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."

THE AVENGERS

Directed by: Joss Whedon
Run time: 142 min

Out of the ordinary I am reviewing a summer movie. Not that I rarely seen blockbuster movies but I think it is quite a strain to review it since I know, popcorn movies that can reduce your logical thinking 50% are usually not my cup of coffee. I did watch Transformers 3 which I think as a waste of time and money, Iron Man, Captain America and Incredible Hulk are fun but nothing more than that and Thor is enjoyable. So far, minus The Avengers, Thor is my favorite of the adaptation of Marvel superheroes on the screen.

So this is it, the wet dream of Marvel fan boy, where their superheroes assemble to fight the most bad ass and epic fighting that makes you think that the last 30 minutes of the film has only two page of words written but thousands of storyboard to depict the epic battle.

Make no mistake, the battle is breath taking and laden with enough explosions to make sugar rush Michael Bay excited and as Rebecca Black wisely said; fun fun fun fun and I get to chose which seat I should take! By this Whedon manages to give fan boy and non fan boy (which is me in this case) a sweet treat, or in my word a very nice escapist film.

There's no need for me to describe the story but I think it would be useful for viewers to at least watch Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Captain America and Thor, to get the sense of the 'Marvel universe' before watching The Avengers. The jokes are fresh and well placed but the story is just so so. By assembling the superheroes, Whedon, instead of trying to make a story with an impact, tend to play safe.

Whedon could have let one superhero 'gone' and make the viewers wait for the sequel and the fate of the hero in agony. But he didn't do that, he just let the last 30 minutes felt like you just drink coffee with 10 spoon of sugar in it. There's nothing wrong in it, it is fun but after the credits rolled you feel as if it is just an escape with so so substance. The after credit scene is nice but for non Marvel fan boy (again I am pointing at myself) I have no idea who is being shown. I think google might help me.

It's not that I hope this one will have some moral message on humanity or so, but it is just slightly below my expectation. Especially since I cannot help myself putting any superhero movies with Nolan's Batman on the same table. As for me, special effects rarely daze me, but story does and I am always looking for a good story in any film of any genre.

Although it is predicted to gain some cash but the result is surprising, from the first weekend already smashes box office record by sucking US$200 million and it will increase in the coming week. The success stem from the build up to the hype of this film ever since Iron Man released and the lavish praise critics gave.

In short words; the number of epicness in this film is too damn high! And bitch please; Thor's hair (he's using Thor'eal hair products for Asgard's sake!) can beat Green Lantern's crappy ass.