RUROUNI KENSHIN

Original title: Rurôni Kenshin: Meiji kenkaku roman tan

Directed by: Keishi Otomo

Starring: Takeru Satoh, Emi Takei, Koji Kikkawa, Yu Aoi, Teruyuki Kagawa, Taketo Tanaka,

Runtime: 134 min

One does not simply have a samurai movie without duelling under the rain and slo-mo gasm of the epic battle. Based on popular manga (Japanese comic) and anime (anime actually means; animation/cartoon but those who are die hard Japanese anime fans refused to call anime as cartoon. I don't know why) I believe this one should stand alone as a movie, not to be compared with the anime/manga. Speaking of which I do not accept argument that this film should be loyal to the anime/manga, this is a two hour movie and the filmmaker has liberties to crunch or remove 'unimportant' sub-plots or characters.

I myself only familiar with the anime series. Civil War hero Himura Kenshin (Takeru Satoh) better known as Hitokiri Battosai (Hitokiri means manslayer) introduced in a battle in 1868. He is ruthless and cruel. After the war Kenshin decided to stop being a killer, ditch his sword (now he have a reversed sword so he will not kill again) and lead a life less ordinary by being a wanderer.

Ten years later Kenshin managed to live alone all by himself until he ran into Kaoru (Emi Takei). Kaoru runs the fencing school left by her father whise name has been smeared of having Battosai fingerprint of killing. Meanwhile a 'fake' Battosai is running around in Tokyo and killing people.

The fake Battosai works for a businessman named Kanryu (Teruyuki Kagawa) who is rich and have an opium business, protected by hundreds of ex-samurai. The opium 'pharmacist' is Megumi (Yu Aoi) who runs from the Kanryu mansion only to seek refuge at Kaori's school.

The rest of the story is easy to predict, especially to the anime fans. The best parts are not the acting but the fighting choreography which lucky for me, does not copy 100% of what the anime used to show and does not feel like a Hong Kong martial arts movie.

Blood being spilled but gore had been reduced to minimum so it does not feel too cruel. I think it would be better if the story is a bit darker, but  overall this one is enjoyable, mixing swordplay and easy to predict story to satisfy anyone. The cinematography is very nice, it shows beautiful pictures without resorting into postcard like scenery and last by not least, not a trace of the anime to be seen here, which is good in my opinion.

Will there be part two? Judging from the financial success and rave reviews from hardcore fans, I think there will be.

PIETÀ

Directed by: Kim Ki-duk

Starring: Lee Jung-jin, Jo Min-su

Running time: 104 minutes

Revenge, Korean style is one of my favorite film. I enjoy Oldboy and I Saw the Devil and unlike most Hollywood movies, it didn't shy of graphic violence and gratuitous nudity. The way the revenge being done sometimes amazing and makes us think, that sometimes the victim can be as bad as the perpetrator.

The first Korean film to win the top prize at one of the three major international film festivals — Venice, Cannes and Berlin is very intriguing. I put some hopes for this one.

The title itself signifies the symbolism for religion. Written by Kin ki-duk, it tells the story of Kang-do (Lee Kang-do), a cruel loan shark who lives alone. He does not hesitate to hurt debtors. One day a mysterious woman appears, her name is Jang Mi-sun (Jo Min Su) who claimed to be her long lost mother.

From here it goes sick. Not in the terms of graphic violence or nudity, but some 'simulated' sex scenes that is very 'sick' and disturbing. With themes of mother and son relationship, guilt, Christian symbolism and the dark side of capitalism, this is a difficult film to watch with stellar acting.

The sudden zoom makes some scenes looks weird, if not real. The acting was good and the story will leave a bad after taste in your mind without spilling too much blood on screen.

There are no sudden twist, in the middle of the film the audience will know what Jang Mi-sun's real intention is, but what she did to reach it is beyond our imagination.

LINCOLN

Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Running time: 150 minutes

This is the sort of film where even if you know the detail of the story it won't spoil your enjoyment since it is the journey that matters, not the ending or the twist. Daniel Day-Lewis embodied the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, near perfect although personally I prefer him as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood.

Spielberg is making a good decision by not telling the whole story of Lincoln (the title might mislead people who thinks that this is a biopic) but limiting to his last month of presidency before he got killed by John Wilkes Booth. This film could simply be titled '13th Amendment  where finally the Union abolish slavery and thus reach an end to the bloody civil war.

Written by Tony Kushner, most of the actions took place in the rooms where men argues each other, war scenes are quite rare. On paper this could be boring but the result on the screen is amazing, mostly because Day-Lewis is the center of this film. Spielberg manages to tightly put the whole dialogue driven story in 150 minute. It does not glorify Lincoln but shows how delicate politics can be where it is not that easy to distinguish what is good or bad.

Lincoln was a political genius, he used ways which by the standard of the 21st century, a bit hazy and 'impeachable' such as using lobbyist to 'bribe' and buy the Democrats vote to pass the 13th amendment  He also send representative to make a peace deal with the Confederate all at the same time he try to be a father to his family. 

But he was also a good motivator with his stories of this and that. His leadership is visible and facing two great danger, the civil war and his political venture, he showed calmness and preservation. 

Other cast is also stellar, like Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens who was at the front line of abolishing salvery, even up to recognizing the rights of African-American in front of the law, something that is quite rare at that time.

One weakness of the story is the sub-story on Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who wishes to enlist thus inflict a conflict with his parents. This sub-story felt as if it strays the whole story out of focus and ended in a hushed manner. It would be better if the story about Robert only just implied in dialogue. It would save us 10 to 15 minutes of the duration.

However the whole film is good, even for non-U.S. citizen who had little knowledge on who Lincoln was. It teaches and inspires us how to lead in difficult times as realistic as possible. History based movies doesn't have to be a strict history lesson, but it can take a certain cut at certain moments in history which is defining for years, even centuries to come.

CLOUD ATLAS

Directed by: Lana Wachowski, Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski
Starring: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Ben Whishaw
Run time: 171 min

How many books are deemed to be unfilmable? This year we had Life of Pi in 3D which is amazing and then this one. Cloud Atlas is a love it or hate it movie. Many will say; dafuk is this? and some will say; That was awesome. I personally loved it and mesmerized by the sheer ambition of this film in terms of information and details.

Not so many films are trying to give complicated story and themes all in one film. It relates six stories taking place between the 19th century and post-apocalyptic future of Earth. The relations are revealed as the film goes.

Here, all you need is just to concentrate to understand the whole thing. The make-up and effects are effective in helping the story off the ground and some points in the film are just thrilling. I cannot divulge you the detail of every story since it will ruin your pleasure. Most movies are better watched without any preparation at all or any spoilers.

Based by the novel from David Mitchell, same actors are acting as different characters in each segment. The make up can hide their true face and I am left wondering, was this Tom Hanks, Jim Sturgess, Halle Berry or Hugh Grant? This sort of choice is very good for this kind of film that propose 'everything is connected' as the tagline.

The acting is amazing, especially by Tom Hanks and Ben Whishaw. They can change characters so fast, aided by make up, and make you believe that they are completely different character from another segment. I cannot imagine how the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer cooperate to make this film. They have done the impossible, filming the unfilmable novel.

However those who just look at the poster might be fooled since the poster suggest as if Tom Hanks is Captain Kirk/Han Solo and Halle Berry is Uhura and it is just a space adventure. It is actually more deep than that and if you are still confused, you shall watch it again and again.

This is a daring and visionary film that tells stories of mankind. That love prevails, that oppression will always be there, that to fought for an injustice is an ongoing cause that shall not end, that mankind learns from history that they learns nothing. It is about interconnection, that although what we did could be just a drop of water in the ocean, one must not forgot that ocean itself are collections of drops of water.

THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER

Directed by: Stephen Chbosky
Starring: Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Erza Miller
Run time: 103 min

We accept the love we think we deserve.

Teen movies. Adults view it as something nostalgic from their teen years. Most just circling around the cliches and stereotypes and it is not bad if presented right. Some try to cut deep to what does it feel to be a teenager where problems are more than just on how to be popular and date the hot guy/girl in the class.

The Perks of being a Wallflower is the latter. It is not your typical teen movie with typical stereotypes that can make you cringe since it does not feel real at all, but the one that can make you think and introspect on your youth. Directed by the book writer himself, I think the film has some hit and miss.

It missed to mention the time setting of the film which can make people confused on why the main character is typing on a typewriter and why do people do not seem to concentrate on their gadgets. It happened in 1991-1992, according to the book, thus it justify the 90s soundtrack all over the movie. It also miss on using cinematography as a medium of story telling, although the flat cinematography is actually fine for this kind of film.

But it hits all the chords of coming of age angst like fear of being unaccepted, first love, family problems, guilt, sorrow and how to face it all with the help of your best friend.

It tells about an introverted high school student Charlie (Logan Lerman), who is naive and socially awkward. He enters high school fresh from recent suicide of his best friend. He has no friends and from his inner monologue he guided us through the film. Struggling to find friends he is encouraged by his literature teacher and his new two friends Sam (Emma Watson) and Patrick (Ezra Miller), who welcome him to the real world.

Charlie find refuge in writing and as a writer myself I can understand that writing can help people to get through so many randomness on their life. As a writer he listens and understand what is going on around him.

Story of misfit trying to put their feet on the ground is always interesting to tell. In fact most of teen movies are about that and I wonder if the directors and screenwriters are previously a social misfit during their teen years thus they channel their nostalgia through movies.

Sure, anyone can argue that their teen experience is different than most movies but such fears and problems is the one that is rarely addressed in movies, especially American movies.

Lucky for this one, it doesn't fall to become ultra emo or too preachy (or even trying to be too sensitive), it present things as it is. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller are amazing, especially Ezra who is quite scary in We Need to Talk about Kevin.

The other good aspect of this film is the soundtrack, from Come on Eileen to Heroes from David Bowie which remind me of my own teen years since those songs are the one that was once hits when I was in high school.

Overall, Perks is a good movie and a rare one. I think other filmmakers who wanted to make a film about teen should watch it so they know that there is more to teen life than just shallow pursuits of hedonistic desires.

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

Directed by: Peter Jackson
Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage
Running time: 2 hours 50 minutes.

If you have read the book, you can tell that there is a huge discrepancy in terms of theme, storytelling and characterization between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings although some of the characters are the same. The Hobbit is more episodic and adventurous with a touch of comedy, while Rings is more dark and thrilling.

It is not a surprise since The Hobbit is the second book J.R.R. Tolkien wrote 20 years before he wrote The Lord of the Rings. However an adaptation is independent of having its own interpretation and this time, Peter Jackson falls in the middle. Not bad, but also not as good and thrilling as The Fellowship of the Rings.

Having included footnotes and other materials from Tolkien besides from the book itself, Jackson actually can give the story a better angle but the first half is boring and slow paced. I know that adding materials not originally from the book itself is to make the Tolkien universe of the One Ring intact, so the viewers who had seen The Lord of the Rings trilogy feels the connection between these prequels (and we have two more coming each year), the sort of connection that does not exist if you read the book per se.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey tells a story of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) who got visited by Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and 13 dwarves lead by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). The reluctant Bilbo was persuaded to join the company to go to Erebor, the old dwarf kingdom, to reclaim the land and dwarf gold once own by the dwarves but lost to the dragon Smaug.

Thus commence the journey of the company beyond Shire where they met Trolls, Goblins and pack of Orcs trying to settle bad blood with Thorin.

The second half is exciting, here's where Jackson show off his mastery in choreographing battles and fantastic sets in 3D. Different than the dark and serious The Lord of the Rings trilogy, here the dwarves also work as a comic relief, thus make the tone a little bit lighter.

Martin Freeman is successful as Bilbo Baggins while at the same time reminded me of him as Dr.Watson in Sherlock BBC.

What concerns me is hot 'thin' The Hobbit novel itself than any of The Lord of the Rings books and expanding it into three movies might excite die hard Tolkienist but makes people wonder what else could be put into the other two movies. Sure the appendix and other tidbits from Tolkien universe is plenty but it takes a great effort to pack it into each movie and make it interesting for non-book readers.

As for the technology I didn't watch it in HFR 3D IMAX, just the normal 24 fps RealD 3D and it looks amazing. The visuals and production design is top notch, the sweeping panorama of Middle-earth and the mountains alone in 3D is worth the admission price. The score by Howard Shore is satisfying, although not as memorable as he already did in the previous trilogy, he manages to create another leitmotif which is nice to hear.

PS:
One week after I saw The Hobbit on 24 fps 3D I tried the HFR 48 fps Dolby 3D and I can say that the HFR sucks. Sure everything looks too damn sharp, there is not even any blur during fast movements of the actors but It feels weird and uncomfortable to watch. Sometimes the actions move too fast it felt surreal. Better stick with 24 fps Mr. Jackson.

ARGO

Directed by: Ben Affleck

Starring: Ben Affleck, Alan Arkin, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Victor Garber

Running time: 120 min.

The movie was fake. The mission was real.

1979.Iran. Hostage crisis. Most people know what happened but only some know that six Americans managed to escape the hostage crisis and took shelter at the residence of Canadian Ambassador.

A rescue mission must be done. How to save them? Sometimes the craziest ideas are the best. A CIA operative named Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) have a crazy idea to make a fake movie crew being extracted from Iran using Canadian passport. The film proposed is Argo, a science fiction rip-off of Star Wars. This idea was, at first, rejected since it is too silly. Who would believe a science fiction film will be shooting in Iran at the time of hostage crisis? 

Mendez fly to the enemy's lair, Tehran, and train the six remaining embassy employees how to 'behave' the Hollywood way. To help with the cover, Mendez also cooperate with John Chambers (John Goodman) and Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), film industry insider to make everything seems legitimate. All of this is a joint cooperation between United States and Canada.

Does Mendez's plan works or the Iranian finally realized that CIA are trying to smuggle six Americans out of Tehran? It doesn't matter if you already know the ending, what matters are that Ben Affleck can bring thrills and suspense without trying to cover it with so many action scenes. Some scenes are dramatized which is normal for 'based on a true story' film, but this time it is successful in holding your breath. Just like The Town from Affleck, this one is another proof that ex-Daredevil can make a good film.

Smart and crafty, I am truly entertained by the details on how Mendez tries to make his mission success, combined with archival news clips to make the look seems real. 

The film was fake, Argo was never (or not yet) being made at all but the point is if you want people to believe the lie, you should use media to support you. In this case Argo went as far as being featured on Variety magazine, thus make it looks like that the film is about to shoot. However I wonder, would anyone perhaps in the future try to make Argo for real?

LIFE OF PI

"You don't know the strength of your faith until it's been tested."

Directed by: Ang Lee

Starring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Tabu, Gita Patel

Run time: 127 min

As a person who have read the book, I didn't expect much since book and cinema are two different medium. However I put my trust on Oscar-winning director Ang Lee, who take risk casting a newbie (and not even an American or British) as the main actor. It is good since the fame of the actor doesn't distract us from the story. With Suraj Sharma as Pi, we see Pi on the screen, not some famous actor trying to act like Pi.

It is a tough sell for American audience, since meeting art and commercialism is a hard thing to do. Proven by lukewarm box office revenue, Life of Pi cannot manage to stay at number one at the chart on its first week of release since the vampires of Twilight saga still rule the movies.

By this one Ang Lee proves that he is a good story teller. He can tackle drama, martial art films, gay drama, superhero movies and this one, an adaptation of the so called 'unfilmable' novel by Yann Martel. I have read the novel and I can say that the novel is damn good. It is not cheesy or overly pretentious but very beautiful.

The story is about a young man, Pi (Suraj Sharma), who found himself stranded on a life boat in the Pacific after the ship he board in with his family from India to Canada, sunk.

Raised in Pondicherry, India, Pi always wonder about faith, God and religion. His family manages a zoo in Pondicherry and animals are part of his life. They have to move to India since managing zoo is quite difficult financially for them.  Now, stranded on a lifeboat with Richard Parker, an adult Bengal tiger, he must do a journey of a lifetime. 227 days he spent on the boat, surviving and pondering about life and the heart of the film is how Pi, manages to survive the terrible ordeal. This is the story about the power of faith and the strength of a man, a story that could easily fall into a cheesy one if made by mediocre director. But in Ang Lee's hand, it has soul and visual splendor that will make your jaw drop and your mind start to think.

In terms of visual achievement, the film is very impressive. Even if you hate 3D you should try 3D with this one. Major kudos to cinematographer Claudio Miranda who can give the viewers beautiful scenery of loneliness. The raging and violent seas, the all CGI Richard Parker, glowing algae in the sea, it is all presented in a beautiful way.

Ang Lee used 3D not as gimmick to grab cash, but to tell his story more deep and involving the viewers. Even for some scenes the aspect ratio changes so it can give the audience new experience like the flying fish scene where some fish could be seen 'jump' outside the frame. The Adult version of Pi, acted by Irrfan Khan is also another plus, his acting skill is quite extraordinary and narrates the whole story.

Whatever you believed in, this one didn't become an overly preachy movie which push its ideas on your mind but an open end journey where you can chose which one to believe.  Life of Pi is one of the rare movie that will make you ponder about the power of faith that can make man survive even the most tragic thing that could happen to him, whether you are a believer or not.

OBAMA-SELF

Am I the only one who can enjoy watching movies alone all by myself? I'm not being anti social or something but if you watch a movie with more than three people there's a good chance you will never get a good seat. Whether it is in the rear or too far in the front. This happens mostly if the film is a blockbuster one. I remember that when I watched The Avengers I chose to go alone since if I make an announcement in the local press (okay I'm just being hyperbolic here), I might not get a good seat. 

A good seat is important for me, I do not want to sit in the front rows staring at Bruce Willis's skin pores, nor do I want to sit too far back. Why? Well since I paid for the ticket with my hard earned money so I deserve to get what I wanted, that's why.

However in this world, one does not simply get what they want. There are moments when I have to yield to powers greater than I and have to watch a movie where I got to sit in the rear, hurting my delicate neck in the process.

Usually people have this argument; it is the togetherness that counts when you watch movies with bunch of friends. But I beg to differ, I do like hanging out with people, but not at the cinemas while watching a film since we got a place for that called; restaurant, or musiums, or the Army Headquarters or supermarket.

And that is why, whenever I really wanted to see a movie I prefer to go alone (by go alone means that I didn't tell anyone that I planned to watch a certain movie at certain time and place. I also didn't update it on my Facebook and Twitter. People need not know where I have been) and I actually enjoy it. All they need to know that I have done watching the film. There are also times that after I watch a film, I didn't write the review at all so no one knows what I have been watching and I am fine by that.

Although for the first time (it happened years and years ago) I did that, the ticket lady have that surprised look. 'You are going alone?' she said. Then I said with a beaming smile; 'Yeah just me'.

Here's the benefit of watching movies alone;
1. You can (not always but most of the times) get a good seat in the middle row since you are alone, even if the film is about to start in 15 minutes and it is a blockbuster one.

2. You can concentrate better.

3. You can snap and hush people who talked during movies since they are strangers, not your friends. You can be cruel.

4. It is economically cheaper to go alone (sometimes all I want is just to watch a movie, then go home, no pre or post activities), you spared time and money hang out pre and post watching movies at some over the top restaurant that sells lemon tea at the price of Rp.20.000. You can call me stingy if you wanted to. I'm fine by that since it didn't disturb anyone's peace.

5. By going alone it is you who decide when and where will you be watching it. There will be no high ranking officials meeting at the White House to decide when and where.

Okay I admit watching movies with your girlfriend is also fun but just the two of us no more and we sit in the middle. It is not worth it to watch a movie with your girlfriend but you sit directly in front of the screen. However if you are still single (and doesn't really keen to mingle too much), going alone is reccommended. What annoys me are people who said; I can't go watching that movie, I have no one to accompany me. Bitch please.

The most refreshing thing is when I enter the cinema and there's few than 10 people inside the cinema. It happened mostly when the film is independent, non-mainstream and (hold your breath), black and white. The audience tend to be more civilized.

I remember watching After the Curfew at the first day of showing and there's only nine people. It was so quiet and nobody talk. I really enjoy it since the seat next to me is empty and I can put my bag on the empty seat while I scratch my balls without being afraid some strangers might look at me in the act.

I also remember watching Biutiful, it is a Spanish film with running time more than two hours. It is less likely that teenagers and kids will watch it. It is also less likely to be sold out or watched by more than 20 people. I went to the cinema 10 minutes before the film started and got myself a good seat.

I did enjoy the film and as I enter the cinema, there are only nine people there. After I watched the movie and land my scrawny (but smooth and hairless) ass at home I said this to myself; well, that was an amazing experience for me!

SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS

Directed by: Martin McDonagh
Starring: Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, Christopher Walken, Tom Waits, Abbie Cornish, Olga Kurylenko
Running time: 110 minutes

Only few movies managed to transcend genre barriers, lies as a cross for so many movie genres and absurdly entertaining. The Coens are successful in doing that with Fargo and No Country for Old Men, Quentin Tarantino with his movies and this one that does not easily fall into the drama/comedy/buddy movie genre manages to do the same too.

But for me this is a semi-meta film which remind me of Adaptation, that tells the power of storytelling, redemption and how people manages to face the harshness of life, all presented in a unique way by McDonagh. It is amazing, not in a jaw dropping way but in a contemplative one that the delicateness of the story can be presented as clever as possible.

I can relate to stories about writers having difficulties finding muse for his writings, I am a writer myself and must face so many moments where I just don't know what to write but the deadlines are chasing me. Although I haven't write any screenplay (not yet) but this is the sort of movie I put close at heart. Writing is not just punching keyboards and it's all done in 15 minutes. Writing is a result of our thought process, equipped by our own unique experience and it all ended in words and sentences. After you write you feel a sense of fulfillment that you can sort all the randomness inside your head into something more structured and tangible. Writing should be everybody's habit since if you write and re-read what you write several years later, you get to know who you really are and that you realize that you had more layers than you thought you have.

Using a shih-tzu dog as a Mac Guffin, it works well just like that suitcase in Pulp Fiction and rabbit's foot in Mission: Impossible 3. The story is about Marty (Collin Farrell) a screenwriter in Los Angeles who is struggling to write his screenplay titled "Seven Psychopaths". Living the Irish stereotype (alcoholic and look gloomy), his friend, Billy (Sam Rockwell) is a dog-thief, dragging his problems into Billy's doorstep, thus set chains of events that involved Hans (Christopher Walken) and a crime boss in a very unpredictable way.

I have to give thumbs up to the writing since it doesn't take five hours to put everything together, the layers of the stories managed to convey the message pretty well helped by good acting quality, except for Colin Farrell who looks like he is playing the same character in In Bruges (which happen to be the first film Farrell worked with McDonagh). It also avoid so many movie cliches, thus makes this film genuinely original (did I just wrote that?) in the year where most movies are sequels, comic book adaptation or based on a best selling novel.

END OF WATCH

Directed by: David Ayer
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Peña and Anna Kendrick
Running time: 109 min

If you remember the reality show Cops, then this movie is not much different. Breathing fresh air to the found footage genre (fuck you Paranormal Activity! Why? Why not), David Ayer manages to bring a gut wrenching police story into the screen.

This is Ayer's second credit as a writer-director, after Harsh Times (2005). He also wrote Denzel Washington's Oscar-winning Training Day (2001) and two other cop movies, Dark Blue (2002), S.W.A.T. (2003) and The Fast and the Furious (2001). It can be said that Ayer is an expert on cop movies.

There wasn't much good cop movie nowadays and this one could be the best of this year (and a possible Oscar contender for Best Picture). The main characters are two cops, Brian Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Mike Zavala (Michael Pena); good friends and partner in the LAPD.

Taylor loves to tape his experience as cop and he would like to make a documentary about it someday. Meanwhile Zavala is a family man. They both being good friends for years and their chemistry is good. We can see how they talk to each other in the patrol car that reflect their closeness. In the first and second act we got to see how they do the job, from solving a domestic crisis to saving kids from fire. They are heroes but not without flaws. They are also human being. Sometimes they acted like tough guys and sometimes they are nice. Behind the badge, they are just like us who have dreams and hopes.

However job is job and they have to do it seriously. The two cops are transferred into a tough neighborhood with a large population of Mexican-American and they stumble upon a large drug stash.

The drug lord in Mexico is not happy about this and ordered that the two cops to be killed. We know hos this ordeal going to end. The film didn't waste the time by doing so many cop movie cliche, although the one-of-the-cop-is-about-to-get-married and the-other-one-is-about-to-have-a-baby has been used so many times to evoke emotion.

All I can say this film really shows the ugly side of Los Angeles that almost as dangerous as the Rio De Janeiro's favelas in Elite Troops.

Being a cop never easy, you put your life in the line of fire and as the title suggest, it is an euphemism used within the law enforcement community for an officer killed in the line of duty. You know how these kind of story usually end but it is the journey that makes it worth to watch and I can say that End of Watch is highly underrated, just like Brooklyn's Finest.

ATAMBUA 39 DEGREES CELCIUS

Directed by: Riri Riza
Starring: Gudino Soares, Petrus Beyleto, Putri Moruk
Run time: 120 min

In the spirit of neo realism just like The Kid with a Bike and so many Iranian films, the newest collaboration between Riri Riza and Mira Lesmana (they are very successfull with Laskar Pelangi and Sang Pemimpi) is very satisfying. Bear in mind, if you are the sort of moviegoer who likes only mindless mainstream movies, this is not for you, but for those who wanted to see something different this is the right one.

In 1999 the referendum which lead to the independence of Timor Leste is in chaos. Riots and murders happened as civil war broke. Those who supported for integration run to East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia and those who wanted independence stay in Timor Leste.
 

The story itself set 13 years after the riot as teenager Joao (Gudino Soares) and his father, Ronaldo (Petrus Beyleto) chose to stay at Atambua, Indonesia (border city between Indonesia and Timor Leste). Actually Ronaldo left his wife and daughter in Timor Leste. Joao himself missed his mother by listening to her voice on an old tape recorder. Joao who works as a motorcycle rider for hire suddenly fallen for Nikia (Putri Moruk), a new girl who came from Kupang and looks mysterious.

Life is hard in Atambua, and it looks so much different than Indonesia's major cities. It seems time stops in the 90s there. For many Indonesians, Atambua is a strange land, as if it is another country but yet it is still in Indonesia. The whole film is in Tetun, the regional language, but the strength is not in the dialogue but in the silence of the visual and the inner struggle of the characters.

Embracing neo realism, the cinematography is stunning without trying to gloss it out since it looks natural. Although the back story is about the event in 1999, the story didn't fall to become preachy and boring, in fact it is quite simple and solid. The casting of unknown actors and actress help to strengthened the neo realistic image of the film.

Limited release in Indonesia, I think the timing is not right since the cinemas here are still busy with Skyfall although the film itself is good and offer many viewers a whole new story form a part of Indonesia not so many people know of.

In the end, Riri gives us a question; why does politics and countries divide families? What is nationalism and the most important of all a statement that a blood relationship and family is stronger than anything.

The 39 Degrees Celsius (Americans, we use metric system here) means that in that body temperature, a human body considered to almost reach a critical point and combining it with the title, it could mean that these characters are living their life in the edge.

SKYFALL

Directed by: Sam Mendes
Starring: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Bérénice Lim Marlohe
Running time: 143 minutes

Is this the end, hold your breath and count to ten because Skyfall deserve to be in the top ten Bond movies. Back with style, Mendes put Bond to basic or to say it more classy, deconstruct it The Dark Knight way. No flashy gadgets or fancy cars, just Bond being old fashioned against the modern world. In 143 minutes Bond and non Bond fans got an interesting story and character to watch.

Daniel Craig is back for the third time (and the third time a Bond film shoot in Istanbul and Turkey after From Russia With Love and The World is not Enough), fulfilling the common promise 'James Bond will return' in every Bond film. 

Six years after Casino Royale and four years after Quantum of Solace, Craig embodies Bond more comfortable. In the pre-credit scene he is accidentally shot in Istanbul then back from the dead to meet M (Judi Dench) who have to face a new problem; MI6 undercover agents being exposed by some criminal mastermind who happen to crack MI6 computer network. Bond must solve this problem and eventually met Silva (Javier Bardem) the ultimate villain of Skyfall.

But this is the new world where enemies are not easily distinguished in terms of race, ideology or even motives and Mendes put this question; was it necessary for Bond to exist in the world where enemies are hard to define? and how 'human' Bond can be where his skills are not as good as it use to be.

Here we see the human Bond where he must use his basic wits to defeat a sophisticated enemy and several quiet moments to be solved in a loud bang. Some who seek classic Bond elements might be a bit disappointed since the second and third act happened in England not in an exotic country where usually some fancy villain HQ get blown up.

Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan’s script is solid and gives a whole new meaning to Bond. Roger Deakins give a smooth and classy look for Skyfall, some scenes are just plain beautiful. Especially the one with Aston Martin DB5.  

Not just that, the story also ask a deep question; what must Bond do to adapt to the new ways of war. It is establishment vs reinvention and the most important is; who is James Bond without his gadgets and fancy cars. Can he use his basic skill to survive?

You can say Casino Royale re-boot Bond, but this one reinforce the re-boot in a way that can satisfy Bond and no Bond fan. Mendes has set a new bar for Bond and one thing for sure, Bond will return.

MOONRISE KINGDOM

Directed by: Wes Anderson
Starring: Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Jason Schwartzman

Running Time: 94 min

I think it is fun being a boy scout. You can learn a lot about making camps, fires and all that stuff that can be useful in the nature. Make it as a movie and add Wes Anderson (his recent adventures are: Fantastic Mr.Fox and The Darjeeling Limited) to the mixture, you get something unique and heartwarming without being too melancholic.

This is your typical Wes Anderson film with unique people, dry jokes, dysfunctional family and a soft color tone everywhere.

The tale centers around two kids in the 60s. One a boy scout named Sam (Jared Gilman), the other the EMO girl, Suzy (Kara Hayward) who made a pact one year ago to run away together in the island of New England.

Sam is an orphan and as he escaped he is still in his boyscout uniform. The escape alert the adults led by Capt. Sharp (Bruce Willis), Scoutmaster Ward (Edward Norton) and followed by Suzy's parent (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) and involving a social worker (Tilda Swinton). They roam the island looking for the two kids and resolving their issues.

The film is not boring at all, in fact it is funny and exciting in a Wes Anderson way. Through their adventures we learn on how the characters deals with their own reality and how this escape puts together the people in the island together.

One of the best element of Moonrise Kingdom is how the dialogue, no matter how dry it is, can evoke a smile or a nod from the audience. I know the whole event in this film felt surreal, but sometimes, aren't we felt a bit surreal when we deal with our problems?

LOOPER

Directed by: Rian Johnson
Starring: Joseph Gordon Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt
Running Time: 118 min

“Time travel has not yet been invented. But thirty years from now, it will have been.”

If you had a chance to kill Hitler when he was a baby, would you do it? The paradox and consequences are confusing and it can make a discussion worthy of several days time with so many pizza boxes lying around.

Looper is this year's Inception (which happened to be starred by Joseph Gordon-Levitt too) and Source Code, a sci-fi that relies heavily on the story, not on the flashy gimmick of time travel. It is also not so hard to understood, however you will always find people scratching their head and asking for explanation.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is Joe, a Looper who lives in the year of 2042 where the future is not so different than our time. The visual of the film reminds you of Blade Runner (1982) and Star Trek (2009), the future is not as flashy as Windows 8 or Apple based operating system but a dystopic gritty neo-noir one.

As a Looper his job is to kill people being sent from the future (is there any grammar nazi left in the future?) who suddenly pop out in a cane field. Without question Joe kill his object. But what if the object he is about to kill is himself (Bruce Willis) from the future? Will he kill 'himself'?

It is best for you to just know a little about the story, since if I tell you more, it will ruin your pleasure. No need to think hard about the paradox, just enjoy the story. It is more than just time travel, it is about consequences of actions, changes in heart, love of a mother to a child (and vice versa) and moral ambiguities. From the first scene you will be hooked until the end and the music is so damn good it will make you breathless, waiting for the end to come.

I think Rian Johnson can add more complexity to the story and still got people's attention. Levitt is good in impersonating Willis's mannerism, although his face looked like as if he got a botox and nose job too good to be true. Bruce Willis looks more menacing here than in The Expendables 2 and I like it when he hold a machine gun, it feels like Die Hard again.

The action is decent and not too much, which is make sense since the budget is only US$30 million. So not enough money to blow up cars or bridges. The strength lies in the music and a well thought story which makes this film one of this year's best.

TED

Directed by: Seth McFarlane
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth McFarlane
Running time: 106 min


"When you hear the sound of thunder, / Don't you get too scared. / Just grab your thunder buddy / And say these magic words: / "Fuck you, thunder! / You can suck my dick! / You can't get me thunder / 'Cause you're just God's farts!"

Well, I am not going to say 'fuck you thunder' since I am not afraid of thunder, or spiders, or zombies but I am afraid of Apache helicopters chasing me in a field. As to why it chases me I think it is because I always watch a movie until the last words in the credit title.

Obnoxious, politically incorrect, rude but funny and frank is who Ted is, a stuffed Teddy Bear comes to life after little John wished he had a friend. Fast forward to the future, John (Wahlberg) a 35 year old guy suffering from arrested adolescence. Working on a car rental company with absurd friends, John dates Lori (Kunis), the beautiful but nice girl next door who just happened to have a better career.

As expected bromance vs romance is happening here as John has to choose between his juvenile bromance with Ted or romance with Lori. But it does not end in a conventional way. In fact Lori is the nice girl and John is the one who has to struggle to contain his inner child. The friendship between Ted and John is typical of males where they can insult each other but still being friends.

For those who are 30 years old or more, they can laugh upon so many jokes in this film. First you have Ted being obnoxious and sexist, then you have Sam Jones make a parody of himself as Flash Gordon and then there's Tom Skeritt and Ryan Reynolds.

I didn't remember when the last time I laugh so loud at the cinema. I know the jokes are adults only but I think McFarlane has succeeded in making a brand new adult themed comedy without having to rely on remakes or frat college jokes but on lists of white trash names. May those names still available, if there is a sequel to be made.

MAMA CAKE

Directed by: Anggy Umbara
Starring: Ananda Omesh, Boy William, Dinda Kanyadewi, Arie Dagienkz,
Running time: 143 minutes 

Just when you thought that the so called comedy drama with heavy touch of religious theme, in this case Islam, is almost extinct from Indonesian cinemas, Mama Cake revives it for the Bieber generation.

From the outside it doesn't even look like your regular Indonesian film, it looks like some teen comedy. But in the inside it has bigger chance to be released in Ramadhan instead of any other month.

The story is about three friends; Raka (Ananda Omesh), Willy (Boy William) and Rio (Ari Dagienkz) who has to travel to Bandung upon request of Raka's father (Rudy Salam) to buy a certain brand of Brownies; Mama Cake, in Bandung.

Bandung is famous for culinary delicacies like steamed brownies and it's variant, not only that, the so called Mama Cake is for Raka's grandma who had been in the hospital becuase she is sick. But in the spirit of Harold & Kumar go to the White Castle (2004), what's being planned as just a simple journey ended in fiasco. But the fiasco itself is a spiritual journey for every main characters.

What bothers me is the visual style. Applying too much color saturation that can hurt your eyes for 143 minutes, it even try to look cool by trying to look like comic panels and applying too many unnecessary subtitles. I have no idea why the director is applying such approach. Is he trying to look cool or wanted to have large appeal to short attention span teenagers to sit through the whole movie?

Only Sin City (2005) can make a film look like a comic panel and still look cool. I still think this one can be better if the visual just being normal.

Not only that, one weakness of this film is trying too much to convey the message it even include the evolution theory debate in it which in my opinion is not necessary. One of the character; Willy spoke English 70% all the time and it is quite annoying. Why did he has to speak English? (Why does this review in English too?).

However, even though the visual is a pain to the eyes, the story is new and fresh, some of the jokes are genuinely funny and the message is easy to understood. As native Bandung, I like the use of extensive Sundanese language, too bad it doesn't have Indonesian subtitle for those who did not understood Sundanese at all.

OH-PINION: WATCH OUT WE GOT A FANBOY OVER HERE!

Breaking the tradition of just writing movie reviews here, I dare myself to express my written opinion which I try to write at least once or twice each month, to spice up things here. I think I can say that I'm fed up with hypes, especially hype surrounding a certain movie. What I mean is that in the age of minute by minute update from social networking site and news site, people can get to know the news about their favorite movie in faster.

They get to know casting rumors, paparazzi taking pictures on the set, discussion board, leaked scripts, speculations and so on and so on. They can also post/share it on their social networking site, flooding our timeline with their obsession.

I take the case of The Dark Knight Rises, one of the most anticipated movie of this year. Sure, I do anticipate it but in a quiet way. I could, if I wanted to, browse and try to find news on the film but I chose not to because I want to have a pristine experience as I walked into the cinema. But I find it difficult. Although I didn't click on the links people posted on the film on the social networking site, but upon seeing the link itself, after some time and after too much link, is getting annoying.

I don't get it, sure they are excited but hold on to your horses. Must you always satiate your thirst for every tiny detail on the movie you like? Doesn't it decrease the excitement as you watch the film? Wouldn't it be easier for you to just sit back, relax and not knowing everything before you watch a film?

I remember as I watched The Dark Knight, I didn't know much about the story and blown away by the twists and brilliance of the film. I would not get such experience if I keep reading about any tiny detail film before the film released let alone spoilers. Spoilers, the crucial ones, ruin your experience. Say anything you want but I hate spoilers.

Then comes the film and the reviews. There are fanboys reviews and neutral one. The fanboys will praise it and see that the film has no flaws at all, the neutral ones point out weaknesses and strength and the one that bashed the film got bashed back.

It is reported that recently the site rotten tomatoes disabled comment function on The Dark Knight Rises reviews due to floods of lashes from 'certain' readers who dislike certain bad review. I think it is too much. Sure it is fine to like something but to like it too much is just annoying. These people should learn that there are other people with different opinion in this world. The number of fanboys reviewing films adapted from comic book and praising it with as many superlatives as possible, is too damn high!

As for me, I cannot be a fanboy of anything. I can like a movie but can still see that even in the most thought provoking film, there are still minor flaws here and there.

A film which is adapted from any other material should stand alone in its own and bitch please, I don't like it when some people say that I should read the book/comic/poem/whatever the original source material, in order to understand the whole film.

So what does Wesley Sneijder and Sergio Ramos has to do with this? Nothing. I just want to put a picture here for no reason.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Run time: 164 min 

It's the one we've been waiting for such a long time, the epic conclusion of the Batman saga by Nolan. Eight years have passed after the events in The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) lives in recluse because he let himself being blamed for Harvey Dent's death but he cannot stay recluse forever since a new villain, Bane (Tom Hardy) appeared and wreak havoc in Gotham. Not only that, past ghost still haunts him. With story elements ripped off from Karl Marx's guide book on how to stage a proletarian uprising against the bourgeois and fancy gadget, Batman must save the city that has once condemned him.

As for me, the first half is boring, as if Nolan is still having a raw script to build up the setup for the awesome second half. Like it or not people will have to put it apple to apple with The Dark Knight and sorry to say, Rises is not better than The Dark Knight. I am not saying that Rises is bad, it is still better than The Avengers.

In The Dark Knight we have the maniac Joker which has been acted brilliantly by Heath Ledger with can creep you out. Joker can give Batman the feeling that Batman's existence is meaningless without him, whilst Bane is just another straightforward thug that has less brilliance than Joker.

With sequel, the director is challenged to top his last film, not in terms of explosions fanfare but in terms of story and for this one Nolan is half successful. Nolan could be more provocative with the proletarian uprising elements and financial injustice but the whole thing seemed to be sidelined by a nuclear bomb ready to explode in Gotham. One crucial thing is being left off, where is Joker? He is involved on Harvey Dent's death that become the starting point for Rises. How come not even his name (and existence) being mentioned at all?

Additional character is just decent, like Selena Kyle (Anne Hathaway) as the burglar which does not even mentioned as cat woman or Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) who is very important and John Blake (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who gives a breath of hope for sequel.

Rises is just like Spider-Man 3 to Spider-Man's Raimi franchise, The Godfather Part 3 to The Godfather saga and Return of the Jedi to the Star Wars saga. A decent ending that sometimes feel like an overlong coda for the whole series and struggle to look better than the second film.

Fan boys will praise it, Nolanites will be screaming in orgasm (and perhaps some tears are shed), but not for me. I think the film is good, a honorable ending for the epic saga but it could have been better.

Special Note: My deepest condolences for the shooting victims in Denver, Colorado during The Dark Knight Rises premiere.

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

Directed by: Marc Webb
Run time: 136 min

One day Gregor Samsa awoke and find himself to have been transformed into a cockroach, then he decided that he should be a superhero; the cockroach-man. The next scene will be Franz Kafka chasing me with a scythe in the field for ruining his Metamorphosis. Just kidding, however the re-boot of Spider-Man on the screen is deemed too fast for me since I still remember how Sam Raimi treat Spider-Man with humor and adventure. So can Marc Webb take spidey to the next level?

The story itself is familiar; how Peter Parker got bitten, discovering powers, reason to be a superhero, trying to balance it with real life etc. But the real challenge is how do Webb, who only have made one feature before, will please comic book and non comic book fans. Not just that, ever since Nolan gives new breath to Batman, superhero movies have a new standard to look at. The usual crowd pleasing story has become generic and screenwriters are demanded to give more emphasis on reasons on how the main protagonist do what he must do in a better manner. Viewers are getting used seeing CGI fanfare, thus a better story is needed to keep them in their seats.

Andrew Garfield is the new spidey and he is the right choice. From his physical posture to his acting, he can be a a good spidey in years to come. In the female lead department Easy-A star Emma Stone is adorable as Gwen Stacy and yes I am a big fan of her. They both are the right choice.

As the story progressed the viewers were given the familiar territory on the origin of a superhero and the last half is predictable it is the ultimate battle between spidey and the lizard (Rhys Ifans). Done in 3D the action scenes are awesome but for the first half it is not useful since one cannot se the difference between the 2D and 3D. One of the strong point is how Peter Parker fought most of the time without his mask, it gives the viewers a sense of realtiy since if he spend most of fighting with his mask on, it feels like just a stuntman and CGI in the  works.

I think what makes Spider-Man likeable is that he is just like most of us; common people. He's not as rich as Bruce Wayne or as privileged as Tony Stark. He is just a guy next door trying to make ends meet while keeping New York safe from villains.

However one cannot stop put this one apple to apple with Sam Raimi's spidey and I can say that it can stand in the same level, not worst but not better too.

PROMETHEUS

Directed by: Ridley Scott
Run time: 124 min

At last a 'decent' sci-fi in the summer that doesn't rely on comics, although still a prequel of a very famous Alien film in 1979 which means I still cringe on the lack of originality Hollywood has to offer. The latest release from Ridley Scott also doesn't shy on giving gore and thrill-gasm to the viewers.

In general, the plot is quite similar to Alien. A group of people in a ship arrived at some strange planet and meet strange stuff there. Then, creepy things happened. In the spotlight is Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) plus David (Michael Fassbender), an android inside the ship Prometheus.

The whole thing still cannot match the eeriness of Alien but it is a decent sci fi. If there's flaw is that the script seems to be a bit cliche, but Fassbender and Rapace saves the story by acting great. Fassbender as David is enigmatic and curios while Rapace as Shaw is typical of tough woman in the neighborhood that will not let anyone and anything mess with her. The rest is amazing, the scenery and the alien manages to grip the audience with it's creepiness (does such thing ever existed).

So what is Prometheus? According to Greek mythology he is a Titan who steal fire from the gods for the betterment of mankind and he is punished by Zeus. As a trickster Prometheus considered as hero of mankind, a symbol for improving human existence by reaching the unreachable.

Unlike 'just another alien monster that deep throats their subjects' this one ponders of the 'why are we here' question and if you want the answer to be revealed in the film it's just like expecting to understand philosophy just by watching movies. It is slightly thought provoking for those who wanted to think.

Is it a worthy addition to a franchise that has been unable to boast a genuinely satisfying entry in more than 25 years? That depends on what you're expecting. If you wanted a piece of The Avengers like action, you will be disappointed but if you expect a scary sci-fi, this is what you looking for.

As for the 3-D, it is magnificent and gives you a sense of depth since it is native 3-D not those craps converted into 3-D. It's crisp and clear and although most of the scenes are in the dark, it does not descent into chaotic darkness. Just like Avatar and Hugo, Scott really knows how to maximize the visual beauty of 3-D not to rape it to grab working people's money.

MEN IN BLACK 3

Directed by: Barry Sonnenfeld
Run time: 103 min

I'm not going to say that this is the best film of this year but it is fun, Rebecca Black's fun. Besides I am a fan of Will Smith since the day of Fresh Prince of Bel Air. I think he is a versatile actor, he can be funny but also deep. I like most of his movies, apart from Seven Pounds (2008) which I haven't seen until today and whoever says that he didn't deserve to be nominated as Best Actor as Muhammad Ali in Ali (2001) can just kiss Thor's flying mjolnir.

However I do not have too much expectation on the third outing of the Men in Black franchise. I mean what could a big movie sequel offer besides more explosion? But thank God this one doesn't rely on destroying New York City but a simple time travel story.

So Agent J (Will Smith) must be back in time (pun intended) to save the world and Agent K in 1969. Josh Brolin acted as the young Agent K, which is a relief since if it has to be Tommy Lee Jones in prosthetic it will be corny. It involves historical element of Apollo 11 launching and secret of Agent J's past.

Most of the charm comes from Will Smith, he saves so many flat scenes by his jokes. Most of the inside jokes from the earlier films are still intact. The ending is quite a surprise to me and explain why Agent K always having such a wooden expression towards Agent J. However the chemistry between the young Agent K and the, well, always youthful look, Agent J is still interesting to watch. The old formula of odd couple with different taste and background always work.

Will Smith hasn't lost his edge and I am still wondering how come after all this year, Will Smith doesn't age much? Is he an alien?

SHAME

Directed by: Steve McQueen
Run time: 101 min

This is a depressing anatomy of loneliness, pain and grief where even the sex scenes will make you flinch and sad. Michael Fassbender really strips down (literally and metaphorically) to show you that meaningless sex is indeed meaningless.

Brandon (Michael Fassbender) is a 30 something employee of a good company that gives him a nice apartment and lifestyle. There is no worries of food shortening or cannot pay daily bills. He lives alone all by himself and somehow the loneliness began to eat him from the inside. But no one can live alone and to kill it he has fall into the downward spiral of casual sex.

In other words he is addicted to sex and deep inside is suffering and no one can help him. Brandon lives as if he is the living corpse, no emotion with wooden expression but deep down inside he wanted a connection. He doesn't love anyone and fears need.
 
Even when his sister arrived at his loft, Sissy (Carey Mulligan) Brandon's life seem to change a bit. But it just makes Brandon more lonely. You cannot help to sympathize with Brandon's misery and somehow, through the camera angles that sometimes see Brandon from glass or reflection from other surface, the viewers got the idea that it is how Brandon see himself, distorted and unclear.
 
Shame is the second film from Steve McQueen after the acclaimed Hunger, and it has successfully show raw emotion and good story. Apart from Fassbender, Mulligan also gave a strong performance and in one scene that I think could sum up why does Brandon and Sissy are like that one quote seems to make the viewers think deeply; "We're not bad people. We just come from a bad place."