality in danger, here comes Locke. In Locke, the stakes couldn't have been smaller: It was just a matter of a man's job, a man's relationship, and a man's father. All of that happened in a single night in a car. No explosions. No one died. And it couldn't have been more riveting.
No questions barred, the whole movie hinges on the performance of Tom Hardy. He was beautiful and on point all the time, and he deserved all of the praise that he received with this performance and maybe more. His voice alone could carry a movie. But for me, a special shoutout is needed to be made to Steven Knight as director and his team. The nightscene, accompanied with lingering music, felt like a whole language in itself. It sealed us in and let our hearts get immersed in the story. No one suspects it, but Ivan Locke is an unsung hero in today's storytelling.
Note: A version of this review originally appeared on my old site here.
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.
Rating: 8.9 of 10
Jennifer (Megan Fox) is the most beautiful girl in Devil’s Kettle High School, while her best friend Anita “Needy” (Amanda Seyfried) is a frumpy, simple girl. Needy have been loyal to Jennifer for all of her life, but she just might have to fight Jennifer when she turned evil–not just “high school evil”, but “evil, evil.”
Let me say this: Jennifer’s Body is really good, but sadly it flopped at the box office (and received only lukewarm, some might even say negative, response from the critics), because nobody knew what to expect. The somewhat tacky poster gives the impression of a hormone infused B-movie, the demonic premise implies a scary movie, and the “comedy” label tacked-on on promotional pieces lead people to expect more laugh-out-loud moments. Instead, Jennifer’s Body is none of that–or all of that and more, depending on your point of view.
I would say the best way to describe Jennifer’s Body is that it’s a teen drama movie, with some horror/supernatural stuff mixed in. Think Mean Girls, but with actual murder. Both Jennifer’s Body and Mean Girls have the same wit, the same commentary on high-school female friendship dynamics, and the same emotional resonance between the two lead girls. Okay, Jennifer’s Body is not as funny as Mean Girls and not nearly as quotable, but I don’t think it was ever meant to be as funny as Mean Girls (I meant it when I said Jennifer’s Body barely qualifies as a comedy, but I do think Jennifer’s Body and Mean Girls have the same spirit). The horror stuff are an integral part of the story, but they’re clearly not meant to shock or scare you “just because”. It's pretty funny, but not at the expense of its story. It’s also sexy, but in the way that serves the story. At the core, Jennifer’s Body is just a drama between two friends–and a very effective one at that. It’s also worth noting that Jennifer’s Body is written and directed by women, and that makes Jennifer’s Body a uniquely female horror movie. I understand that not everybody’s gonna understand what Jennifer’s Body is trying to do, but I definitely enjoyed it.
I also believe, it flopped because audiences have rock-bottom expectations of Megan Fox. Megan Fox has been the poster girl of bad movies and bad characters (although not nearly half of it are her fault), that people just assume that Jennifer’s Body will be terrible and not go see it. But after Amanda Seyfried’s flawless performance as Needy, Megan Fox is actually one of the highlights of the movie. Yes, her character Jennifer is shallow, promiscuous, and manipulative, but Fox played her with such degree of self-awareness that it’s a delight to see.
TL;DR If you’re looking for a fun, sexy horror movie with emotional weight, Jennifer’s Body might be the one for you.
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.)
Rating: 8.0 of 10
People Like Us is story about one Sam (Chris Pine), a twenty-something salesman who had to come home for his father's funeral who he hated, and discovered that his father had another family and another daughter (Elizabeth Banks) that he knew nothing about.
Imagine the brattiness of Captain James Kirk from 2009's Star Trek (who Chris Pine also played), put the character in a funeral and family drama, and basically you'll get something exactly like People Like Us. The lead character Sam was something that all of us like to hate: an alpha-type, cocky, over-achiever, money-chasing salesman who would put a bulldozer through a church and the books of law if it fit his needs. Elizabeth Banks' Frankie, meanwhile, was something of a different breed: a single mother struggling to meet her needs and put her life in order.
People Like Us is a simple story about people trying to connect with each other. No gimmicks, no obvious twist-and turns (aside from the core premise); it's just one of those quietly engaging films about people who have no idea why they're doing what they're doing. We get to slowly understand the father and what his family went through his life, as we get to know Sam's mother (Michelle Pfeiffer) and her past, his job, Sam's childhood, and Frankie's life in general. Those details, scattered throughout the movie like a puzzle of life, put layers into the characters in a seemingly obvious family drama. It put a sense of earnestness in an otherwise heavy-handed film.
TL;DR Written and directed by Alex Kurtzman (yes, that Alex Kurtzman. Roberto Orci, his screenwriting partner also wrote in this film.), People Like Us is not a perfect movie, but it's a surprisingly layered one. In all honesty, your enjoyment of this movie might depend on how much you tolerate Chris Pine's Sam (Olivia Wilde is still underused, though), but if you like family drama it's not a bad movie to spend your time with.
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.
Just a few weeks ago I mentioned the significance of having a genre project at Indonesian cinema, how few and sparse, when Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh came out. And now I just found out that we have another one, titled Garuda Superhero. It is a proper sci-fi/superhero/genre movie, whatever you wanna call it, but you know Indonesia haven't produced anything like this before in recent memory (if I miss anything, let me know) especially at the big screen. Indonesia did have a brief love affair with the superhero genre back in late 90's but only in the television, when shows like Gerhana, Saras 008, and Panji Manusia Milenium were on air. The last superhero movie made, I believe, was Gundala Putra Petir 34 years ago (which I never saw).
Here is the latest trailer of Garuda Superhero, scheduled for January 8th 2015:
I'm gonna be completely honest with my first impression of the trailer, but I'm not gonna lie that I am excited. Every small step in the name of sci-fi culture is worth something, and I largely appreciate the effort and the passion behind this picture. But let us say in unison, because I know you're thinking what I'm thinking: It looks TERRIBLE! Hell yeah.
If Hollywood made this kind of trailer, I would laugh at it and walk straight into another movie's theater. But because it is Indonesian, I have no choice but to see it first row at the theater (probably the only one there). Call it patriotic, call it stupid, call it blind admiration for sci-fi, but I'd apologize for nothing. I'd also add that what I write below is just a first impression and I had not seen the full movie.
So let's talk CGI. Bad, bad CGI. So, so bad. I'd give it a pass because I know the film's budget must be not that big, maybe not even in national standard. I am somewhat amused by the heavy amount of green screen they used. Like, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow level, even in a restaurant scene. Maybe they did it because they wanted to achieve not-quite-this-world look, which I actually appreciate.
But Garuda Superhero also looks derivative in every which way. They seem to pick up a million storylines and every single trope then blender them into a trailer. Visually, too. In fact, let me count the ways (it's actually quite fun). Left are screenshots from Garuda Superhero trailer, right are pictures from other movies (sorry for the wonky pictures, some just aren't available in the right sizes).
You like Marvel movies, right? Because apparently they like them too.
a) Leviathan! Are we gonna have The Hulk too? What we're gonna have though, are the Chitauris. Sorry. b) But we do have Black Widow! But I'm also partial at calling out Ultraviolet, and it may be worth mentioning that the female character seems to be a villain not a protagonist. c) Some Tesseract level item... d) I have to give them kudos for taking cues from an unreleased movie... Does the design look a lot like Ultron to you too? e) He looks too much like Ivan Vanko for me to be comfortable.
They've done Marvel, so why shouldn't they do DC while they're at it?
a) I think they're obviously going for a Batman vibe here (and a dash of Marvel's The Falcon), but I'm definitely getting more of a Watchmen's Nite Owl instead. b) But they do have a batarang. c) ...and The League Of Assassins. d) It may not be unique, but gratuitous exercise seems awfully like Arrow, right? e) I'm undecided whether he looks more like a Bond villain or Lex Luthor. Since we're in a DC mood, let's go with Lex Luthor.
And there's other stuff...
a) The Incredibles exercise (patent pending). b) Wait, why do they have an asteroid? c) Oh okay, so they can have the obligatory doomsday roundtable..
Basically, this trailer exist to show us that this is where we're at. This is the level at Indonesian sci-fi culture is currently working, and this is why I advocate more and more sci-fi, always, because basically the only thing to learn to do something properly is by doing. We're gonna stumble, and there'll be a lot of misses, but we're getting there.
Disclaimer: This is not intended to offend or put anyone down. If this article sounds a lot like nitpicking, I maybe am, but I'm doing it because I love the craft and I believe that honest, well-intended criticism will propel us forward. Also because this is a commentary on a trailer, I have no idea how these tidbits would fit into the context of the film.
Hi, I'm Inka, a movie enthusiast and movie reviewer (with a penchant for music, pop culture, and generally cool stuff, if that's okay).
87 posts