The Man From U.N.C.L.E (2015)

Guy Ritchie’s blockbuster summer movie is out! This time he adapted the movie from a tv series, which was very popular in the 70’s.

Guy Ritchie – the guy who made Sherlock Holmes films (starring Robert Downey Jr.) – once again wanted to make a ‘smart’ movie. But this time, he failed.

The movie lacks of the intelligent side of the story. If you compare it to his previous films, this film is the dumbest. The film tried so hard to make a twist every time it turns. But its efforts are not good enough.

This film once again wants us to be a stupid person. I hate this kind of movie.

But surely you can praise its art direction and editing. It has style. And it’s great!

The verdict:

This film is like Tron: Legacy (2011), great to watch, bad to consume.

The Martian (2015)

A Ridley Scott film – starring Matt Damon – tells a story of a stranded austonaut in Mars. The film was compared with Nolan’s Interstellar, which later I will share my thoughts about it.

The film was GREAT sci-fi film – touching, inspirational, funny, but with high suspense, and mostly accurate with science.

Matt Damon was incredible. He made the character looked very much alive and surviving.

The scenery or the visual effect was incredible and well placed. I saw a lot of movie with fucked-up visual effect – especially sci-fi. But, the really nailed it with this movie!.

The scoring – which was made by Harry Gregson-Williams – was also great. I mean when you hear it, the score feels like it was made for an every day living drama. But, how amazing Williams put it on another planet! Also the soundtrack! HAHA! They’re hillarious!

Now, I’m going to compare it with Interstellar (2014).

Overall – for me – Interstellar was still winning with its genius director, Christopher Nolan.

The Martian (2015) can’t defeat Intertellar’s puzzle and mind-fucked situation. But The Martian won because of the characters – they are easily identified. We usually know what our next emotions would be as the film ran. Interstellar lacks of this, we don’t know what the emotions are next. Because of the puzzle of course.

On the technical side, Interstellar used traditional technology – which is still very effective. The actors can feel more of the real atmosphere. The Martian used green screen – nuff said.

Also the scoring. How can you defeat Hans Zimmer? I still like to hear Interstellar’s ORIGINAL music. The Martian lacks of its originality of music.

But I still like both of them as sci-fi movies. These two movies proofs themselves to me that they are both intelligent. Even though they lack at some point.

THE VERDICT:

The Martian is smart, funny – with high suspense – with strong cast and very effective use of science.

*note: if you like Interstellar (2014), I think you will like this.

ToBa Dreams (2015)

Film ini dibuat oleh anak negri, dari anak negri, untuk anak negri. Film ini menceritakan tentang hubungan antara hubungan anak dengan ayahnya yang rumit. Menggunakan budaya Batak – film ini tepat dalam menunjukkan budaya tersebut secara utuh dan baik. Film yang mendapat nominasi di Film Festival Indonesia 2015 ini, berjalan selama hampir 2 jam 30 menit.

Nah pasti Anda berpikir, apakah film tersebut layak masuk ke dalam jajaran film terbaik tahun 2015? Untuk pembukuan Indonesia, ya. Untuk pembukuan internasional, TIDAK. Mengapa?

Film ini kekurangan motivasi dan pemikiran dari setiap langkahnya. Mulai dari skenario sampai pelaksanaan lagu.

Skenario dari film ini menurut saya sangat menarik, namun film ini tidak menciptakan “film” yang baru. Sebaliknya film ini menyontek film lain yaitu, The Godfather (1972). Beberapa teknik dari skenario, editing, dan phasing terasa sekali contekannya. Bahkan dari font judulnya menggunakan font style yang sama dengan film The Godfather (1972). Seorang pembuat film seharusnya tidak melakukan ini. Mereka seharusnya membuat film yang baru lalu menemukan referensi yang mendukung film tersebut. Bukan sebaliknya, kesannya pembuat film tersebut hanya membuat ulang dari referensi film tersebut. Beberapa adegan juga terlihat murahan – hanya membuat orang nangis secara cuma-cuma.

Acting dari film ini saya akui sangat aneh. Orang Batak memiliki ciri khas yaitu, berbicara dengan nada tinggi – telah dikonfirmasi lagi dengan teman saya, Rio (thanks, btw). Ya memang karakter-karakternya berlatar belakang orang Batak, namun, tidak semua orang Batak kan? Tetapi di film ini, hampir semuanya seperti orang Batak, padahal sebenarnya bukan orang Batak.

Melalui Acting para pemain, SETIAP adegan terasa seperti adegan KLIMAKS dari film tersebut, karena phasing dari film ini labil – naik turun tidak jelas. Selama 2 jam 30 menit itu, saya berasa lelah karena saya tidak diberikan waktu untuk “bernafas”. Lalu masalah phasing lainnya dapat kita lihat dari perkembangan karakternya. Hampir ¾ film ini hanya berfokus pada si anak dan melupakan si ayah. Potensi dari perkembangan si ayah seharusnya bisa menjadi nilai tambahan untuk memperjelas atau mempercantik budaya Batak. Bahkan hal tersebut bisa menjadi perbandingan dari dunia si anak dan dunia si ayah. Sayangnya film ini tidak seperti itu.

Penggunaan lagu dari film ini juga terlihat seperti bermain-main. Lagu-lagu dari film ini tidak mendukung suasana (mood) dari adegan dan tema dari film.

Kemudian yang paling parah – Cinematography. Penggunaan pencahayaan dari film ini tidak digunakan secara maksimal. Motivasi dari pencahayaan tidak jelas dan kadang terlihat bodoh. Ada satu adegan yang sebenarnya cahaya itu cukup terlihat, namun si anak malah menyalakan senter. Lainnya, terlihat dari peletakan kamera. Motivasi dari peletakan kamera tidak ada motivasi SAMA SEKALI. 180 degree rule di langgar begitu saja, pergerakan kamera yang tidak mendukung motivasi, dan tidak adanya inovasi dari framing.

Kesimpulan:

Film ini cuma bikin nangis mainstream audience, TITIK!

What Popcorn Really Do

What did popcorn do (beside high cholesterol)?

Popcorn is that nice little snack that you eat inside a movie theatre. Popcorn was taken from corns (of course it is). Popcorn consist of two types, “popcorn” and “mushroom.” “Popcorn” is made for straight consumption, like in movie theatres, it usually mixed with butter. “Mushroom” is made for package consumption, like Garrett.

So how do popcorn became the icon of movie theatres?

In the 1900’s popcorn became the cheapest snack to be bought - High to Low Class people can buy it. They are found in baseball competitions, parks, picnic recreation, and many others – but not in movie theatres, yet.

 In the 1920’s, The Great Depression strikes. Most of movie theatres became bankrupt and popcorn was the snack to be hidden behind a coat in cheap movie theatres. A man saw an opportunity of this. He began to put his popcorn machines in front of movie theatres. He made more money than the theatre did. So the theatre kicked him away. He vowed to make his own movie theatre so his popcorn machines weren’t taken away again. This man was known as Kemmons Wilson – the man who founded Holiday Inn.

Seeing all this, small movie theatres tried to raise their profit by selling popcorn inside their theatre. Some time later they made more profit from it. Many big theatres followed this path. So movie theatres - once again - can show amazing movies.

So what did popcorn really do?

Popcorn saved the movie industry. Without them, maybe we can’t show our movies today. Even though some countries ban popcorn from movie theatres, we must respect this small snack because it did a big role.

So when I’m watching a movie and you told me to stop eating popcorn, I want you to understand that I’m trying to save the movie industry.

Spectre (2015)

James Bond’s back again! Sam Mendes returned as well – this time he’s with Cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema. This is what filmgoers are waiting for, Bond facing his long-time nemesis, SPECTRE. But, is this film worth watching? Is the $ 300 million budget finally paid off with great story and action?

I think…. NO!

Daniel Craig’s era is the most interesting and the most profitable among other Bonds era. But, Spectre showed me how the era can ran out of ideas. The film didn’t use new ideas, instead it seems that the franchise used the old formula from the previous era.

The old formula consist of James Bond being a superhero, I mean literary a superhero – doing what a normal human being can’t do. He is unstoppable. The other is the fancy gadget – we see some of it in the movie. And torture. And other clique things. You’ll see a lot of it in the movie.

The most iritating thing was the budget. They waste a lot of money to make what had been made decades ago. I don’t think it was worth the money.

The thing that I don’t like the most is the antagonist of the film. Chistoph Waltz played the character. When I first heard about his casted, I was so excited. Looking back, we see him played the most interesting villain of all time in Tarantino’s films. But, it turned out quiet disappointing. The exposition of the character was very frightening in the first ¾ of the movie, but in the end, he wasn’t so much as a villain.

But I have to say, I really like what Hoyte van Hoytema had done with the cinematography. I think it is really interesting to combine celluloid film workflow with digital workflow. It perfected each other. The lighting set-ups were really complex, but he knailed it!

The verdict:

There’s a saying, “With BIG BUDGET, comes GREAT RESPONSIBILITY,” this film doesn’t hold it.