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.

HACHIKO: A DOG'S STORY

Directed by: Lasse Hallström
Run time: 104 min.

I'm not a dog or cat person, I don't even have pets at all but from my non-pet-owner perspective, this film is touching. It teaches us that dog can be more loyal than human.

Based on the 1987 Japanese film Hachikō Monogatari which is based on a real story in Japan, at first I thought this movie will be just one of generic Hallmark matinee movies. But it wasn't since there is Richard Gere in it, hey at least anything with an A-list movie star cannot be a standard Hallmark matinee movies right?

As a remake, I expect the film to be fully 'Americanized', but this film has the sensibility to ensure that Hachiko remains Japanese, only for it to be accidentally transported from a Japanese monastery, and thanks to a botch up in cargo handling, Hachiko ended up in Bedridge train station, USA.

Fate brings the cute and small Hachiko with Professor Parker Wilson (Richard Gere). At first his wife doesn't like a dog in their house. But as time goes by, there's a bond built slowly between Hachiko and Wilson, a bond that transcend worldly affairs and teaches us the meaning of dedication and loyalty.

This is the type of movie that, even if you already know the whole plot, you can still enjoy it. One cannot deny that Akita dogs are extremely cute and cuddly and one should pay attention to the credit title that to own Akita dogs, you need to be a professional dog owner, not just having it because you just simply want it.

I haven't seen the Japanese original movie, but I will see it and I think it is better than the American version (which is also good too) since it can maintain the original 'feeling'.

The real Hachiko was born in Japan in 1923. When his master, Dr Eisaburo Ueno, a professor at the Tokyo University, died in May, 1925, Hachi returned to the Shibuya train station the next day, and for the next nine years, to wait. Hachiko died in March, 1935. Today, a bronze statue of Hachiko sits in his waiting spot outside the Shibuya railroad station.

It is indeed an amazing story that inspires us all that despite all the indecencies we saw on night news, there is still something good in this life worth fighting for.