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.