THE YEAR OF WATCHING DANGEROUSLY or HOW AN EPIPHANY BREAK MY DREAM IN 24 FRAMES PER SECOND

It started with Avatar, the so called ground breaking visual orgasm which re-defines 3-D in theatres then a slew of fake 3 D movies hit the screens, hoping to cash in from higher admission price.

Unfortunately, fake 3 D or a converted one is plain sucks in terms of visual and ripping of the cash of decent people who wanted nothing but some entertainment to endure their daily tension (Clash of the Titans, Alice in Wonderland, Gulliver's Travels, My Soul to Take, Nutcracker in 3D, Piranha 3-D, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader and The Last Airbender).

Those studios just want to rip our pocket by releasing a converted movie. Sadly this trend will still follow in years to come, check The Green Hornet for instance. It wasn't even shot in 3-D but they marketed it with strong 3 D gimmick. Not to mention the second part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

To make things clear, here are movies not in 3-D but converted into it which will be released in 2011; Captain America, Green Lantern, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Priest, The Cabin in the Woods, The Green Hornet, The Smurfs and Thor.

Source: http://realorfake3d.com/

So don't say I haven't warned you.

Some have the decency to really shoot in 3 D like Step Up 3 D, Resident Evil: Afterlife and Saw 7 in 3 D, as for the latter I haven't seen it at all. It doesn't even show here.

I know, shooting in 3 D takes much effort and time but for the love of decency, stop converting those movies in 3 D and didn't tell us about it. All they need is to be honest in telling the audience that it was a converted one. Besides in the age of twitter and facebook, anyone can find the information whether the movie is in real or fake 3 D.

Lucky for me after hearing how viewers complained about the low quality of converted 3 D movies, I didn't even watch any of them at all in 3 D.

Now let's move on to other subject. As we all know, the title of this blog is movie addict 101. Well it doesn't live up to it's title since what sort of a movie addict who only write 30++ reviews in a year? For the love of blueberry juice, there are 52 weeks in a year, why only 30++? It is not even an addict at all, I suspect I am writing all these reviews while I am snoring on my desk and my fingers mysteriously just tap in into the keyboards.

Well, I am just plain busy, besides I used to have the policy of only reviewing new movies. I do watch movies but most of them are old ones and sometimes to find the right mood to review it is like to find an ice cream in a salad bar. Which is easy, just walk few meters, find the nearest supermarket and buy an ice cream. What is difficult is the motivation to buy the ice cream and whether you had the money to buy it at all.

However I do have some regrets. I wish I have reviewed Old Dogs. I don't care what the critics said about this one but heck, it was the funniest movie of 2010 and it makes me laugh so hard but how can a review filled only with 'Hahahahahahhahaha' for six paragraph? Although that would be a revolution in itself and it would save time.

I also wish I have reviewed Wall Street 2 and off course The Ghostwriter, I liked it very much but I am too busy to write it down. The Ghostwriter is actually one of my favorite in 2010.

Now I will try to review old movies I have seen for 2011, you know, to live up to the title of this blog, to give the word 'addict' it's true meaning; more reviews. Perhaps some Tarkovsky and Ozu to make it sound pretentious, self-centered and full of myself?

Actually, do people read my blog? How come after years of me blogging I rarely got any feedback at all? Do I have to put someone naked in my blog to attract comments? I am thinking to put a nude cat here, just in case. I think no one is reading my blog and I don't know why I am still writing. Heck, I just write. Just like those people who dance even if there is no one watching or like Lady Gaga who wears some clothes made of meat to get attention, wait the minute, she did get the attention.

To put cherry on top, here's my personal 2010 best movies, not in numerical order and I refuse to give star to my reviews since I want people to decide it by them self by reading it.

Sorry Old Dogs and Iron Man 2 doesn't make the cut. They are entertaining but forgetful.

So here's the list with the link into my own review on it. Talking about being a narcissist eh? No I haven't seen True Grit and The King's Speech although I had a hunch these movies are good too and can manage to be in my favorite 2010 movies. So feel free to click the link which will not lead you into some spam password stealing site with unblock-able pop ups about ceramics and botox, but my own review inside this blog.

The one with Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis doing something you wished for years to happen

The one with Ben Affleck robbing banks

The one where Ryan Reynolds got buried

The one where life is just a game

The one with the virginity on it

The one about that social networking site people use to stalk their exes

The one that blur the line between mocking and documenting

The one that you cannot dreamed of

The one which actually released in 2009 but I have seen it this year therefore I would like to make it qualified here. Why? Because I can.

The one with Toothless in it

That Hindi film that ran for three or four months here

The one that makes fun of this country

The one with Leonardo DiCaprio inside an asylum

Hey, don't you just go and write funny status on Facebook yet, check this one I dig from my own post in 2007! [There's nothing shameless than keep self-referencing my own blogs for shameless desire of promotion] It's about something relevant and the weird thing is, I even laugh at my own writing, talking about masturbation of the mind eh?

FOURTEEN RADICAL WAYS TO IMPROVE CINEMATIC VIEWING IN INDONESIA

BLACK SWAN

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky

I am not a big fan of ballet show. I don't even know what ballet is all about although I did enjoy some of the music. But I have seen some documentary showing how hard it is to train to become a ballerina. Being a ballet dancer, a good one, you must be exposed to hard training and the philosophy of pleasing others since you were young. I wonder whether it can also damage the soul, not only the physique. However I find ballet as a form of art under appreciated for it's rigorous training and preparation.

However what I like from this film is how Aronofsky manages to make ballet accessible to most viewers by tying it into his favorite theme, obsession. Aronofsky's movies are full of obsession. Pi is about a man's obsession on numbers, Requiem for a Dream is about obsession with drugs and happiness, The Fountain is about a husband's obsession with his wife and The Wrestler is about an aging wrestler obsessed to make his own last action.

Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) is a dedicated ballerina. You can see how her mother is very protective and intrusive about Nina's career up to a level of horrific intrusion. The director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) makes a decision to put on a new rendition of the classic Swan Lake. With the leading ballerina, Beth (Winona Ryder in her short but stunning performance) forced into retirement, Nina is chosen to be the swan queen and ordered to embody black and white swan.

Nina take it too seriously, she danced tried to be so perfect. Meanwhile she face a competition from Lily (Mila Kunis), another ballerina and Thomas, although brilliant, seem to abuse his powers to Nina. Soon she began to question her sanity, what is real and not began to blur.

The rest is a horrific tale on obsession and what it cost to be perfect. You can see both sides of Nina, the innocent and sexually repressed little girl whose sole purpose of her life is to please her mother and in the end, turns into a 'black swan' who can dance as if she become, not only act it on the stage.

The last 30 minutes is a thrill that makes you remember why you like movies, it's the experience of watching fine acting from all of the castand directing that mimics life and takes your soul into a ride you never take before. It's not as mindfuck as Inception or as visually orgasmic as Avatar, but this one is an artgasm that cannot be translated into words. It's the feeling of content and catharsis upon viewing one of this year's great film.

Aronofsky has a talent and by this, I am waiting for his next movie. I hope Wolverine will be another The Dark Knight from Aronofsky.

THE TOURIST

Directed by: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

Have you ever cried after watching a film? This one will make you cry so hard you forget what the film is all about. Check this fact; it is directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, an Oscar winner for The Lives of Others (which I have seen three times since I loved it very much), then there is the eternally sexy Angelina Jolie (she can wear a potato sack, thrown into a puddle of mud and screaming something in Latin and still look sexy) with Johnny Depp (He's a talented actor with Ed Wood and Donnie Brasco in his resume).

Throw Lady Gaga into the mix and a 3-D convert, this one is a sure Oscar winner. It is a a sarcasm in case you don't get it. Donnersmarck just waste a handful of talent and money for this soulless film. To add salt to the wound, The Tourist made it into the Golden Globe awards. Was the jury also crying when they watch this film?

The remake of Anthonny Zimmer, a French movie made in 2005 is more glossy and expensive but has no chemistry between the two lead.

The story is around Frank Tupelo (Johnny Depp), a tourist visiting Italy. He crosses his path with Elise (Angelina Jolie) a woman who wanted to shake the Interpol and mafia of her tail.

Elise met Frank on a train so the one who trail her will be fooled that Frank is Anthony Pearce, the man sought by mafia and Interpol for stealing so much money from the mafia and tax evasion from the government.

In paper it is an interesting story, with the spirit of North by Northwest from Alfred Hitchcock, but on screen it just fail.

Johnny Depp seem has no interest in acting in this film, he looked like as if he is just a tourist in this film. Meanwhile Angelina Jolie looks dazzling as ever, she is perhaps the only reason why this film still has appeal.

The rest is just another yawn-fest with weird dialogues, no chemistry between actors and so-so action scenes.

I don't know what Donnersmarck want with this film, is it a comedy? Some scenes can make you grin politely but that's it. Drama? Zero chemistry between actors . Action? It feels like a TV movie. Does it make you want to visit Venice? Only if your bank account is as fat as Jolie's.

So feel free to cry since all of the good element Donnersmarck had, he cannot manage it to make it into a good film. It makes you wish that perhaps Donnersmarck just have to stick with making serious movie only.

BURIED

Directed by: Rodrigo Cortés

Call it crazy, cheap, film student-like movie, but Buried is a scary thriller. This is not recommended for claustrophobic people or those who wanted to become a vampire.

The idea behind this is crazy, just one person in one coffin for the whole film and that's it. With an opening which can remind you of Hitchcock film in the 60s, the whole film rely on Ryan Reynolds as Paul Conroy, tight editing and a thrilling script.

Paul Conroy is a truck driver in Iraq, he is captured and confined alive in a coffin somewhere in Baquba, Iraq. Armed with only zippo lighter, a hand phone and some fluorescent light he has to race with time and oxygen supply to save himself.

It is clear that the kidnapper wanted to contact him through the hand phone. Using the phone he contacted the FBI and his family too.

Only Conroy get screen time, you seen him from the beginning to the end and the rest of the cast like FBI agent or his wife and mother existed only in voices Conroy heard from the phone.

This is a thought provoking film from another level, it puts a lot of thing in a new perspective. War, innocence, guilt, ignorance and humanity can be put inside one small coffin and one actor only.

Although set inside a coffin, no shot is boring, Cortés managed to squeeze many shot inside a small space and Ryan Reynolds do a convincing job as a man trapped inside a coffin.

Sure some flaws existed like how come his zippo lighter can burn for so long without consuming the oxygen inside the coffin and other 'gadget' that seem to be added so the film has a dim light. But the whole idea behind this claustrophobic adventure is fresh.

THE TOWN

Directed by: Ben Affleck

There's something about The Town that remind me of Heat (1995) by Michael Mann. First the template story about a bad guy trying to live a straight life, a smart law enforcement agent that will do anything to nail that guy, one last heist for the protagonist to make it right and a deadly shoot out to finish everything. In the middle of it stand one woman the protagonist really care.

Stemming from Bostonian sub-culture, there is no better filmmaker to capture this than Ben Affleck. As we know, he and his buddy Matt Damon successfully write Good Will Hunting but strings of his appearances in Gigli and Daredevil turns me off. However having read all the raving reviews on this film, it turns me on again.

The Town opened with a sophisticated and successful bank robbery. Here Ben Affleck plays Doug MacRay, a guy with bank robbery runs in his blood. His father is also a bank robber and sentenced in prison for so many years.

Doug head a four men team and most notably is the trigger happy temperamental Jem Coughlin (Jeremy Renner, showcasing his acting muscles) who happen to be angry all the time and being a best friend to Doug. During the robbery Doug and his team take Claire (Rebecca Hall) as a hostage and release her afterward, without harm.

It turns out that Claire lives only four blocks away from the robbers and Jem, being paranoid wanted to 'eliminate' Claire. But Doug has better option, he start dating Claire, thus make things more complicated.

In other end of the town there is an FBI agent Frawley (John Hamm), itching wanting to nail Doug and his crews for bank robberies, he just have no evidence at all and his only witness is Claire.

Meanwhile Doug has to lay low while the neighborhood crime boss known as the Florist (a chilling Pete Postlethwaite), who has a strange hold over Doug, insists they pull off one more heist. This is the last heist that will determine everything, including Doug and Claire's fate.

Perhaps you have seen such story in dozens of movies but what makes The Town different and a strong Oscar contender is how tightly paced and stunning the performances are. The shootout is generic, Heat is better but still, it can make you hold your breath.

BABIES

Directed by: Thomas Balmès

Prove it that you have a heart by watching this film, If you are not moved or at least utter 'aww wasn't that cute' I believe you might be Chucky from that Chucky franchise.

It is the documentary without any narration or dialogue at all, leaving the audience to watch the babies as they do their thing all by them self. Actually, even though you had a baby at home and can say 'Damn, documentary on babies? I have at home and it's like 24/7' this film is still attractive.

There are four babies being featured here; Ponijao from Opuwo, Namibia who drink water from the gutter, Mari who is being raised in Tokyo, Japan. Bayar (short for Bayarjargal) a boy from a farm in Mongol and Hattie from San Francisco, California.

It is a modern vs traditional way of upbringing. Marie and Hattie has a clean environment where their parents shower their kids with toys and activities whereas Ponijao and Bayar is one with the nature with less toys and activities but still active to search and explore their new world.

They are cute in their own way, Marie is frustrated with her toys and cries while Bayar was left in the field with goats. Although they were raised in a different situation but they all went into almost the same phase, crying, sitting, crawling, babbling and then standing.

Babies is enlightening, it open new horizon on cultural differences in raising children. I feel this one as a visual lecture on socio-ethnology class and it is entertaining. What come as an objection is this parade of cuteness lasted for 80 minutes only, since I believe no one would mind if it runs for four hours. Those who mind are people without heart I guess.

SCOTT PILGRIM vs. THE WORLD

Directed by: Edgar Wright

I am not a big fan of game or console. I don't even have one. Sure I have once played a game on Nintendo, PlayStation and PC, but not XBox. I just play for the sake of curiosity and I didn't even play all of the games, it is just a simple fun for me. In fact, I am not a gamer at all and I am not interested that much in game.

Not only that, I don't watch movies adapted from video games seriously, not only it has bad quality, I am not interested in it at all.

So this movie is the combination of things I rarely do in my life, reading comics and playing a video game, although I am familiar with its visual style. As for me I didn't read Scott Pilgrim comic at all, I tend to see this film as a stand alone art.

At first I am a bit skeptical on this film, it is a bit campy and laughable but then after I saw it, actually this one is cool and fun to watch. Unlike that excruciating Uwe Boll's adaptation, this one is full with hyper indie music and quirkiness.

At the center of this movie is Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) some sort of guy next door with ueber geek/nerdy attitude. He dated a High School girl and hasn't recovered from being dumped by his ex-girlfriend.

Then he falls for Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) some sort of generic version of Summer from (500) Days of Summer, lest bitchy though.

But to win Ramona's heart is an uphill battle for Scott, he has to fight her seven ex-lovers (one of them is a girl!) to have Ramona. Not only that he has problems with his High School Girlfriend. In the ultimate battle, he will settle all bad bloods and tie all the knots.

Anyone familiar with video game visual style will be entertained by this third film from Edgar Wright, there are heavy use of CGI to enhance the story and all the funny things that can make you feel nostalgic as you have once play arcade games as you were a boy. This is a homage to video game culture and please, just suspend you disbelief for this one since everything and everyone in this movie seem to have no problems with characters suddenly fighting and destroying each other in a video game fashion. If you never ever played any arcade games or video games at all, don't bother watching this one, it could bore you.

The story itself is quite fresh and interesting, how the search and battle for love can be tied into video game culture is an achievement of it's own. Actually I don't know which game this movie adhere into (if there is one) but I can enjoy the whole thing.

As for Michael Cera, I think he need to chose another role besides being a nerdy and a social misfit character, he began to look like a typecast for such role.

UNSTOPPABLE

Directed by: Tony Scott

Trying to catch a speeding train? You can ask Denzel Washington and Chris Pine for that. As for Chris Pine, this can be his new career choice, after being Captain Kirk now he can become the machinist-minus insomnia and dark imagination. Why train? Since Keanu Reeves has already chase a bus in Speed and Steven Seagal messed up with his horse tail hair in Under Siege 2 so someone should give the train a proper stand off and that guy is Tony Scott.

As for Denzel, I like his movies but I haven't seen his latest flick like The Taking of Pelham 123, since I always remember him as Malcolm X and that guy from Training Day. I do have hopes for Chris Pine since he acted good in Star Trek. However I watch this movie with an expectation. It has a good rating from rottentomatoes. I am expecting this film to be as exciting as Die Hard series.

I have to say I forgot their character's name, even the back story since the main actor of this film is the train! Yes an unmanned half-mile-long freight train barreling toward a city, with poisonous tank behind it. If it crashes it can make a huge disaster. The authority has tried anything to stop it (including trying to shoot it with a machine gun, they must have forgot that Willie E Coyote has more chance stopping a speeding train that a bunch of hot shot SWAT team trying to shoot a small button with a machine gun) but still it doesn't work. Now it is left to these two machinist to stop it.

I like how Tony Scott direct this film. It is quick, fast and entertaining. It looks expensive too with trains collided and helicopters and stuff. The dialogs are also nice, heavy with specific terms on train with Washington and Pine give their best.

It is thrilling and entertaining. If there is one big flaw is that the train is an unmanned train. It has no villain at all except the mysterious train that suddenly went away because of human error.

It would be cool if the train was train jacked by Justin Bieber wearing nothing but a kilt made of Lady Gaga's album cover, demanding the authority to buy his album. Or if Bieber declined to do so make it supernatural, like a ghost manning the train. Now that would make this film an Oscar material.

EASY A

Directed by: Will Gluck

I have no idea why virginity is such a big deal in American teen movies. Is it like that in real life? I have no idea. However virginity is like some inspiration for most movies, from American Pie to The 40 Year Old Virgin.

Just like most teen rom com I have no expectation on this one, in fact I was kinda hoping that this one is like some MTV skit that is a bit funny and forgettable. But I was wrong, Easy A is this year's (500) Days of Summer, a fresh, witty, smart and funny idea for a movie about virginity.

It explores themes many movies have explored,;insecurities, the power of rumor and the hidden will to fit in but in a way smarter (and avoiding stereotypes) than most teen rom com.

Olive Penderghast (Emma Stone) is just an ordinary high school student from Ojai, California. I don't know why, but why does a film portraying an unpopular girl put an attractive girl acting as the unpopular girl? In my high school, Emma Stone could lead a cult of men worshiping her with me as the cult leader.

One day, Olive lied about losing her virginity and overheard by Marianne (Amanda Bynes), a self-righteous religious type. Seriously, these types existed in here too and they are freakishly hilarious.

It takes minutes until the rumor spread and Olive is no longer invisible on the radar of popularity, now even though she could be just a crack on the pavement, Google Earth can locate her.

Losing one reputation, Olive gain a new one. She helped a gay friend named Brandon (Dan Byrd), who has been bullied at school of being gay to make an impression on the public that Brandon is straight. Then it is just an opener, the 'let's not but say we did' antique attracts hordes of geeks and nerdy students who want their 'reputation' to be elevated to a new level. Actually Olive don't do sex at all, she just lied about it and it works.

So where does lie going to take Olive? To a new level and a new problem. Filled with reference to 80s movies and the letter 'A' from Scarlett Letter novel, in which Olive advise people to watch the original film version instead of the Demi Moore version with fake British accent, this one is a surprise for rom com fan and certainly will gain many fans.

Like many good comedies, Easy A manages to make you laugh out loud but also thoughtful in the execution. It proves that a film about virginity doesn't necessarily need to visualize gratuitous nudity, although the word 'twat' and 'skank' is abundant here.

SAME SAME BUT DIFFERENT

Directed by: Detlev Buck

A story about a HIV positive ex prostitute from Cambodia and naive fresh graduate student from Germany could be a very serious and murky film. But with a romantic title which is taken from an Asian-English phrase mainly used in South East Asia can make this film looks beautiful.

As always I am afraid that if a film from Europe/United States try to portray a third world country (as far as I know there is only one world) it would fall into a film which degrade or mock the way people live there, as some movies used to portray. But avoiding postcard scenery (and poverty exploitation) plus the usual stereotypes, Buck has managed to deliver a decent and intimate inter cultural love story between Benjamin Prüfer (David Kross, you know him from Krabat and The Reader) and Sreykeo (Apinya Sakuljaroensuk) as they met in a party in Cambodia without over exploiting.

What I find as amazing is I directly recognize the song played in the club, it's Rammstein's Amour which lyrics are great in my opinion. Try to Google the lyrics and find the translation (if you understand German the meaning is more wonderful) of the song.

As their love grows Benjamin learns that Sreykeo is in dire need of money. He naively sent her money for her living (which her mother used it for gambling) and then after he got a job in Germany he return to Cambodia to fight for Sreykeo to have her medication.

What Benjamin did is amazing, not only that he fight for her life, he also have to experience the ups and downs of his relationship with Sreykeo. Will he find his true love in Sreykeo?

Without over the top melodrama and over melancholy song, I can get the chemistry between Benjamin and Sreykeo and how love can cross boundaries and difficulties. But I do mind on Benjamin being too naive, is there a person as naive as Benjamin in real life? I know this film is based on a real story but the director can at least add an edge on Benjamin's personality instead of making Benjamin a naive and a plain lovable person. By making Benjamin too naive the director fail to reach some emotional height necessary for this film. However in the light of that weakness, this film is not a disappointment but something nice to ponder and enjoy at the same time.

David Kross is pulling his best here, he can switch talking German and English in an instant without hesitation and Apinya looks charming talking broken English and a bit German.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS Part I

Directed by: David Yates

Most people review about the film; well I thought I shall review my journey to watch the film to begin with. It was a surreal journey as I sat on the bus going to the cinema and the bus driver is singing Bad Romance from Lady Gaga over and over again.

I have no idea what went through his mind as he torture the passengers with his very own special rendition. However that was a blast, since few days ago I hear another bus driver played Metallica on their radio.

I have no expectation on David Yates. Ever since he directed the fifth installment of the Harry Potter franchise I wish that the producer would take Darren Aronofsky or Lars von Trier as the director. His first Potter film, Order of the Pheonix is a decent installment and Half Blood Prince is a disappointment. So accompanied by that bus driver rendition of Lady Gaga’s Bad Romance I have no expectation from Yates.

This one is different, the last film from an almost 10 year old franchise. We saw Daniel, Rupert and Emma grow on the big screen and time goes by, we have to bid farewell to them. By that, Warner Bros will make sure we dig deep in our pocket to bid farewell since they decided to split the seventh installment in two movies released in six month period. They even consider of converting the film in 3 D to make it more profitable, lucky for us they cancel it at the 11th hour. Ever since Clash of the Titans converted into 3 D, slew of ‘fake’ 3 D have appeared and make the audience disappointed. I do hope Warner Bros learn from that experience.

As for me, I do read the books and watch the previous films but I am not a hard core fan who watches the movie twice and point out differences between books and film while frowning, I tend to just enjoy the ride.

This one is different, the wizards of Hogwarts is no longer inside Hogwarts. They have to be out there in the wild (including in a real London instead of in magical places) surviving the onslaught of Voldemort and his follower ever growing power and influence over the wizarding world and try to destroy the remaining horxruxes (If you don't know what it is, let's say they have to destroy Voldemort's external hardd disk so he cannot backup his data in the future in case the main hard drive and CPU got destroyed by Lady Gaga). By this, the trio of wizards are exposed to new condition and Yates has manage make it as efficient and as entertaining as possible.

In terms of special effect, visual representation and music score there is no complaining at all, it all helps the understanding and by splitting this film into two makes more space for better interpretation and visualization from the book. But in terms of acting there are no improvements from Daniel Radcliffe, he look as wooden as we last saw him on the sixth installment. Emma Watson done decent job but Rupert Grint shines throughout the film. It seems if he keeps doing that he might have a better acting career post Potter fame. Unlike the yawn-ish Half Blood Prince, Deathly Hallows show that Yates has matured in his third attempt in this franchise, the viewers even can understand what a Deathly Hallows is, accompanied by a very interesting animation. Even the lengthy duration itself is not a big deal, everything moves in a good pace.

What I find to be funny is how Dobby is more similar to Vladimir Putin (this one has been a joke in the internet) and how Voldemort is like George W. Bush in terms of visual. Although the story has no allegory on real world we live in, I do hope that Harry Potter is not Tony Blair.

If you are not a Potter fan and never read the book (or at least watch the fifth and sixth installment), you might have difficulties understanding the story and this one definitely not for kids since it has harrowing scenes and some blood.

As for where they split the story, they have done it perfectly by leave it hanging in the middle, making those muggles eagerly anticipate the coming second part thus bidding farewell to a franchise more successful than James Bond franchise. I do hope that the second part will not be a 'Bad Romance' for us all.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK

Directed by: David Fincher

Do you really need to have a legion of friends to create THE most popular social networking site?

According to this cautionary tale, you don't have to. For all we know, this film is a dramatization of the beginning of Facebook although the people and the law suit that happens is real. This is the anti-social tale of the genesis of social networking.

Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) basically just some nerdy who just got dumped by his girlfriend. Then a combination of anger, feeling rejected, alcohol, blogging and programming ability gave birth to a website comparing woman in Harvard in terms of hotness with farm animals.

The website's traffic increased exponentially in matter of hours and attract the attention of Winkelvoss brothers (both twins acted by Armie Hammer), who wanted Zuckerberg to help them creating some Harvard social networking site. Here, Zuckerberg see a winning move and move ahead by delaying meeting with Winkelvoss brothers and move on with Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield, our future Spider-Man) to create baby Facebook, Facemash and leave the Winkelvosses uninformed at all. By that he infuriated the rich twins and has to face reprisal.

Then comes Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) the Rasputin who whispers ideas into Zuckerberg's mind and the rest is history, especially the breakup of his friendship with Eduardo and how Facebook become the most popular social networking site in the world worth of US$25 billion.

Framing the story in the legal lawsuit in flash-forward and flash-backward, Fincher manages to creep the audience by showing his version of Mark Zuckerberg; a cold, heartless, smart, calculating person who has zero interest in human relationship at all, he even doesn't care on parties and beautiful girls. He doesn't even care on money, it seems that his driving force is because he broke up with his girl friend. To that we have to thank Zuckerberg's ex girlfriend for 'motivating' the nerdy guy from Harvard to revolutionize our life.

This is a cynical and cruel film about how a venture into the making of a website based on friendship ended up destroying friendship of the maker itself.

Loaded with fast pacing dialogs that shoots like a bullet from a Rambo movie, if English is not your mother tongue, you need to concentrate more. Is this a masterpiece? I don't know, time will tell but this is a good film that lingers in my mind hours after I watch it.

EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP

A Banksy Film

Politically correct common sense dictate us that a documentary is a film about things that happened as it is. But as time goes by, so many documentary went into another category of documentary, like mockumentary (Borat or Modern Family TV series). This one venture perhaps into one of interesting sub-genre, prankcumentary. Documentary about pranks. What's the joke all about? Perhaps it is all about us.

Billed as a documentary about street artist it could be something pretensious, boring or both. But Banksy, whose name wasn't even credited in the credit title as director but in the beginning as 'A Banksy film' manages to pull out a what the fuck documentary that deconstruct the meaning of art and commercialization of art.

Banksy himself is a mysterious guy. He is a London graffiti artist known for his provocative and highly critical piece of art. Nobody knows his real name and face, perhaps only his agent and selected number of people.

But the focus of the film isn't Banksy but a guy named Thierry Guetta a Frenchman who lives in Los Angeles for years videotaping underground graffiti street artist. It all went well until he met the mysterious Banksy.

Banksy took him everywhere, even take him into his studio. I have to say Banksy's art is fascinating and thought provoking. At certain point the funny Thierry Guetta suddenly wants to become an artist himself. He re-mortgaged his house and open up a studio with so many people working to produce so many pieces of art and installation and plan to open a very big exhibition. He didn't actually work on his art, he has people to do it for him.

Now this is just plain insane. How could a guy with no reputation whatsoever in the art scene suddenly decided to become an artist producing paintings posters and installation?

And he got the money and means to make it! Can anybody be an artist and claim to be one? What is a valuable and high art product actually? How do you measure it? Was it by some endorsement from the art establishment or just generate some hype to make people believe that 'is' art? And what is art actually?

Not only that what Thierry 'produce' actually is just a ripoff or a re-interpretation of other famous art product (Campbell soup's spray? Are you kidding me?) that actually can be made with a advanced photoshop and Corel Draw skill. This pose a question between hype vs authenticity.

But people buy the hype, L.A. Weekly ran a special story about Thierry's exhibition and as the exhibition opened, people lined up to see it.

In the end, Thierry managed to pull a huge fortune out of it. This is insane, amazing and what the fuck at the same time.

The first half of the film deals with Thierry videotaping the street artist and try to make a film out of it, and the second part is about Banks taking over the job and make Thierry an object for his film.

Was it all true? Was Thierry actually a videotape loving guy with funny French accent who decided to become an artist in an instant? Or was Thierry actually an 'invention' of Banksy who wants to poke fun at all of us, including himself? Could it be that the real art installation/performance is Thierry himself, being a puppet of Banksy?

I have no idea. This is the documentary that blurs the line between a real documentary, an op-ed and a mockumentary. But as mind blowing as it is, this has to be the must watch documentary of the year.

The irony is if someone with enough credential and reliable in the society tells people that it is art then the masses will believe that is art although it is just a re-interpretation of another famous art piece or just something anyone can produce. In the end art is in the eye of the beholder.

INCEPTION

Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Run time: 148 min

What if you can enter someone's dream and steal something out of it? Well, there wasn't much to steal from my mind, but if you are some corporate hot shot, there are plenty of things to steal.

Think of this, before painting Nightwatch, Rembrandt must have imagined it in his mind right? What if you can steal that idea from people's mind, especially important people. Wouldn't that be a breakthrough?

Billing as the first existential heist movie, Christopher Nolan just saves Hollywood from remake and sequel summer redundancy. With layers of stories comparable to any layer cake, true movie fans will be satisfied with what Nolan has offered so far.

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a man expertize in stealing secrets from people's dream, now he has to raise the bar by implanting an idea in someone's mind. Burdened by his own dark past, Dom Cobb assemble a team that will penetrate subconscious and finish his mission, while his past still haunt him.

It is not just a mere intellectual thrill ride, but it also involves some epic action scenes like snow chasing (I hope he will helm any James Bond movies in the future) and mind bending fighting in a rotating hotel corridor.

Unlike most movies, all the action and special effect helps the structure of the story. Most people will liken this to the Matrix given its similarities in combining science fiction with philosophical problems. But this one manage one step ahead by not overusing special effect and make Dom Cobb's future world seem close with our very own world. The acting is satisfying, Leonardo DiCaprio gives his best and Marion Cotillard steals some scenes.

If there’s one flaw some people might consider, it’s that Inception is more satisfying on an intellectual level than on an emotional one. But I don't mind that, since I am sick with movies which tries to provoke our emotion by cheap stuff like mellow songs and slow-motion scenes with mediocre story telling. Besides, this film doesn't need to strike people's emotion, it is all about the brain.

Under these layers of dreams Nolan put more subplot and detail that makes their character richer and has more depth. Inception is one of the best film in 2010 and will be talked about in years to come. It would be a crime if Inception didn't make it to be nominated at Academy Awards.

For those who dislike or having troubles following the complex structure of this film, there is one useful trick; concentrate.

The sweet irony is, without any technology that allows people to share their dreams, Nolan has managed to share his dream with us; with this film.

NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT PERSIAN CATS

Directed by: Bahman Ghobadi
Running time: 106 min

Welcome in Iran where secular music is slightly forbidden, especially if you want to make a concert. To the outer world Iran is the one we know from news, but do we know what is really going on in Iran? Through the lens of Bahman Ghobadi, we can have a peek on Iran (or Tehran's) daily life of struggle and hope.

My conclusion after watching this film is that the Iranian people is just like us; they have to struggle to make ends meet but with a slight twist; the youngsters need to do extra effort to get government permission for their creative work. In this case; music.

To people outside Iran, what the youngster do; establishing a music band with many genres like indie rock to jazz, is harmless. But the reality is, it is difficult for them to have government permission to held a concert.

Half documentary half fiction, the film follows two young aspiring musician (Ashkan and Negar) who tries to form a band. The pair befriends a big mouth man named Nader (Hamed Behdad) a music and American movie enthusiast. Nader helps them travel in clandestine around Tehran to meet other underground musicians possibly interested in forming a band and later (perhaps) try to leave the country to some other country (possibly England and they even hinted Iceland so they can meet Sigur Ros) where thay can free expressing their musical taste.

They also meet some guys who can falsify their passport and visa. You might wonder, they are not even political or planning to make any revolution. But it seems that it is very difficult for them to live in their own country and expressing their own hobby.

The film also highlights many of the legal and cultural challenges independent musicians and generally the Iranian youth have to face in Iran. You can't help to chuckle and being sad at the same time as you see Nader try to plea for his case in front of the police. His crime; having American movies in DVD and a bottle of alcoholic beverage.

In visiting those musicians viewers can get a taste on Iranian secular music, which is nice to hear. Who knows, it turns out to be indie rock music, jazz, death metal and rap can be so amazing in Farsi and so much different than all the trash we all hear in the radio.

Not only that, through the lyrics of the songs featured in this film, we can at least, know what these people are thinking or worrying of. In the end this film makes you wonder whether Coldplay will ever held their concert in Iran anytime soon.

KICK-ASS

Directed by: Matthew Vaughn
Run time: 117 min

I rarely read comics so whenever I try to review a comic based movie, I just review the movie itself. By that it means that I will not settle with anyone saying "Well that's what the comic is all about" since if the story suck, there could be a possibility that the comic is also suck. I don't care whether the movie is loyal to the book/comic or whatever it's original material is, I will just pay attention to the movie since I am not interested in comic books at all.

Watching Kick-Ass without reading the comic is something really fun if not borderline silly. The first half is a bit boring but the second part is exciting. Will Kick-Ass will be spoken in the same breath with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight? No it wont since although it is fun to watch this one is slightly better than Spider-man 3 because no matter how fun this movie is, it has no depth whatsoever, it is just some stylish movie accompanied with perfectly placed soundtrack from several movies that you already know.

Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is a generic version of Peter Parker, it is just no spider ever bite him and he is not alien thus he has no superpowers at all. He thinks that being a superhero doesn't need a bombshell catalyst.

Then he don a super-suit that he buy from the internet and roam the street as Kick-Ass, the only superhero without super powers or fancy gadget. Kick-Ass gain notoriety through You Tube as some bystander record his action in helping a guy from being beaten up.

It doesn't end there, Kick-Ass involved in a crime lord devious plans, where his path crossed with Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) and her doting father (Nicolas Cage).

I think every decade, there always be a breakthrough in movie industry, like when Jodie Foster play a prostitute in Taxi Driver and this one, a 12 year old girl saying the 'c' word then slaughter grown up as easy as dicing onion.

Hit Girl, that potty mouth little girl, is the most annoying character I ever encounter in any movies. If the merit of good acting is being valued by how many shocking things you say on the screen I think Eric Cartman deserves an Oscar. Make no mistake Chloe Moretz acted just okay but to call Hit Girl as the most spectacular superhero(ine) is an insult to Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman. No superhero on the screen could deliver punch (pun intended) like Christian Bale or Toby Maguire in Spider-man 2, and they did it without saying the 'c' word.

I have no problem seeing Ewan McGregor diving the toilet in Trainspotting, or that kid in This is England spitting 'f' word but seeing a 12 year old girl have more strength than a dozen grown ups, is borderline silly.

There are more things that is just illogical like how come a tiny rocket pack could fly as high as 30 something story building? Would FBI at least investigate who Kick-Ass is? How come Kick Ass can learn how to use Gatling gun in just minutes and how come Kick Ass, after being severely beaten with batons that can make ordinary guy hospitalized, could regain consciousness and strength in just one night. Wasn't he just an ordinary guy just like us?

Don't mention the villain, they are nothing more than just cardboard characters and comical (once again, all pun are intended) I know, by this point you will say "Hey that's the way it is in the comic book" .But everybody knows I will not settle by that. Perhaps the comic try to emphasize on the over-the-top action and jokes, or try to invent something new and racy or a satire. But a satire of what? Of nothingness?

Those illogical stuff is the one that draws the line between this film and reality. It feels that this sort of story cannot exist in reality, which means Kick-Ass is an irony since it's theme is about superhero in real world without real powers. That is not the only irony since here, it is not Kick-Ass that become the superhero, but Hit Girl.

However by attempting to gloss this film with profanity and violence, the film has lose its depth and it feels like any generic superhero movie where the good and the bad is clearly divided and no moral ambiguities at all. It is a G Rated movie with R Rated delivery. Is it cool? Well I do not equate cool with style, I equate it with substance.

If you are looking for a good laugh, this one is for you but if you are looking for depth, realism and ambiguities, The Dark Knight and Watchmen is still available on DVD and Blu-Rays.

ALANGKAH LUCUNYA (NEGERI INI)

Directed by: Deddy Mizwar
Run time: 90 min

What is so typical about movies from Deddy Mizwar? Apart that he starred in it too, it has a down to earth stories, regular cast and funny dialogue with sharp jabs at Indonesia's current social political and economic condition. No CGI, foul language or cheap thrills from him, just a nice family drama with realistic visualization.

Check Nagabonar Jadi 2 (2007) for instance. The sequel of the successful Nagabonar (1987) managed to attracts millions of movie goers because it can mix good acting, drama, story and a moral message everyone here can understand.

Movie goers are very familiar with Dedy Mizwar's work, from his movies such as Nagabonar, Kiamat Sudah Dekat (which is made as a successful TV series aired during the fasting month of Ramadan) and Ketika to Para Pencari Tuhan, another hit TV series also aired during Ramadan too.

His recent outing with Alangkah Lucunya (negeri ini) which roughly translated in English as 'This country is so funny' has proven that Dedy Mizwar hasn't lose his edge. He still manage to deliver a story that can be preachy and boring by some mediocre director, to be something fresh and original in his hand.

As for me, I have no idea what this movie is all about and have slight suspicion that it will be filled with preachy dialogue that can make people yawn. But I was wrong since even though some of the dialogue are a bit preachy but it is necessary for the story itself. So what is it all about?

Muluk (Reza Rahadian), is a university graduate majoring in management. Since two years after he graduated, he still cannot find a job. Until one time he catches a kid pickpocketing at the market. Muluk follows the pickpocket and scowl him, telling that it is not good to steal money from hard working people.

This event led Muluk to encounter the community of pickpockets (also street kids with no parents or go to school at all) led by Jarot (Tio Pakusadewo). Muluk offers his service to 'manage' the money resulted from pickpocketing. At first the pickpockets hated the idea of some strangers tell them what to do. But as Muluk, with his 10% commision, promise that he can manage the money better and can convince Jarot, the kids agreed to Muluk's plot.

Meanwhile Muluk's father is a small scale tailor, Makbul (Dedy Mizwar) who is very supportive of his son, argue with a wealthy father, Haji Sarbini (Jaja Miharja) whose daughter Muluk is dating, that Muluk is not an unemployed person but 'still trying to find a job'.

Muluk's project work so well, he even lied to his father that he worked at some company in Human Resource Department. Actually Muluk has a grand idea, he would like to train those kids to have an education, and hopes that they will leave their illegal affairs once his project is done.

But as Makbul, Haji Sarbini and Haji Rahmat (Slamet Rahardjo), the father of Pipit (Tika Bravani), who helps Muluk run the unofficial school with Muluk's best friend, Syamsul (Asrul Dahlan) found out about the project, how would they react? Things turned unexpectedly from here.

Until this point I thought that the film will ended in an utopia which all the kids realize that pickpocketing is a wrong way of earning a living and they will all be successful.

But I was wrong again, with an open ending which is unusual for many Indonesian film, this film manages to jab so many things, from the corruption that is very rampant in Indonesia, to poverty issues and education in general without being overly preachy plus giving some hope that there is something good in this life worth fighting for. One thing is cliche here, like quoting the constitution in the ending credits. I know this film aims big, but it is not necessary to quote one verse of the constitution in the ending credits.

So in the end some of the kids chose to be a street seller (asongan) and some still wanted to pick pockets. So is life where most of the times education can change people and it also doesn't change some. I like the ending, it is realistic and believable.

Seeing that most of the cast are kids (and most of them are regulars in Dedy Mizwar's movies and TV series universe), one can compare this to Laskar Pelangi or Sang Pemimpi. But the difference is that this film wasn't based on any best selling book so it has an edge on originality thus if it become a hit (I just watched it on the first week so I have no idea whether this one is selling fast or not, it is just the cinema I am in is packed with people, I hope that it is a good sign that people will chose good films over bad ones) then it will be like Avatar, (not in a sense that it is a CGI hyped movie) a hit movie without relying their success on a pre-sold ideas.

In general, this is a good film worth every rupiah and time you spent. A breath of fresh air for those who wanted quality and entertainment in one package.

The cinematography itself is also rewarding, with gritty and 'as it is' look, manage to keep this film as down to earth as possible, therefore could relate to many people who seek for good entertainment and realism.

DAS WEISSE BAND - EINE DEUTSCHE KINDERGESCHICHTE

Directed by: Michael Haneke
Run time: 144 min

In a feudal northern German village set before World War I, tragedy is happening. This looks like an ideal village with the Baron (Ulrich Tukur), the town’s principal employer and landowner; the doctor, a widower with two children and an interesting relationship with the midwife (Susanne Lothar); the steward (Josef Bierbichler); a tenant farmer (Branko Samarovski); and, perhaps most important, the pastor (Burghart Klaussner).

It all begins when the village doctor (Rainer Bock) is thrown after his horse runs into a trip wire set on the road to his home, then the farmer's wife is killed in a saw mill, the Baron's son is beaten, an infant catches a fever after the window in the house is being opened and one children with down syndrome got beaten harshly, and on it goes.

There are no suspects (or even evidence) but there are few clues, like some children who suspiciously groups together and visit people who were injured and saying that they are just visiting or the farmer's son who secretly blame Baron for the death of her mother in the sawmill or the repressed doctor's lover (a.k.a the midwife) who has to endure the verbal abuse the doctor gave her.

But it is not who did it that matters (is it no one? or everyone?), but why they did it. Michael Haneke shows that cruel and cold upbringing could plant seed for aggression in their kids. What is being shown is the doors to the houses of the village inhabitants; the denial in one house, female and child abuse and indifference.

One thing is sure, the village parents are harsh to their kids, from just a cold look with grammatically correct sentences they deliver in the dinner table to the cruel beating they had. It seems that corporal punishment and humiliation is a part of parenting there. Why were they being punished? Not because they are terrorist or something, but because they are late for dinner and other minor mistakes which doesn't deserve to be humiliated or punished at all.

Could it be that the repressed children stage some tragedy in the village? Or is there anyone else who did it? Will these so called 'repressed' children will pass this behavior to the next generation? Is that the social order that is present in this film has vanished from the earth?

The viewers will be left with no answer for this (and they have to seek it for them self, a good thing to do), and that what makes this film is good since it explore the psychological, educational and religious roots in the small village as a sample for a whole nation at that time.

Not only the stunning black and white cinematography reminding you of Ingmar Bergman's movies or some good old photos, but the acting is superb. The absence of marquee name makes the character looks natural. The story itself was narrated from the teacher's point of view (Ernst Jacobi). In the film we see his young version (Christian Friedel) as a mild and soft teacher, perhaps one character that looks normal than the whole village.

What is The White Ribbon? The priest makes his oldest son (Leonard Proxauf) and daughter (Maria-Victoria Dragus) wear white ribbons as symbol of innocence and shame at the same time.

However if you are looking for a silver lining, there is this one scene where the priest's son is giving his father a new bird so his father will not be sad. Trying to compose himself so he doesn't cry, the priest felt touched by that simple act of kindness posed by his own son whom he rarely hug or kissed.

PS: This film won Golden Palm, FIPRESCI Prize and Cinema Prize of the French National Education System at 2009 Cannes Film Festival, beating Un prophète. It also won 2010 ASC Award for Christian Berger in Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in Theatrical Releases.

CLASH OF THE TITANS

Directed by: Louis Leterrier

Run time: 106 min

Is it redundant to start this review by stating that I am not a big fan of Greek mythology? I think it is but heck, I still write it down anyway.

Some of my friends who are big fans of Greek mythology felt disappointed with this film. As for me, this is just a movie, they can make Perseus the son of Kraken and Hades if they wanted to (and I think it is cool to have a pregnant Hades bitching around about daily minutiae in Olympus).

So after listening to some bad reviews from my friend about this particular movie, I embrace myself to watch it, not in 3 D since everybody call the convert is suck, but in glourious 2 D.

Since I have low expectation (I kinda hope that this is the expensive version of Hercules the Legendary Journeys TV Series with Kevin Sorbo), I actually enjoy Clash and I can say that it is not as bad as most people told me and certainly not as bad as New Moon and 2012. It is entertaining although the plot is wafer thin and Sam Worthington is the only Greek with no beard or long hair, which makes things a bit strange.

No need to tell the plot since it is easy to guess from the poster that Perseus is on a mission to kill Kraken or the city of Argos destroyed to dust by the anger of Zeus. Oh and Hades is in it too, trying to milk the situation in order for greater power. To think that this whole shebang started because humans are fed up with Gods is also nice, it seems that Zeus need people to worship him. What lack is the love story. Louis Letterier seems to discard any sort of romance from this film.

The effects and cinematography is beyond average and you will enjoy the sight of Perseus flying with pegasus to save Argos from destruction while trying to kill Kraken.

As for the acting, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes is giving their best while Sam Worthington is the weakest of all, acted flat and have near zero emotion which makes you wonder that this guy is very lucky to have landed roles in expensive movies.

There is also a problem with the script, it seems there is lack of causality or motives for Perseus to pursue a journey to kill Kraken and some of the dialogs are corny.

Contrary to most remakes I have reviewed or seen, I have seen the 1981 version and I think in terms of visual enjoyment (not in terms of story and acting), this one is a huge improvement.

So for those who are not a big fan of Greek mythology, this one is a sweet candy that will make you happy. And for those who is a big fan of Greek mythology, this film is an atrocity at it's best.

Hey at least the phrase 'Release the Kraken' has now replaced 'This is Sparta' as one of the corniest phrase being duplicated in popular culture.