A SEPARATION

Original Title: Jodaeiye Nader az Simin

Directed by: Ashgar Farhadi
Run Time: 123 min

A small family drama is a very difficult theme to tackle, it can be beautiful like Biutiful or just another Hallmark channel movies with too much dramatization and easily forgotten.

Simin (Leila Hatami) had enough with Nader (Peyman Moadi) after 14 years of marriage. She asked for a divorce, something Nader will not give since he thinks he is a good husband who treated his wife rightfully. Simin thinks that Nader pays too much attention to his elderly father who suffers from Alzheimer and she wanted to take their daughter Termeh (Sarina Farhadi, the director's daughter) abroad to have a better future. She thinks that Nader is being selfish. Here the story takes no sides since both seems to have a valid argument.

They live separately ever since with Termeh living with her father. As Nader is busy working at the office he hire a help from a woman, Somayeh (Kimia Hosseini) to take care of his father. This lead into another problem which probes deeply into the fabric of modern society in present Iran and lays out each character's motivation.

Here is the story where right and wrong are not clearly divided and everyone just do things what they think best (or right?) for them. Wonderfully crafted and well acted, wherever you come from you can relate to the hopelessness and the uncertainty of the situation. It is emotional without having to rely on popular song or some score to lead the viewer's feeling.

Free of any political messages, it proves that Iranian filmmakers are able to make a neo realistic film without having to be political.

This is the first Iranian film to sweep Golden Bear for Best Film and Silver Bear awards for Best Actor and Actress at this year's Berlin Film Festival.

SANG PENARI (THE DANCER)

Directed by: Ifa Isfansyah
Run Time: 111 Min

As a film trying to portray one of Indonesia's turmoil years, where the Indonesian Communist Party is having it's peak in the 60s and the subsequent event that everybody (unless some people who have no interest in history) in Indonesia knows what it is, it is a very good one. Not trying to be pretentious or even preachy, it even had a good production value.

Sadly, for foreign viewers they will be left confused to the what and why in this film since even the name of the Indonesian Communist Party didn't even mentioned at all and there is no title card that explain the socio political background of the historical events that become the background of this film.

Not even any visual symbol depicts the peak of communist influence in Indonesia at that time, not even the logo of hammer and sickle appeared at all. As for me this is important since this film has big potential to be sent into foreign film festivals.

But for Indonesians, we already know what and why without us needed to be invaded by the extreme visual of communist logos.

However instead of trying to portray the historical event in a generic way, this one explore the how and why this situation could flourish in Indonesia by stating that poverty, prejudice and people's innocence come at play.

Inspired from the novel Ronggeng Dukuh Paruk by Ahmad Tohari (which I haven't read), it tells the story of  Srintil (Prisia Nasution) a young woman who lived in the village of Dukuh Paruk in Central Java. She wanted to be a ronggeng dancer, a profession regarded as prestigious in the village. Not only that it could elevate  the village's prestige but it could bring a lot of money too.

The thing is, as a traditional ronggeng dancer, it is obliged for her to have sex with the highest bidder and that hurts Rasus (Oka Antara) deeply since he had a soft spot for Srintil. But who is he anyway to take  Srintil into his arms? He is just a poor guy happens to be in love with a woman impossible to reach.

As time goes by Rasus enter the Army from the bottom and become a soldier. Meanwhile the ronggeng dance troupe were infiltrated by the Communist Party cadre, capitalizing on high illiteracy level and low education among the villagers. 

In the end everybody knows, communist purge take it's toll to the common people and Rasus and Srintil are at different ends of the relation between power and the powerless. Like it or not, Rasus and Srintil cannot escape history's mighty force in determining people's fate.

The ronggeng procession were depicted very nicely and Prisia can act as a dancer convincingly. Oka himself is a good choice, his voice and mannerism is a perfect choice to act as Rasus a naive villager transformed into a soldier. The pacing is tight and even for those who haven't read the book, the whole story is understandable.

Some people complained about Pia's use of Javanese language and accent but me being a Sundanese who cannot speak any Javanese language at all cannot tell if there is a problem at all. Overall, this one is an important film not to be missed.

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

Directed by: Woody Allen
Run Time: 94 minutes

"Nostalgia is denial - denial of the painful present... the name for this denial is golden age thinking - the erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one ones living in - its a flaw in the romantic imagination of those people who find it difficult to cope with the present. "

The grass is greener on the other side. That is the simple premise of this newest Woody Allen film. As for me I always enjoy his films, although haven't seen all of his works. I like Annie Hall, Match Point, Scoops, heck I even like Cassandra's Dream.

Just like the title, it is set in Paris and the main protagonist is Gil (Owen Wilson) a successful screenwriter apparently unhappy with the present time. He is in Paris accompanied by his fiancée, Inez (Rachel McAdams), on vacation together with her conservative parents. One night, after saying that he would rather live in a 1920 Paris (he worshiped the aura and ambiance of Paris even wanted to live there to the dismay of the upper class Inez), he stroll the Parisian street and voila, 'transported' into that period in Paris.

He encounter many famous people like F . Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston), Ernest Hemmingway (Carey Stoll), Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates), and Adriana (Marion Cotillard). He even met Luis Buñuel and on a party apparently giving an inspiration for Buñuel's famous work; The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeois. If you read, then you will know who they are in history.

Coming back and forth between present time and the 1920's changes Gil into an enthusiastic person. He even let his novel being read by Gertrude Stein. But is it just a dream or the time travel really does happen? What sort of influence does these famous people give to Gil and his views of life?

I think whether it is a time travel or just an imagination is not the case. The core of the film is being dissatisfied with present time and wanting to go to a golden age which the person think, suit best for them. But in it lies the seed of discontent that the person cannot accept life as it is in their present time, thus finding escapes in the so called 'golden' past. But we have all been in that position, daydreaming what if we lived in a different time. Would we be more content? or not?

What comes as a surprise is that the message is not hidden in some sophisticated symbol, it is in plain view. This is not Allen's best but surely fun to watch. Wilson is the appeal of this film, together with Adrien Brody and Kathy Bates's performance that steal the spotlight.

SUPER 8

Directed by: J.J. Abrams
Run Time: 112 min

How do you keep secrets in the age of internet? Apparantly J.J can do that and he has been successful in keeping so many mouth shut on his projects (Star Trek and Cloverfield). The teaser trailer can make you think that this is some sort of prequel to Cloverfield and it will be a full action alien movie.

But not keeping any expectation or even trying to peek what Super 8 is all about really pays off, at least for me. I didn't even want to know anything about this film. Set in the 70s (hence the Super 8 film stock as the reference and it is a nice reference since Spielberg and Abrams were both raised in this era, although Abrams is younger. So the film format itself is sort of a nostalgic road trip for both of them) the main protagonist is not some 20 year something spy but a 12 year old kid named Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney). Lamb helps his friend, Charley (Riley Griffiths) to make a cheap 8mm zombie movie for a local film festival. They were helped by their friends and there is always be a love interest for the protagonist in the form of 14 year old Alice (Elle Fanning). From the beginning of the film, it is being told that Lamb's mother died in an accident and his father Jackson Lamb (Kyle Chandler, I know him from Early Edition TV series), is drowning his grief in his job as a sheriff deputy.

As the kids try to film a scene on an empty train station something tragic happened, a pickup is making the train derailed, leaving so many explosions. The camera accidentally capture a disturbing image.

Soon the kids learn that their small town is being swarmed by military men and they suspect it has something to do with the cargo of the train. Will they be able to solve the mystery? Make the film on time and survive the test of friendship and first crush?

It is interesting to point out that everything is from the point of view of the kids and whatever inside the cargo is actually a fringe story. The core of the story is about friendship and ability to let go.

Does this remind you to E.T.? Not a surprise since Steven Spielberg is the producer. As a director Abrams managed to deliver a convincing drama about small town kids accompanied by a very good special effect plus the artistic lens flare. I think this is not a ripoff of E.T. but a nostalgia on movies based on friendship like Stand by Me or E.T. itself where a big thing affecting the lives of many ordinary people manage to change their perspective on their life and in the end we care about the characters and doesn't care about the effects at all.

MELANCHOLIA

Directed by: Lars von Trier
Run Time: 136 min

A disaster/sci-fi movie by Lars von Trier? Don't get your expectation too high since this is not your typical summer movie about disaster. Actually it is still a disaster but a psychological one. Melancholia is the name of a planet which has been hiding behind the sun and about to crash the earth.

The opening sequence in extreme slow motion is stunning and open to many interpretation. A montage of meaningless scenes is teasing us about the nature of the film. Von Trier himself is reported having a state of depression while making this film (not to mention his Hitler controversy at a film festival). Unlike most disaster movies that take on a global scale, this one focuses on Justine's (Kirsten Dunst) wedding, her sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), and Claire's husband, John (Kiefer Sutherland) and located in a mansion.

Since the wedding Justine has shown the symptomps of being uneasy. She went sad for no reason and do unthinkable stuff. Meanwhile the party goes on as if everything is just okay. Eventually the hidden planet of Melancholia is nearing by. What will these people do?

Sure anyone can go at length criticizing the scientifically aspect of this film (where is the global panic? They didn't watch any TV? How come planet that big cannot be detected at all? What about the gravity of the planet that can affect the earth and so on and so on). I think this is not a sci-fi per se but the whole film is a metaphor for human fear of dying with Melancholia, the planet, as the embodiment of the inevitable fear we all must face. It has a nihilistic and depressing tone, but it is not a surprise considering Von Trier's mental condition at the time he made this film. Dunst and Gainsborg did an awesome job as an actress and surprisingly, I enjoy this one than most of Von Trier's other movie.

WARRIOR

The devil you know, is better than the devil you don't know

Directed by: Gavin O'Connor
Run time: 140 min

So how do you make a movie about fighting that must defy all cliches? Apparently Gavin O'Connor has raised the bar. Although it has a training montage but not accompanied with cheesy songs and the premise is amazing. Usually we root for one main character who has to fight his way (including the disposable two dimensional opponent) but here we root for two main characters who has to fight each other. We don't want them to get hurt but there has to be a winner.

I am familiar with Mixed Martial Arts shows, in fact I used to be a fan of it. This film is not about the quest for a title or rags to riches but it is about the conflict inside human heart that got materialized in a brutal fighting inside the cage.

All three main characters are broken. Estranged brothers Tom and Brendan Conlon (Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton) and their father, Paddy (Nick Nolte) has to cross path after so many years not seeing each other.

Tom visited his father after so many years. Apparently Paddy was a drunk s.o.b back then, his wife moved out with Tom and lost contact with Paddy and Brendan. Tom asked Paddy to train him for the upcoming Mixed Martial Arts, profesionally, putting aside all his hatred but doesn't mean forgiving him. As of this point the viewers doesn't know why Tommy wanted to enter the competition.

Meanwhile Brendan is facing a problem of his own. He is about to save his house from foreclosure, cannot pay for his daughter medical bill and got suspended without pay from the school he used to teach in since he is involved in some illegal fighting scene. Seeing no option, he too wanted to enter the competition.

It takes no genius to figure that in the end it is the brothers who have to face each other literally and figuratively. Nick Nolte is amazing as a regretful father trying to mend his past mistakes. Tom and Edgerton are also believable in conveying their deepest grudges and sadness. Several acting nominations at the Oscar is waiting for this film.

The first half is very effective for building up the tension in the fighting arena and the fighting is near realistic, although there are less blood on the screen due to the PG-13 rating. Slightly better than The Fighter, Warrior is powerful and disturbing but at the same time; very human.

DRIVE

Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn
Run time: 100 min

That nameless driver is Ryan Gosling, and like numerous nameless characters in a movie (Won' Bin's The Man from Nowhere and Clint Eastwood's Spaghetti Western trilogy has precede it) he is a quiet loner that can burst into violence in matter of seconds.

Drive is not your usual car chase movie filled with sugary hip hop music, instead it has a European feel of things seeping slowly waiting to explode. The driver is a stunt driver in Hollywood who happens to work in a car factory and have an interesting side job. As a driver for robberies that can take the car as fast as possible to hide from the cops.

The driver meet his neighbor, Irene (Carey Mulligan), and her son. Her husband is in prison and soon the driver gladly take the role as boyfriend/father surrogate. Things are getting more complicated as Irene's husband returned and one of his side job ended in tragedy. Now the driver must do whatever it takes to protect himself and the one he loved.

Unlike Fast and Furious franchise or even The Transporter, although it has an eerie and effective action scenes, it doesn't feel like a typical action film. It feels like as if the audience will not know what will happen next and then completely blown away. Refn attention to detail adding a unique edge to this movie, from the Scorpion jacket to toothpick, the nameless driver surely got an attitude no one will forget.

You can feel that this film has the European touch and that is not wrong since Refn is a Danish director famous in art house circles. Refn doesn't even try to outdo Fast and Furious he just present Drive as it is, noir, brutal and honest.

Ultra-violent and ultra-stylish, Drive is clearly one of this year's best not to be missed.

THE TREE OF LIFE

Directed by: Terrence Malick
Run time: 139 min

Since I have seen most of Malick's work, I am a bit prepared for this one. As I expected the film relies heavily on visual treat (including the ring of Saturn, dinosaurs and squids) with 'footnote' narration but doesn't disappoint in terms of story. Well, that is if you can figure out what the main story is. But if you are not familiar with Malick's style (mostly wordless sequences involving individuals, distilled to actions or looks, shots of nature to convey mood and tension, and enhanced with musical interludes), you can get lost in the beautiful but disjointed scenes of natural life and the drama. To put it simply, it feels as if a National Geographic documentary has a story in it. Beautiful pictures are abound and it will not bore you at all.

Although the story seem plot-less but if you let yourself immersed in the whole thing, you can figure out what it's all about without choking yourself with loads of books about Philosophy and Religion. To put it in one word the film is contemplative, regardless what your belief is.

However, loaded with spiritual symbolism, this one is not difficult to follow at all and eventhough it encompass a family story combined with the creation of the universe, it doesn't fall into a pretentious movie. It could easily fall into such category by inserting over the top narration with sophisticated vocabulary, but it doesn't.

So what's it all about? Supposed you have read the synopsis and watch the trailer, you still cannot guess what the story is all about.

The film begins with the O’Brien (Brad Pitt) and the wife (Jessica Chastain) grieving their teenage son’s death. Then the story moves forward to present time where Jack (Sean Penn) still thinking over his brother's death. The story itself revolves around the family drama with less dialogue. Mr O'Brien is a loving father of three boys trying to balance being a warm father and a strict one, while Mrs. O'Brien is more permissive, providing comfort and warm.

As usual the boys rebel and the father has to apply his harsh measurement. The mother become the comforter and the son try to find his place in the world while make peace with them self and the father. I think the father is not strict, he just behave what he think is right and yes conflict does happen in any family.

So what is the connection between this family drama and the creation of the earth (and universe)? I think it is left to the viewers to figure out all by them self. In my opinion it means that we human ponder about our existence in the universe, and how small we are in the vastness of space.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS Part 2

Directed by: David Yates
Run time: 130 min

So this is it; the final chapter (or a very long encore) of the last chapter of Harry Potter saga. After 10 years accompanying Muggles and alike, the journey has come to an end. As for the viewers who haven't read the book or watch the first movie, they should have watch the Part 1 first (and read my review on it here if you click the link; shameless promotion always get me somewhere) since this film spends no time in flashbacks and start directly after the funeral of Dobby. As for me, I have read the seventh book so I will not be disturbed by spoilers, and I am not the one who like to spoil the ending here.

Leaving the character development on Part 1, Part 2 spends more time on action and tied up loose ends, giving a proper send off for the billion dollar franchise that started in 2001 and a sort of 'reunion' for past actors and actresses that have acted on the saga.

Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) now must locate and destroy the remaining three horcruxes in order to defeat the dark wizard Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), whose power grow and threatens the magical society.

Meanwhile, having discovered the elder wand as the ultimate wand for power, he seek Harry in a hurry (it rhymes!) and in the ultimate battle in Hogwarts the only way to solve it is to fight face to face.

As for other characters, Snape (Alan Rickman), is the star of this film, stealing enough screen time with Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis)

In terms of acting, Alan Rickman shines. It is not a surprise since he is a good actor and I like him as Hans Gruber in Die Hard. As for Daniel Radcliffe he is just wooden, and sorry, although he did it well but he doesn't shine that much here.

Non fans might complain that the film is too fast and leaves no character development while trying to recollect their last memory of the first part. Die hard fans might point out details that they don't think represent their wishes after they read the book several time but one thing for sure, Harry Potter has given us the magic inside the cinema, uniting moviegoers at a singular experience.

Few months later, after the blu-ray/DVD for this film has released, the fans of the saga will enjoy a full and thorough experience of all the eight movies in one nineteen hours long chunk. Spans of movie marathon event will be held and it will be cherished for many years to come, that is if there are no re-boot at all.

The backdrop of the release of this film is the so called tax standoff between the government and film importers which leave Indonesian moviegoers with severe drought of Hollywood movies and the delay of this film's release here. But does the tax standoff end beautifully just like this film? Well, that's another story.

CATATAN HARIAN SI BOY

Directed by: Putrama Tuta

“Mau ngeberesin apaan? Hidup lo aja berantakan gimana lo mau beresin yang lain?”

The impending tax standoff between the government and MPA has left me and so many Indonesian moviegoers in drought. This means severe drought for my English language blog since I cannot write reviews about X-Men: First Class or even lash my harshest words on the third metal clanging Transformers.

So in the spirit of trying to make this blog look alive, I have spin so many bottles and kick so many curbs to find the right film to review. Actually I have seen Limitless but at that time I am not in the mood to write reviews. Then I have another blog which this time is 90% in Indonesian language and that takes some of my free time. So gentle readers, ready for this one?

Let's cut to the chase. What is 'si Boy' anyway? For those who were born in the 90s, here's my take; Catatan si Boy (Boy's diary) was feature film made for five times in the 80s with Boy (Onky Alexander) as the main character. He's got everything that any girl would fall for; good looking, rich, smart, religious and attitude. The whole five films revolve around Boy and his romantic adventures and if you seen it now, it was so 80s with brick shaped hand phone to the language they used. The formula is simple, a protagonist surrounded with beautiful ladies and some fight happens with some other guy. It was immensely popular in the 80s.

So how does Putrama Tuta and his team make 'Boy' relevant for 21st century movie goers? Did he re-cast Boy? or make a remake? Fortunately not. He made an attractive and decent homage to Boy as legend plus make it relevant to today's film goers with reference to Google and Twitter.

Using Boy's diary as the Mac Guffin (Google yourself what Mac Guffin is if you never heard of it), Tuta manage to create a whole new story and character around the myth of Boy.

Boy himself (Onky Alexander) only appeared briefly but holds a pivotal part for this film. The difference between this one and the previous five Boy sequels are; this one is about friendship, not about one man’s quest to woo girls and being the center of the story all by himself although you can see Satrio's way to woo Natasha very clear. You don’t have to watch the previous ‘Boy’ to understand the story although if you have seen it, you can complete the ‘bigger’ picture.

Satrio (Ario Bayu, do you remember Kala from Joko Anwar where he is one of the leading actor? Joko Anwar also appeared in this film as a cameo) is a car mechanic and one cannot be mistaken if he is the 21st century Boy (minus didn't write any diary). He likes competition and illegal racing, he used to be born into silver spoon before he realize all the nice things he had in life was in fact a result of his father being a corruptor.

At one illegal car race he is arrested and sent to the police station. There he's bailed by his friends; Nina (Poppy Sovia), Andi (Abimana) and hilarious Herry (Albert Halim) who work in the same car station with Satrio.

Meanwhile Natasha (Carissa Puteri) just return from London to see her mother, Nuke (Boy's girlfriend from the 80s version, but her face wasn't shown at all) who is deeply ill. She is taken by Niko (Paul Forster) her boyfriend to the hospital. At the hospital she realized that her mother keep clutching to Boy's diary. So she tried to find where Boy is.

On the road home, Niko was assaulted by Jeffry's (Leroy Osmani, again if you have seen the first Boy film, he's some sort of the antagonist and he's back for a very brief time) henchmen since he cannot pay gambling debts. The car taken by Jeffry's men, Natasha went to the police station to report the assault and there the story begins. Natasha's journey to find Boy through his diary and Satrio's desire of competition to get Natasha's out of Niko's hand plus the journey to find Boy is the theme of this film.

As for me, I like this one. I mean it has been ages since I have seen a good Indonesian film. The production quality is top notch, it feels as if it has raise the bar for production standard in Indonesia.

Everything in this 98 minutes film is balanced, the drama, acting (Ario Bayu and Abimana stand out, the dialogue are real and fresh) comedy and action fits well. Some reference to the previous Boy is also present with Btari Karlinda, Didi Petet and Onky Alexander himself, making brief but important appearance.

Thumbs up for the effort and more movies like this will surely revive the so called drought in Indonesian movies quality.