TV Shoutout: Killjoys

Review: Paddington (2014)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Paddington is a famous talking bear of beloved children's illustrated literature in the UK since 1958. (He even has a line of stuffed toys, merchandises, animated series, and even stamps and a statue.) Paddington's original illustrations are instantly recognizable, but as we all know, nothing is exempt from 21st century CGI treatment! So Paddington is now a hyperrealistic bipedal talking bear with a red hat and no pants (which may sound a bit terrifying), but this CGI Paddington is actually very cute, none the least because of his antiquated British manners and Ben Whishaw's mild soothing voice.

Paddington the bear comes from the forest of "Darkest Peru" and arrived at Paddington Station in London, looking for a family. He has been taught manners and how to greet people politely by his Uncle Pastuzo and Aunt Lucy and he hoped he could find family soon, but sadly London has become cynical. Children, or bears, cannot simply arrive at a train station and hoped to be adopted anymore, until Brown family approached him and offered him to give him a night's stay at their house. They agreed to help him finding an explorer who visited the bears years before in Peru, so Mr. Henry, Mrs. Mary, Judy and Jonathan learned to live with him momentarily.

Paddington learns as much as The Browns learns from him, and while the movie is also filled with regular "fish out of water" gags, Paddington's real story is about giving kindness and finding a family and the movie is really great at telling that. Paddington is not even afraid to bring out its sadness factor, which I appreciate because it made things much more poignant. I love children's stories that do not hold back (within reason, of course) because hey, bad things happen and the thing that matters is how we deal with them. TL;DR Throughout the movie Paddington is sweet and reminds us the wonder of a more friendly, civilized world even though he is a literal bear from the wilderness. That paradox is what made him special, and we ended up loving him as much as The Brown Family do.

*Here's a trailer. There's a bodily humor which might gross out some people, although I found it impossibly cute! I must remind you though that it's only a small part of the film and the rest of the film is really lovely.

Review: The Spectacular Now (2013)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

Sutter Keely (Miles Teller) was a party boy who met and fell in love with plain, average girl, Aimee Finicky (Shailene Woodley). The plot just writes itself, really, but it was what happens between them and how they happen that makes the movie shine above others. First and foremost, what makes this movie unique for me was the portrayal of high school that was devoid of the typical high school stereotypes. Cliques weren't in wars against other cliques, people actually treat others nicely, girls don’t get makeovers, the ex weren't an insufferable b*tch, and Sutter—one of the most popular kid in the school—could still be a joke. Basically, the kids were portrayed as human beings. The Spectacular Now has the courage to let story and characters be the drama the movie needs, instead of milking cheap stereotypes.

The Spectacular Now really is not teen movie (it's actually R-rated), rather it's a well-made drama that is incidentally set in the teenage years. While it has an assuring amount of sweet scenes, for me The Spectacular Now is mostly just a coming-of-age story instead of a full-on love story. The film was mostly told from the perspective of Sutter and how his life changed throughout his time with Aimee. We don't really see Aimee's life or her point of view (what's up with the drinking?), and for once I'm actually okay with that. Aimee is definitely not a one-dimensional character though—we certainly have a firm grasp of what her character really is about—we just don't get to see the details of her life and that's okay. This is Sutter's story, and that's enough.

The thing that propels this movie is definitely the rich, sweet chemistry between the actors. Miles Teller's Sutter exudes this good-natured charisma and relatability, with equal amounts of effervescence and anguish, and self-destruction, while Woodley's Aimee was pure, unconditional, and unrestricted—that was actually the bane of their relationship. Even the supporting characters were perfect, giving the right amounts of pathos to each of their characters: Brie Larson, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kyle Chandler, and Bob Odenkirk. They were all understated but memorable, especially Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Sutter's older sister with a mysterious tumultuous past with the family. The movie itself was pretty slow with relatively little drama, but layers and layers of characterization like that makes a worthwhile viewing experience.

TL;DR A teen-focused movie like no other, The Spectacular Now provides lovely, tender antidote to our otherwise cynical lives.

Rant: Being A Good Person On TV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: The Martian (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Space is dangerous, but it's also endearing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Zero Dark Thirty (2013)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

Zero Dark Thirty. A chronicle about how United States, by the brain and determination of one CIA analyst (played wonderfully by Jessica Chastain), eventually found and killed Osama bin Laden; the man responsible for one of the most horrible terrorist attack on recent memory, the 2001's World Trade Center attack. Portraying anything close to 9/11 will definitely be hard, and from the very beginning Zero Dark Thirty took a brave jump into the sorts of raw emotions that surrounded the tragedy with audio recordings of the event. That's the kind of movie we're dealing with (and it just so happens that this movie is directed by Kathryn Bigelow who also directed one of my favorite, and trippiest movie, Strange Days, which I'll write a review on some time in the near future).

In watching a "based on true story" movie, I'm always wary about accuracy, especially for something as topical as Osama bin Laden's death and al-Qaeda. There are always sacrifices (in terms of accuracy) to be made for dramatic and narrative purposes, but Bigelow, for the most part, thread the line gracefully. She made great effort to keep the story not only as accurate as a movie can be, but also felt as real and as raw. The chase is long, winding, and full of desperation; the tortures pointless; the missions suspenseful and confusing; and in the end there wasn't victory, there was just relief. The story is gripping because it is, and Bigelow sees that it doesn't really need embelishments. In fact, the movie is quite hard for me to review because everything is understated, everything is in the right place, and there wasn't really anything left to say other than it was a stunning movie. 

TL;DR A gripping, suspenseful, and brilliantly crafted* movie.

*The truth is I stole that sentence from the film's Rotten Tomatoes Critics Consensus, just because that is the truest and most concise way of describing the film that I can't think of anything else. Damn you, brain.

Review: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2017)

Rating: 9.8 of 10

We all know how it ends. Princess Leia got ahold of the plans to the Death Star, a moon-sized weapon capable of destroying an entire planet, which she then give to R2-D2 at the beginning of Star Wars: A New Hope. This is a story of that first victory of the Rebels.

While the Star Wars trilogies focus on the Force-wielding people, Rogue One is the story of the struggle of the ordinary people. The closest thing to a “Chosen One” character is Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), daughter to Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen), a high-ranking officer of the Empire. But while his father had sympathy for the Rebel’s cause, Jyn has grown apathetic since she was left abandoned at 16 years old. She has connections, but it was her choice to help the Rebels that determines her character.

Other characters include Captain Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), a true believer of the Rebel’s cause with willingness to do anything for it; K2SO (Alan Tudyk), an unlikely friend in the form of reprogrammed Imperial droid; Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen) and Baze Malbus (Jiang Wen), a couple of warrior monks and sworn protector of the Kyber Crystals; and Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed), a defecting Imperial cargo pilot.

This is Star Wars, like you can live and breathe in it. Rogue One is definitely grittier than the trilogies, more grounded–less quip from the likes of Han Solo, no flashy lightsaber fights, or even the cuteness of a BB-8. It’s street-level Star Wars, but Rogue One does have lighter moments too (’I’M BLIND!’ is definitely the best line the movie IMO), and it is most definitely not without hope.

Hope, after all, is the stuff that Star Wars is made of. These people do not need to have the Force, or be the best of anything, they are just willing to do what it takes to make a difference and change the galaxy for the better. Nothing is going to be easy, and maybe not everyone is going to make it until the end, and yet, somehow it’s all going to be worth it. Devoid of Jedis or a Chosen One, Rogue One only has characters distinguished by their believes and their choices, and that’s okay. That’s kinda the point.

Rogue One did excellently to introduce us to all these new characters, and we fall in love with each of them effortlessly, each for different reasons. Most importantly, Rogue One succeeded in accomplishing what prequels and spin-offs should always do: make the universe feel bigger, more fleshed out. In it, we get to see the different corners of the galaxy and the people who inhabit it–the people who built and lived by it. I found Saw Gerrera (Forest Whitaker), an almost Vader-like rebel extremist leader, to be a very interesting part of Star Wars history (We'll get to see more of him in Star Wars: Rebels series!).

Rogue One had to do so many things for it to succeed. It had to live up to the legacy of the original and prequel trilogies, not to mention The Force Awakens; fit the timeline and canon; and tell a compelling story with entirely new characters. It succeeded in all accounts. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story maybe is not a perfect movie (because nothing is), but to me it is a perfect Star Wars story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Review: Black Panther (2018)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

At first, I wasn't that impressed with Black Panther. Now, I am happy to tell you that I was wrong.

I think the reason I was initially underwhelmed by Black Panther is because I struggled to grasp both the big picture and all the nuances that Black Panther has to offer. I thought it was a mere origin story*, but in truth it is deeper than that.

While the production is excellent through-and-through, I thought the movie was a bit aimless at the start and only begin to find its direction after Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) is revealed. But in retrospect, it actually all work with the theme. At first, T'Challa (the titular Black Panther, played by Chadwick Boseman) really is aimless. He just lost his father in a violent and traumatic event, and he struggled to find out the kind of King he wants to be.

One undisputable good thing about this movie is the characters and the actors who play them. Chadwick Boseman is as captivating as T'Challa/Black Panther when he was first introduced to us in Captain America: Civil War. Letitia Wright is the clear breakout star of this movie, as she displays equal level of intelligence and playfulness as T'Challa's little sister, Shuri. Lupita Nyong'o, Danai Gurira, and Angela Bassett all excellently play strong, confident women. And don't forget Michael B. Jordan, Winston Duke, Forest Whitaker, Martin Freeman, and Daniel Kaluuya who each believably play characters of their own convictions and believes.

It all get very interesting once we realize how the characters mirror or parallel each other. Most obviously, Killmonger is the opposite of T'Challa, but perhaps purely by circumstances. T'Challa grows up in the safe haven of Wakanda, while Erik Killmonger grows up in Oakland (one of the most dangerous US cities) knowing that his father's home country abandoned them. T'Challa has supportive family and community that includes strong, intelligent women, while Erik grows up without any role model to speak of. As good as Nakia's (Lupita Nyong'o) character is, she still disagrees with T'Challa and Okoye (Danai Gurira) on some level, and also has similarities with Killmonger's worldview. Shuri's youth scares M'Baku (Winston Duke) whose tribe fear that their technology could destroy them some day. I would not discuss the intricacies of the characters and their relationships at length (because there are already a lot of articles written about them by people more informed on the matter than me), but there are a lot of nuances and subtleties that speak not only of the fictional universe but also of our world, now. Story-wise--like I said before--Black Panther is not that impressive if we break it down beat-by-beat, but becomes infinitely more interesting once we consider the interactions between all of the characters.

The other best thing about Black Panther is its worldbuilding. Ryan Coogler (director) and his team had to create a new culture from the ground up--free of our inherent perception of what an African culture and nation should look like. In Marvel universe, Wakanda is the most technologically advanced nation in the world, hidden and untouched by the outside world including by collonialism. Visibly supported by a lot of research and care, Black Panther movie succeeded in showing us how that world would look like in the visuals that are fresh, believable and empowering.

TL;DR Worth to see Wakanda realized on-screen alone, Black Panther is a movie proud of its black heritage and filled with interesting, well-rounded characters.

-

*Yes, the character Black Panther first appeared in Captain America: Civil War, but for all intents and purposes the Black Panther movie is his origin story. In Black Panther, his entire worldview changes and his experiences in it shape who he is as a superhero and as a person for the rest of his life.

Music Shoutout: Whilk and Misky

So I've been arguing with myself for a few days whether Whilk and Misky is worth writing about, especially for a predominantly non-music blog, but I've given up: there's no escaping it, they've earned it.

The band is a London-based duo, namely of Charlie and Nima. Which one of them is Whilk and which is Misky, I have no idea. (Their chosen name, obviously, is a play of words milk and whisky, and once you heard it you know the name just made perfect sense.) Their sound is new, unique, and sounds exactly like an old wooden pub with ceramic tiles and black wooden chairs. Relaxed low voice, steady beat, and gentle Spanish guitar is apparently a recipe for musical goodness.

Here's their infectious, irresistibly hand clap-py single:

They've released their EP The First Sip and you can find, listen, and support them on their website, Youtube, Spotify, Soundcloud, iTunes. The rumor is they're going to release full album in 2015.