GRAVITY

Directed by: Alfonso Cuaron
Starring: George Clooney, Sandra Bullock

Run Time: 91 min

Space, the final frontier. This time Alfonso Cuarón visit the outer space to gives us the eerie thrill of being alone, literally. Not a science fiction or a politically charged theme, but a simple tale of survival. Some might relate this one with 2001: A Space Odyssey for the space scenes. Actually I have seen this two months ago but decided to write this now so later I can put a link on my best 2013 movies article.

Just like the title, this one will drag you here and there, even gasping for breath. Space debris threat the astronaut in space left Dr Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) floating in space. Alone and lost, they have to survive to stay alive. What happened with the other astronaut? Sadly they are dead.

The visual is amazing, it makes you scratch your head and say: "How the fuck does Cuarón put camera in space?". Here, visual effect plays a major role. It takes you into space and in 3D it looks amazing.

Created through a painstaking combination of physical and digital performance, I think it might get a nomination for best visual effects at the Oscar next year. What about the story? I think the story is just okay. It is not "amazing", although some scenes left you breathless, it is just okay. Sure any male would relish seeing that Sandra Bullock still look sexy at that age, but the story of survival seems a bit "made up".

Some know that the orbit of Hubble Telescope, International Space Station and other space objects are not of the same height. However the story make it as if it was "near". It is not a problem for me, but I think I expect more from Gravity. I expect a slightly philosophical tone, which is non existence here. Okay you can say that the loneliness here is something philosophical. However as a whole this is a good film, but not "the best" from Alfonso Cuarón.

METALLICA: THROUGH THE NEVER 3D

Directed by: Nimród Antal
Starring: Dane DeHaan, Metallica
Running time: 93 minutes

The greatest heavy metal band in this planet deserves an epic treatment. This time with 3D and IMAX 3D experience where metal heads everywhere can witness and watch the epic roar of James Hethfield, Kirk Hammett, Robert Trujillo and Lars Ulrich. Just like any other concert movies, it is hard to judge this film.

If you are not a Metallica fan, you'd rather skip this film. It has no explanation for non fans, but full with inner Metallica reference. Two third of this film is the concert, and it is unlike any concert. To maximize the use of 3D, the props, pyro and laser were brought in to make an experience as if the viewers were at the front row of the concert itself.

While the other one third is a surreal adventure of a young Leonardo DiCaprio lookalike (Dane DeHaan) as a roadie for Metallica. This silent roadie has to fuel a truck in an unknown place while stuck between a battle between cops and rioters, plus a demon outside the arena. Unleashing barrage of their hits, this is a must-see concert movie, for the experience alone.

The technical aspect is amazing. 3D enhance the experience, the visual depth is also something. This is a tasteful 3D movie, not being a whore by throwing everything at the screen to wow the audience. Some might wonder what is the connection between the concert and the roadie's adventure. I myself cannot comment on the surreal scenes of the roadie intertwined with the concert since it is too surreal.

 

Perhaps it is inspired by the song lyrics or Metallica's history or perhaps DeHaan's appearance is to make a reach for younger generation who are still wearing diapers as The Unforgiven released. However his acting is good, and I liked the fact that he had no dialogue at all, it makes the mystery and solidify Metallica's brand. I also liked that this one is R-Rated, it does not hold back but unleash the power of creativity.

One cannot refuse to acknowledge that the charisma of the four members itself add a certain quality. Nimrod Antal is the master of puppets here and he proves that he can pull some strings. So is it a good film? Off course it is since I am a Metallica fan. With Metallica, the apocalypse never sounded so good.

THE KINGS OF SUMMER

 

Directed by: Jordan Vogt-Roberts
Starring: Gabriel Basso, Moises Arias, Nick Robinson
Runtime: 95 mins

I have no idea why 15 year old teenager who comes from a middle class family with no history of domestic abuse want to flee the warmth and comfort of their house. Perhaps it's a phase in their life where they do not want to do chores or willing to live like an adult (as they become an adult who has to pay bills and stuff, they wanted to get back to the old days) under the blue sky.

However the comfort of the house most people in the third world countries dream off does not make Joe Toy (Nick Robinson) happy. He hated is controlling father and ask Patrick (Gabriel Basso), his best friend to run away and built a house in the forest. Then a weird kid named Biaggio (Moises Arias) tag along.

Together they built a house from scraps. I have no idea why a bunch of 15 year old has the ability to built a somewhat decent house, perhaps they Google it first. The forest itself is not a wild forest, it is more like a city forest where they can take a 10 minute stroll to the nearest supermarket. Together they live in the forest with many ups and downs, until one girl come along. It is a lesson of being an adult and a phase they will not forget for the rest of their lives.

Lighter than Mud and Stand By Me, this is an entertaining coming of age movie suitable for everyone. The comedy is not gross but enough. Another plus point is the use of indie soundtrack with a nice montage to help with the story. This Sundance hit is something you do not want to miss on the Original Soundtrack section at the recording store (who still buys original recording? Oh people I think). What I like is that the actors are not famous (not yet) so it gives the sense of natural and believability.

BEFORE MIDNIGHT

Directed by: Richard Linklater

Starring: Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy

Running time: 109 minutes

Seldom that the third film in a trilogy manages to equalize, or even surpass the second and the first. But that is not the case with the third film of Before Sunrise and Before Sunset trilogy. The last time we met Celine and Jesse, they were not a couple and it was 2004 in Before Sunset. Jesse was still married to his wife and accidentally bumps into Celine in Paris.

Loyal to the strength of the dialogue, Midnight examines what happened after the princess say "I do" at the altar. Was it a constant happy ending or is it just another beginning? How do they keep the spark alive? Does when two people grow together they grew apart? Now Celine and Jesse already a couple. They are together and having two girls, while Jesse still taking care his son from his previous marriage.

They are forty something couple, Jesse is now successful with being a writer and Celine consider trying to work for the government. Meanwhile Jesse wanted to move back to Chicago so he can be closer to his son. Rift happens between these two and we learns that keeping people together is more difficult than saying I love you.

Sure, they are happy, but they also realized that their happiness is another door to another problem, that their personal pursuit might come at the expense of their loved ones. There's a lot of talking here, just like the previous two movies but here lies the strength of the film. The witty, quirky dialogue is the one that can make you think, laugh, even cry. It bites and makes us realize, no matter how old you are, that love is a delicate thing worth fighting for. Here, Richard Linklater score a hat-trick where he can make three films equally good in quality.

MUD

Directed by: Jeff Nichols

Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Tye Sheridan, Sam Shepard, Reese Witherspoon

Running time: 130 minutes

Do you remember when your childhood is consisting of having real adventures in the wild instead of gluing your butt to play video games? Some might remember it and if your childhood spend with real adventures, you have a good one.

The third film from Jeff Nichols (after Shotgun Stories and Take Shelter, all featuring Michael Shannon) still covers American South, this time set in a small town next to the Mississippi river and it brings us to the two main characters, Ellis (Tye Sheridan, known for his role in The Tree of Life) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) to a certain adventure that wil change their life forever.

The two boys set to a deserted island to find an old boat. But then they encounter Mud (Matthew McConaughey), a fugitive who claims the boat and on the run because he killed a man who hurt his lover, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). The boys are mesmerized by the heroic tale of Mud. They did not once being skeptical on the story at all.

Knowing that these boys can be useful, Mud sent them to the town to collect stuff so the boat can be flown and Mud can meet Juniper. As for Ellis himself, he has parents but they are not a good role model, so he sees a big brother figure in Mud, while Neckbone looks up to Ellis. The naive Ellis is about to learn the lesson of friendship, coming of age and love.

Nothing turns out as expected and it shows good acting from the three leading actors. The river play a major part here, representing adventure and chances, while supporting characters are also interesting like Neckbone's loving uncle, acted by Michael Shannon and Mud's so called father figure that change the course of events.

It is a film about Southerner in their homeland and it is a good story. I really liked it on how Nichols managed to tell a coming of age from the teenager's point of view. It reminded me of my own childhood, although I did not grew up next to a river, that adventure is out there!

THE ACT OF KILLING

Directors: Anonymous, Christine Cynn, Joshua Oppenheimer

Running time: 159 minutes

For most apolitical Indonesians, the new order regime remembered for its stability and progressive economical development. It was the peaceful time for most Indonesians when the prices of daily commodities were in the reach of most people, education were attainable and the middle class grows significantly. But little did they know that the so called "stability" was paved and paid by the bloods of their fellow brothers and sisters killed in the post 1965 pogrom in some areas in Indonesia. The merciless pogroms killed approximately hundreds of thousands of people, they were killed without even being trialed at all. They were killed simply because they were accused of being communist sympathizer. Was these accusations true remains to be unknown until today.

Why is it related to us now? It is because the whole new order regime was built upon the fear of communism and their sympathizers. Communist are equal with evil, cruelty and malice. The whole 30th September movement that killed six generals and an officer in 1965 was blamed solely on communist agents, who, according to the new order's government version, infiltrated the army to conduct those murders. So the new order regime keeps reminding people that communist sympathizers were wrong and "deserved" to be marginalized, even killed. The times were different back then, it was the cold war and the country was sharply divided over these things.

Most Indonesians do not know about these pogroms, some know it from hearsay and carefully edited history from the new order regime and off course it does not appear in the official history book Indonesians studied at school. The world according to the new order regime was as easy as black and white, black being the godless communist oppressors, and white being the brave anti communist, fighting the commies to unite the country. The ghost of communism need to be kept alive so the leaders of the new order regime can still hold their power.

But you cannot hid a rotten fish longer than three days, after the new order regime falls and what was once forbidden to be known by common people can now be accessed freely, people began to know each horrible aspects of the new order, not just the pogroms but also the silencing of political activist and many human rights abuses done in the name to preserve the so called "stability" of the new order regime. Some price you have to pay eh? What happened to the idea that a nation belongs to everyone without marginalization regardless of so many thing?

Then comes this chilling documentary from Joshua Oppenheimer that does not deal with the grand scale of what happened in Jakarta in 1965. In fact, if the whole 1965 pogrom thing were a picture, Oppenheimer just took a pixel of it in the form of Anwar Congo, a famous executor in Medan, North Sumatra, who claims have killed thousands of people.

Congo is an old man now, suitable to become a grandfather. He told his story of executing people with a smile. He also had his friends, fellow executioner, to tell his story. But this documentary is more than that, in a bitter turn, Oppenheimer gave these perpetrators their own "movie". He gives them a stage where these executioners re enact what they have done almost 50 years ago. It is very creepy but real.

What follows is how the "film" was made with the help of a famous paramilitary organization in Indonesia. As the film progressed, we see how these executioners questions what they have done and how the recent Indonesian political scene is keeping these people and their paramilitary organization, alive and well. We also see the bizarre film that Congo and friends trying to show, it felt like made by Alexander Jodorowsky and I wonder what the film looks like as a whole.

As a documentary The Act of Killing is successful in telling a gray and gruesome story without showing any real blood at all. It shows us, Indonesians, that we had a terrible past we must not repeat and shows international viewers that a documentary about an executioner like this is one of a kind. 

This documentary does not defend any ideology, it just shows us the banality of evil, the absurd cause on why the killing happened and what the executioners felt, do they feel some guilt or can they sleep well at night. After seeing this, you just realized that what Congo had done is just a tiny pixel in a big picture from Indonesia's troubling (and bloody) past. One cannot stop wondering what sort of picture consisted of these pixels. Are we able to look at it?

MAN OF STEEL

Directed by: Zack Snyder 
Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne
Running time: 143 minutes

Every summer we got the treat we are looking for. Resting our logic and surrender to the awesomeness of explosion, three act story and fantastic superheroes. Man of Steel is one of them and personally I liked the film although I had some disappointments too.

Man of Steel refused to call itself Superman, and this is good. Re booting a very familiar cape hero is also something nice. I liked it how David Goyer and Zach Snyder strips everything we are familiar about Clark Kent/Superman and use flashback to tell the story.

The experience every individuals watching Man of Steel may vary, those who loved the comics will out it apple-to-apple with the comic (I myself does not read the comic at all), and those who loved Richard Donner's Superman the movie might hate it. Superman doesn't kill so they say.

But they forgot that "this" Superman is grounded in reality where even a hero must chose who to save and what to fight and most of the time, the choice is very slim and difficult. As for the story, the last 30 minutes seems rushed, the action scenes are too much (well what do you expect? Some teenagers want their money worth spend, so give them destruction). No need to tell the story here Zack Snyder, working with a script by David Goyer and Christopher Nolan, embraces the myth of Superman  with a realistic understanding of how to present it in a modern way. Superman does not need to save a cat from a tree, or a kid from a burning building, here he must find himself, chose his destiny and must face the reality that although he is "super", the world might not ready for an almost undefeated hero like him.

Some performances are strong, like from Kevin Costner as Pa Kent who can shows that he is a loving father and Diane Lane as Ma Kent who is compassionate. As for the main star, Henry Cavill, he is just average. The music score is amazing, in some scenes it can make you believe that a man can fly. In general, although it has some flaws in storytelling, Snyder manages to tell a human story of an alien from Krypton who came to save us all. Isn't it nice to have a superhero someday?

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Directed by: J. J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Benedict Cumberbatch, Karl Urban, John Cho
Running time: 133 minutes

I wonder what people would think of this film, 300 years from now. Will they be seeing it with nostalgic feeling (look son this is how they think our lives are in the 21st century) or will they point out to technological flaws? Or perhaps 300 years from now we still cannot explore space since we still kill each other in the name of God and greed, that being said, also perhaps there is a chance of zombie apocalypse that prevents mankind to boldly go where no man has gone before.

However, Gene Rodenberry's vision of the future is a nice one. Not too optimistic but not as dystopic as zombie apocalypse. As Star Trek launched as TV series in the 60s the theme is about humanism and exploration in space. In Gene Rodenberry's utopian future, poverty is no longer a problem and multiracial crew of a space ship is not a big deal at all. Sure, some actions happened but still, a franchise that survived six TV series and ten non J.J. Abrams motion picture plus a legion of Trekkies, is something of a kind.

I myself only familiar with The Next Generation series and have only seen Captain Kirk by William Shatner on several movies. I also have seen the 2009 version which I think, is very good. I really liked how J.J. Abrams re-boot the whole series but still managed to give a nod to the spirit of Star Trek itself.

So where do we start? It started in a Mount Doom like scene where Spock (Zachary Quinto) have to tame a live volcano on a primitive planet and Kirk (Chris Pine), break the rules to save Spock. Yes, breaking the rules and using your instinct is the core of this film, besides the heavy political overtones and the wonders of space.

A starfleet rogue agent, John Harrisson (Benedict Cumberbatch), bombed an archive building in London and in a smart move, gunned most starfleet officers in a way that reminded you of helicopter raid in The Godfather Part III. So Kirk is handed a mission to capture John Harrison and kill him with 72 powerful torpedoes.

After John Harrisson bombed London, it is a revenge mission, just like the hunt of Osama bin Laden, and all "laws" should be broken to capture the number one terrorist. But is he the only evil in this film? Is there something else behind it? Wait, what? I thought it is about exploring space not killing? The political allegory is palpable and that what makes Star Trek: Into the Darkness unique.

If you did not read any news about this film the twists and surprises will pleases you. Trekkie or not this one is entertaining. As for myself the voice of Benedict Cumberbatch is amazing, it is as if he cleaned my ears. The scoring is also good, Michael Giachinno manages to bring grandeur into the space.  But Mr. Abrams play safe here, if only he decided to kill one of the beloved character it surely will sent this franchise into an area no franchise has gone before. I can understand why a "safe" ending is necessary since another sequel is inevitable. If you are looking for scientific flaws then you cannot enjoy this one since it will makes your forehead frowned like a Klingon forehead. Meanwhile, live long...and prosper.

9 SUMMERS 10 AUTUMNS

Directed by: Ifa Isfansyah 
Starring: Ihsan Tarore, Alex Komang, Dewi Irawan.

From rags to riches, a very generic but interesting template. Each country has its own rags to riches story. This time it is Iwan Setyawan's turn who told his story from the city of apple (Malang) to the big apple (New York). Iwan wrote a book (with the same title) about his own experience; born in a poor family but struggle to study and finally able to work in New York.

His family might be poor but his parents are the one that makes Iwan like this today. The good and the bad, ups and down of the family is the centerpiece of the story. The film told the story of Iwan since his childhood until adult time. He had a modest childhood but a smart brain. His brain is the one that makes him successful. 

At first I am afraid that the point of this film is about materialism or being cool since New York is the embodiment of success and glamor, but it turns out that it is about family and the values within, something which resonate to Indonesians.

Kudos to production value of this film, from depicting tiny tidbits like Indonesia's money in the 80s, drive in theater that shows a classic Indonesian film of the 90s, into Times Square in 2001 that you can tell that the running text in one of the building tells about President Bush. I like those tiny attention to details. However one minor mistake is quite annoying, a Lord of the Rings: Return of the King poster in a subway on a scene set in 2001. It feels out of time.

Another clever thing is how establishing shot of New York (I suspect the production team only had less than a week to shoot in the big apple. Thus maximizing using famous landmarks in New York) with adult Iwan walking from here to there, helps to make the film look grand.

Overall the story is nice and family friendly, it tells the viewers that family is above money. This one proves that Ifa Isfansyah is a good director since I enjoy Sang Penari.

WHAT THEY DON’T TALK ABOUT WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT LOVE

Original title: Yang Tidak Dibicarakan Ketika Membicarakan Cinta

Directed by: Mouly Surya
Starring: Nicholas Saputra, Ayushita Nugraha, Karina Salim, Priambodo, Lupita Jennifer

With such a lengthy title, this one is surprisingly "quiet" although not a silent film at all. With storytelling reminded you of the Dardennes brother, What They Don’t Talk About When They Talk About Love, is an unusual love story and a good one. That is if you ara patient enough to read between the lines since I doubt summer moviegoers who flocked into Iron Man 3 and consider the special effect as the pinnacle of movie making will enjoy this one.

In a school for disabled children, or teen, there are Diana (Karina Salim), a girl with low vision (she can only see things an inch from her eyes) who secretly liked her peer, Andhika (Anggun Priambodo) who happen to be visually impaired too. Then there's Fitri (Ayushita Nugraha), another visually impaired girl who had a some sort of boyfriend but hooked into Edo (Nicholas Saputra), who is mute.

How do they speak of love if their senses are impaired? That is how this film succeed to convey. Although they had disabilities, their love is just like anybody.They must transcend their disabilities to express their feelings. Their mistakes and misunderstanding is very human. Surprisingly this film is very simple and does not try to be too difficult or reduced itself into a tearjerker moments.

The acting was good, with Nicholas Saputra shines all by himself and as a marquee name, he proves that he is worthy of admission price. However I feel something is lacking in the subtleties that follows, I think it could have been more deep and symbolic. But it is not bad, as the first Indonesian movie to be screened at Sundance this year, Mouly Surya is a filmmaker to watch.