Sci Fi - Blog Posts

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

RAWconcrete is about a young boy traveling through space and time across the universe, a game featuring innovative combat mechanics (Transmutator Gun), photo-realistic graphics, realistic animations and audio, and above all, a very interesting story.

TV Shoutout: Killjoys

What it is about: Bounty hunters Dutch (Hannah John Kamen) and John Jaqobis (Aaron Ashmore) are the best Killjoys working at their side of the galaxy. But a warrant involving John’s brother, D’avin (Luke Macfarlane), lead them to new adventures.

Why you should watch it: Killjoys, contrary to what the name might suggest, is just so much fun. Killjoys never take themselves too seriously, but they never, ever insult your intelligence. It’s just the perfect blend of action, humor, crazy stories, and great characters.

No kidding, Dutch is my favorite female character in TV, ever. She’s the baddest of all badasses–and nobody is gonna argue her for that. She’s strong and tough and soft in the way that I rarely see from other badass female characters.

Her relationship with John is also one of my favorites. They have extremely strong bond as working partners, which serves as the heart of the show. Their relationship is platonic, but extremely warm. Also, John is a badass nerd, so I automatically like him anyway.

Also, set in a somewhat far future, the worldbuilding in Killjoys is amazing. The world feels otherwordly, worn, and lived-in–and most importantly, alive. Believe me, sexy monks is a thing in Killjoys, but they absolutely don't feel out of place. Interplanetary politics, space monk, warlord bartender, killer harem–all of it are in Killjoys, and they all make excellent ingredients to make entertaining stories.

Who should watch it: Anyone who wants fun TV with badass characters! And obviously, sci-fi/space opera fans who yearns for something fresh.

Where you should start: Honestly I think you’re gonna be fine watching any episode because they’re gonna be so much fun you wouldn’t mind if you don’t understand a few things, but like anything worth watching, for best experience start from the first episode for the characters. I guarantee you won’t regret it.

Status: Season 3 ongoing.

Review: War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

15 years after the breakout of Simian Flu (in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, or “Rise” for simplicity)--which leaves most of human population dead and the apes’ intelligence uplifted, the ape society that Caesar (Andy Serkis) lead is forced to hide in the forest after Koba’s--Caesar’s former frenemy--fateful attempt to wage war against humans (in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, reviewed here). In War for the Planet of the Apes, Caesar still tries to prove that the apes meant no harm. But then, one particularly vicious attack changed him forever.

Based on the title, I fully expected for the movie to be about an all out war between the apes and humans, but I was definitely wrong. In fact, “War” is basically the complete opposite of that. Although the scene began with a brutal attack between apes and humans, the rest of “War” is a very quiet, introspective movie of Caesar’s conflicted mind, and somehow the titular war is actually between two factions of human groups. But I figured thematically it makes sense, since “Dawn” was all about the war between two factions of the apes.

Science fiction is the best when it explores humanity through a new lense, and “War” is definitely one of those instances. We see apes dealing with every kind of human emotion, and we see the humans coping with the rise of new intelligent species and possible extinction. “War” is a very interesting study of human and humanity, although I must say it’s not the most fun movie, to say the least.

If there’s any flaw about the movie, it’s the extremely bleak view of humanity, to the point that it feels forced. Colonel’s (Woody Harrelson) faction of humans are basically the living embodiment of the worst side of humanity, while Caesar continues to make worse and worse decisions. Which is a shame, because “Dawn” used to have a much more nuanced discussion of the matter. I mean, “War” work extremely well as a grand study of humanity, but I do find myself wishing the movie would have chosen a slightly different perspective. 

TL;DR It does make for an excellent sci-fi and a moving movie experience, but I did walk away from the cinema feeling incredibly sorrowful, instead of hopeful for a new day. But it definitely speaks of the strength of the movie that it could move me so much. I still would definitely recommend this movie, although maybe, get the tissues ready.

Review: Arrival (2016)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

When aliens come to earth, how do we talk to them? Arrival tries to answer the question with Amy Adams starring as Dr. Louise Banks, an American expert linguist. When 12 spaceships landed on earth for no apparent reason, she and a team that includes theoretical phycisist, Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner), had been assigned with the difficult task to determine whether those aliens meant peace or harm.

Amy Adams plays Louise with restraint, but full of determination and no less affecting. Louise Banks is the heart and soul of this film, as she not only acts as our eyes and ears, but is also responsible for the tone of their whole mission. Unsurprisingly, governments want to attack as soon as possible for fear of invasion, but as the people around her grow more wary and anxious, her equanimity convinces them to remain peaceful--to keep communicating.

Arrival is a quiet film whose real action only comes in the form of a single explosion, but it is by no means devoid of tension. The first few minutes, as we and Louise found out about the alien landing was absolutely chilling, and more and more pressure is felt as Louise is forced to create results. Arrival is a story about big ideas, but it is especially moving because ultimately, it’s a story about Louise and her experiences. However, there are bits and pieces that feel superfluous at first, but ultimately they pay off wonderfully at the end.

Arrival's imagery is the kind that will stay with you. It's visual strikingly beautiful, sometimes interposed with dreamlike flashbacks--accompanied with atmospheric score by Jóhann Jóhannsson. There is an ethereal quality about the film, without forgetting how to ground the characters and how to create tension when there need be. Some of the film's memorable imagery comes from the oval spaceship floating above green pasture, surrounded only with open air that is both calming and threatening.  It's directing (by Denis Villeneuve) is calculated but tender, creating a seamless journey from beginning to end. Arrival proves that no matter how a story ends, there is a journey worth taking.

Review: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2017)

Rating: 9.8 of 10

We all know how it ends. Princess Leia got ahold of the plans to the Death Star, a moon-sized weapon capable of destroying an entire planet, which she then give to R2-D2 at the beginning of Star Wars: A New Hope. This is a story of that first victory of the Rebels.

While the Star Wars trilogies focus on the Force-wielding people, Rogue One is the story of the struggle of the ordinary people. The closest thing to a “Chosen One” character is Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), daughter to Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen), a high-ranking officer of the Empire. But while his father had sympathy for the Rebel’s cause, Jyn has grown apathetic since she was left abandoned at 16 years old. She has connections, but it was her choice to help the Rebels that determines her character.

Other characters include Captain Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), a true believer of the Rebel’s cause with willingness to do anything for it; K2SO (Alan Tudyk), an unlikely friend in the form of reprogrammed Imperial droid; Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen) and Baze Malbus (Jiang Wen), a couple of warrior monks and sworn protector of the Kyber Crystals; and Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed), a defecting Imperial cargo pilot.

This is Star Wars, like you can live and breathe in it. Rogue One is definitely grittier than the trilogies, more grounded–less quip from the likes of Han Solo, no flashy lightsaber fights, or even the cuteness of a BB-8. It’s street-level Star Wars, but Rogue One does have lighter moments too (’I’M BLIND!’ is definitely the best line the movie IMO), and it is most definitely not without hope.

Hope, after all, is the stuff that Star Wars is made of. These people do not need to have the Force, or be the best of anything, they are just willing to do what it takes to make a difference and change the galaxy for the better. Nothing is going to be easy, and maybe not everyone is going to make it until the end, and yet, somehow it’s all going to be worth it. Devoid of Jedis or a Chosen One, Rogue One only has characters distinguished by their believes and their choices, and that’s okay. That’s kinda the point.

Rogue One did excellently to introduce us to all these new characters, and we fall in love with each of them effortlessly, each for different reasons. Most importantly, Rogue One succeeded in accomplishing what prequels and spin-offs should always do: make the universe feel bigger, more fleshed out. In it, we get to see the different corners of the galaxy and the people who inhabit it–the people who built and lived by it. I found Saw Gerrera (Forest Whitaker), an almost Vader-like rebel extremist leader, to be a very interesting part of Star Wars history (We'll get to see more of him in Star Wars: Rebels series!).

Rogue One had to do so many things for it to succeed. It had to live up to the legacy of the original and prequel trilogies, not to mention The Force Awakens; fit the timeline and canon; and tell a compelling story with entirely new characters. It succeeded in all accounts. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story maybe is not a perfect movie (because nothing is), but to me it is a perfect Star Wars story.

Review: Doctor Strange (2016)

Rating: 8.5 out of 10

Benedict Cumberbatch is Stephen Strange, a hot-shot neurosurgeon turned master of sorcery, in this latest installment of Marvel Cinematic Universe.

While Thor was being coy about magic and claiming that science and magic are the same in his Thor movies, Doctor Strange (the movie, not the character) never argues about it. Yes, Stephen Strange is a doctor and a skeptic, first and foremost, but as he became a believer, so did we as the audience. From that moment onward, magic was never questioned. And boy, what a pretty magic they were.

Remember Inception? Remember the mind-trippingly iconic manipulation of cities and buildings in that movie? Crank those images you have in your mind to 11, and you'd get something resembling the pure beauty of magic in Doctor Strange. They're gorgeous, dynamic, and intensely mesmerizing. Even when Strange is not running from buildings rolling down the street, or running up in the ceiling, the visualization of magic in Doctor Strange is just breathtaking--and especially, unique.

The cast is also a huge part of why the movie works. Benedict Cumberbatch is subdued enough, but with enough levity and charisma to be an iconic Marvel superhero. (And the fact that he looks almost exactly like the comic book character doesn't hurt either). Chiwetel Ejiofor and Benedict Wong are the perfect sidekicks, and Rachel McAdams is the perfect grounding character. I’m not too pleased with how they leave her character, but McAdams is great. Mads Mikkelsen and his sinister kind of charisma makes a memorable villain, even if he doesn't talk much. Forgetting the controversy around the casting of The Ancient One, Tilda Swinton is reliably splendid as the mystical character.

But while it has pretty solid characterization and plot, enjoyment of Doctor Strange depends mostly on visually immersive experience. For me, the story itself almost felt like a TV pilot. It's basically 100% set up, with teasers of what he might be like as a full-fledged Marvel superhero in the future. Doctor Strange is not a bad standalone movie at all, it's just almost meaningless if you don't take into account that we'll be seeing him again in future installments. However, I don’t mind much because I really do think Doctor Strange is a new stepping stone in MCU, in terms of accepting magic. It has an excellent world-building that doesn’t detach itself from the rest of franchise, and the visual is worth every penny.

I suggest you to see it either in 3D (if you like 3D movies at all, although maybe beware with motion sickness if you’re sensitive) because I think it'll be gorgeous, or at least see it in a good middle seat in your trusty cinema to get the most immersive experience. I saw it in cinema with crappy sound, and I really, really wish I had a different experience.

TL;DR Full of magical visual, Doctor Strange is one more solid Marvel origin story.

Review: 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

10 Cloverfield Lane is about 3 people, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Howard (John Goodman), and Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), who are trapped in a bunker because of some mysterious attacks that poison the air above ground.

If the title sounds a bit familiar, it’s because 10 Cloverfield Lane is named after 2008 film, Cloverfield. But wait! It’s not a sequel or prequel, instead 10 Cloverfield is a “spiritual successor” or “blood relative” of Cloverfield, according to producer JJ Abrams. Honestly, that sounds incredibly confusing and pretentious–usually jargons like those are red flags–but trust me when I say 10 Cloverfield Lane is good. In fact, it’s a great movie and it’s one of the best thrillers I’ve seen in recent years.

I was skeptical when I heard this “Cloverfield 2″ project was happening because while I loved Cloverfield, it had too many gimmicks (the found-footage format, viral marketing, always-on-the-corner-of-your-eye monsters) for it to work the second time. I’m happy to tell you that 10 Cloverfield is nothing like the original Cloverfield. It’s a whole new story and setting, with a set of new characters. So if you wanted a Cloverfield sequel then you need to adjust your expectations, but that also mean those of you who hated 2008′s Cloverfield with a passion (or have never seen that movie and couldn’t care less) can see 10 Cloverfield without reservation.

I WON’T tell you anything about the story in 10 Cloverfield Lane. The best thing you can do is to go in blind, and experience the ride you’re going to have without any spoilers. Don’t read any spoiler-filled review, don’t look up any interview, don’t watch the trailers on Youtube. Just go off the internet and watch this movie as soon as you can. In fact, just in case you need a small taste of the movie to convince you that you need to see this movie (it’s also worth noting that this movie currently sits at 90% in Rotten Tomatoes), I’ll share you this teaser trailer–and only this. Don’t look up any other trailers, because  the other trailers still reveal too much.

10 Cloverfield Lane sets up an unsettling vibe from the very beginning, that you could never quite shake off even when the movie gives you a warm, cuddly scene. In a movie that is set in claustrophobic bunker, the movie never goes to places you expect. There are so many twists and turns, and then there’s the ending. The ending has a MAJOR twist, that frankly, some people might think is too jarring. I, for one, loved the twist. In fact, that’s why I love this movie so much. It gives an excellent dramatic payoff that lines itself quite nicely with the franchise, and it brings an added perspective into an already layered story.

Was the threat chemical? Nuclear? Was it human? Monsters? Aliens? Throughout the movie you’d keep guessing, and the best thing about 10 Cloverfield Lane is that whatever answer you have in your head, you’d still be surprised. 10 Cloverfield Lane also tend to give you hints and not straight answers, and that is one of the reason the movie has so much depth than you’d expect.

TL;DR Crafted with masterful writing, acting, and direction, 10 Cloverfield Lane is an intense thriller that you don’t want to miss.

TV Shoutout: Continuum

Another underrated series of recent years, Continuum.

What it is about: A cop (Rachel Nichols) from the year 2077 gets stranded in present time--making her the only one who can stop future terrorist group Liber8, with no way to go back home.

Why you should watch it: 

Kiera, and basically every other supporting characters

We have Rachel Nichols in cat suit. Need I say more??? Actually, yes, because Kiera Cameron (Nichols) herself is a very interesting character. She’s a very skilled and determined policewoman, but born in a time a lot different than ourselves so she does have different values. She’s also a mother and a wife, and that makes temporal separation from her original time a little problematic, to say the least. She’s not perfect, but she’s perfectly relatable no matter what crazy situation she’s in.

But the rest of the characters are incredible too--both in terms of the actors, or the way the characters’ stories are handled. Throughout its 4 seasons, all of the characters changes and grows a lot, and it’s a beautiful thing to watch. Alec Sadler (Erik Knudsen), the tech-wiz kid who helps Kiera out with her gadgets, has the single most interesting character trajectory ever written, but that’s like picking your favorite child. All of the characters are worth watching for.

No one’s a “good” guy

We thought we knew who the bad guys are, but we actually don’t. I don’t mean it in a doom and gloom sort of way, or in the “anti hero” sort of way--it’s just with Continuum, nothing has an easy answer.

Curveball, curveball, curveball Oh boy, those curveballs. Continuum has this amazing ability to give us twists that NOBODY SAW COMING. Repeatedly. They’re the kind of twists that don’t cheapen the story at all, instead enrich them. It’s damn good storytelling.

Those sweet, sweet tech Obviously, with Kiera and Liber8 coming from the future, we get to see some cool gadgets. Bulletproof suit? Cloaking device? Continuum got it all. We also get to see the future quite a bit, and learn why 2077 isn’t all fun and games.

But in the end, it’s all about humanity I might be a broken record, but I always say that the best science fiction are the ones that are, in its core, about humanity. This is one of those stories. Continuum never stray from the characters, never stray from how our decisions shape us, and never stray from the repercussions of time travel.

Who should watch it: Unfortunately, this is one of a few shows that I could only confidently recommend to those who are familiar with genre or science fiction. Not because it isn’t “good” enough for anyone else, but because it does necessitate the viewers to have a high level suspension of disbelief, a tolerance for timey-wimey plot, and willingness to be challenged about characters, plot, and even politics. I never want to be limiting about genre, it’s just that sci-fi fans are the ones I reliably know would love those qualities in their entertainment, but if it sounds interesting to you, definitely go for it.

Where you should start: It started out as a procedural, so I think anywhere in season 1 is okay. If you start too far into season 2 you’d miss a lot of its worldbuilding so I wouldn’t recommend that. But as with any show worth watching, I’d definitely recommend starting from the very beginning although the second season, for me, is when the show started to gel a lot better.

Status: Just ended last season. It had 4 seasons total, with the final season being a shortened season (only 6 episodes).

Review: Attack The Block (2011)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Once you've reeled yourself from Star Wars: The Force Awakens fever, let's take a moment to look at a previous starring role by one of its star, John Boyega (or Finn in The Force Awakens), in 2011′s Attack The Block.

Alternatively, you could also check out the incredible movie in which General Hux (Domhnall Gleeson) and Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) got to hang around with their very own droid (pun very much intended) in Ex Machina, reviewed previously here at 9.0 rating (I tell ya, these are all awesome films).

(John Boyega in Attack The Block, and Domhnall Gleeson and Oscar Isaac in Ex Machina, respectively)

But now here’s the review for Attack The Block. Can I say enough good things about Attack the Block? No I can't, because it's absolutely brilliant.

Attack the Block, brought to you by the guys behind Hot Fuzz, tells the story about a gang of kids in South London who suddenly find that their neighbourhood was being attacked by aliens from outer space. Then they do the only thing that they know: fight for their 'hood.

Attack The Block is awesome, there’s no need to downplay that. It’s definitely a popcorn movie, but it’s a really, really good one. Tense and breathless, Attack The Block has everything you want from an action/thriller film. Littered with bikes, baseball bats, and fireworks, it’s definitely not a conventional one--but those facts by no means reflect its adrenaline level. It has some quick bloody scenes, so viewer discretion is advised. The lead character Moses (John Boyega) was especially brilliantly acted, but the movie somehow managed to make all the characters relatable even though they were basically criminals. Almost atmospheric in their choice of neighbourhood, Attack the Block also has great soundtrack (by Basement Jaxx) and visuals, and I especially loved the simple yet effective design of the aliens.

TL;DR Intense, unpredictable and unique, this movie is a hidden gem and goes to show that big budget is not necessary to make good sci-fi action.

*a version of this review was previously posted in 2011.

Review: Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Finally, it's time for Star Wars: The Force Awakens (TFA for short)! I'll try to keep this review vague because I don't want to delve into any spoiler, but first, let's talk about how this is an actual NEW Star Wars movie! I was meh for the prequels (and did not see them on the theaters either), and wasn't alive yet for the original trilogy so I never experienced what the hype felt like. When I went for TFA, I couldn’t shake a jarring feeling when the theater darkened, the stars and the title font appeared, then the crawl text came into view and I read it and it's a text I haven't read before. My mind couldn’t comprehend that it was a new Star Wars movie I was watching, and I can't imagine I'm the only one who felt that way, so it goes to show how important it was for this movie to be good (arguably we could also say that about the prequels, and we lived through them, so take that as you will). Of course, there were the Expanded Universe and animated series, and while they're good (I particularly kept hearing about how good The Clone Wars was), they're not the same. This time, it's a cinematic movie, and everyone is excited.

One thing I could say about TFA is that it's definitely a Star Wars movie. It wasn't like how JJ Abrams tried to "translate" Star Trek from the 60's to 00's; TFA is Star Wars. It's more Star Wars than what the prequels ever hoped to be. I might even go as far as saying that it does have all the good, but also bad, of the originals, but for the most part it's a very entertaining and well-executed movie.

TFA is basically a homage to the originals, and that's the only way for any Star Wars sequel can be done, honestly. The cast and crew are fans too, and they can't just ignore the huge legacy of the franchise. And they did it brilliantly, I say. In TFA, Jedi had evolved into a myth, in the same way that Star Wars had lived and grown in cultural conciousness throught these years. However, TFA very obviously drew its DNA from the original trilogy. Depending on the person, it could be a good thing or a bad thing. Nostalgia is abound (not in a bad way) and you could basically pin point which traits in each new characters are like Han, Luke, Anakin, etc. I myself didn't mind, because it wasn't like A New Hope (or as some others would call it, simply Star Wars) had the most original story ever. But what’s most important for me, all the visual spectacle and world building that made the franchise so famous, were there too. The various aliens, the lived-in technology, the dog fights, the visually cool villains--even down to the cantina, and also the appearance of sand (not Tatooine), and ice (not Hoth), and green (not Endor) planet. There's a shot that I particularly liked; it was about the first time we see new character Rey (Daisy Ridley), in a long shot near a spaceship wreckage, and it was both beautiful and had amazing sense of scale. It was the moment I knew the movie wouldn't disappoint me for being Star Wars.

Rey, Finn (John Boyega), and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) are the new additions to this movie, and viewers won't have problem falling in love with them. Kylo Ren is especially interesting, psychologically, and I'd like to know more about him. The old characters too, namely Luke Skywalker, now General Leia Organa, and Han Solo are also worthy and natural addition to the story. And BB-8! I was a fan of R2-D2 and BB-8 is an excellent progeny of R2-D2, and an even cuter one. And oh, the movie is extremely funny. It had great comedic timing that don't interfere with the actual movie and it's very fun.

TL;DR A fun, hearty movie with great worldbuilding unique to Star Wars, this movie won't disappoint newly introduced viewers or old fans.

Review: Earth To Echo (2014)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

A group of kids on their very last night together (because they were about to move and the neighbourhood about to be torn down to create a freeway) happened to find a crashed alien, and went on an overnight adventure to get him home. If it sounds like a mixture of E.T. and The Goonies, that's because it completely is, but Earth To Echo managed to stand its ground instead of simply being an inferior mimic.

The plot itself wasn't revolutionary--and frankly wasn't that different from E.T.--but what elevated this movie was how genuine the friendship was. The kids, all played by "unknown" child actors (Teo Halm, Brian Bradley, Reese Hartwig, Ella Wahlesstedt), were very natural and felt like real friends. They also acted exactly as kids and not act how sometimes Hollywood thinks children act like. That was the appeal of The Goonies, and that was the appeal of Earth To Echo. A lot of the performances in Earth To Echo were actually improv, so that helped a lot in making sure the scenes play as naturally as possible.

Earth To Echo moved at fairly fast pace and that helps a lot, but the film also packed a lot of genuine emotions. Each of the kids had their own backstory that shaped who they were, and the looming dread of future separation felt real enough and added a layer of poignancy to the story. While the film clearly had connections to 1980s through its spiritual predecessor, Earth To Echo felt very now and didn't try invoke 80′s nostalgia (that could be overbearing in some movies); it had cellphones, GPS, and Google Maps, and a cute little alien with Minority Report-esque aesthetic. Actually, Earth To Echo reminded me of Chronicle more than anything (probably because I’m not a generation of E.T. and The Goonies), and here might be my obligatory mention that Earth To Echo was shot in found-footage style--but for me it wasn’t annoying or overly shakey and it actually had some neat trick regarding Echo's vision.

TL;DR Once you get past the obvious (and lazy) comparison, Earth To Echo is a sweet little movie about kids and friendship--with surprisingly good acting and genuine emotions.

Review: Ex Machina (2015)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

Caleb Smith (Domnhall Gleeson, of Harry Potter’s Weasley fame), a young programmer and employee at Blue Book (a Google-like company), was chosen by lottery to visit his boss’ (Oscar Isaac) house in the middle of nowhere. That’s not the end of story, of course, because he was actually invited to perform modified Turing Test on an AI or Artificial Intelligence (played by Alicia Vikander) that Nathan, the boss built.

Written and directed by first-time director Alex Garland (writer of 28 Days Later, Never Let Me Go, Dredd), Ex Machina is visually rich and has an understated sense of suspense throughout the movie, that I’d propose as proof of talent for his hand in directing as well as writing. The visual of the movie really was suspended a lot by the exquisite natural locations, its dastardly gorgeous house, and juxtaposed beautifully with the clean lines of technology around it.

For those unfamiliar, Turing Test is a test in which a human interacts with a machine, and only if he or she cannot distinguish the machine’s response as human or not, then the machine can be considered as true AI. Ex Machina discusses a lot about the how, why, and other philosophical musings around AI--not an uncommon circumstance in a sci-fi movie, but it is quite unique because it doesn’t lecture or present itself in an unnatural way. It’s just that; A discussion. It does have a love story, but in the way that enriches the story instead of traps it. Ex Machina felt like a truly smart movie that doesn’t look down on its audience and more so than not, Ex Machina answers itself in a truly compelling way.

Alicia Vikander was perfect as Ava the AI, as the kind that exudes innocence and raw emotion appropriate for her character. Gleeson and Isaac also perfectly portrayed two programmers on the verge of great discovery--one as the inventor and one as an unassuming component of the test--and the interaction between them was just fascinating to watch. 

There were also other crazy brilliant stuff in it, like the impromptu dance scene. (Not gonna say anything about it, and I’d say don’t Google it because you’d really don’t want to be spoiled. Just watch the movie and come back to me.)

TL;DR In the end, Ex Machina is truly a thought-provoking movie because not only it’s a great thriller built around brilliant science-fictional discussion, but also because it felt real. Aside from her flashy skeleton, Ava really felt like she might be the next Google project a decade from today. Maybe she will be.

Review: Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Rating: 7.0 of 10

The truth is, Jupiter Ascending is not a bad movie. It's just a completely mediocre one, and honestly that's almost as bad--or even worse--than being plain bad.

A space opera straight from the hands and minds of the Wachowski siblings (from the legendary The Matrix, Cloud Atlas), Jupiter Ascending tells the story of Jupiter (Mila Kunis), a young house cleaner unhappy with her life. After being chased and prodded around by mysterious creatures, with the help of one ex-space military (Channing Tatum) she found out that she was the exact genetic copy of a galactic queen and was set to inherit the Earth. (It might worth mentioning that Tatum's character, Caine, was said to be half-dog and half-human. Take that as you will.)

One thing I could say about Jupiter Ascending is that the visual is very striking. If anything, the Wachowski are gifted with excellent eyes for uniquely breathtaking science-fictional images and technologies. There’s more creativity in the design of this single movie than a dozen blockbusters in recent years combined, but unfortunately they felt empty because there's no plot or soul to back it up. The clothes and spaceships were astonishingly beautiful, the planets magnificent, the flying boots were really, really cool, and the action were actually pretty exciting, but there's a large sense of "So what?" looming over the entire film.

The core of the movie was meant to be held up by the romance between Jupiter and Caine, and that's where the movie falters. Not only there were no chemistry between the two lead actors, the protagonist herself was completely unengaging with almost no agency, and it made that much harder to connect and emote. There's a world of ideas buried beneath the intricate visuals--I even quite liked the randomness of the plot as it introduces us to multiple characters, if only a little meandering--but I ended up caring for the characters as much as I care for a paperbag. Which makes it a shame, because Jupiter Ascending really do have a potential to be great.

TL;DR In the end, Jupiter Ascending is a very pretty movie without a purpose, with it's only saving grace is that it has a really, really cool title*.

*Yes, I really do love planet Jupiter.

TV Shoutout: Orphan Black

Of course I had to do a Shoutout for Orphan Black, I don't know why I haven't done it yet!

What it is about: A streetwise con-artist, Sarah (Tatiana Maslany), witnessed a woman who looked exactly like her committing a suicide, and subsequently stole her identity as an opportunity to get away from her own life. (And it turns out, the woman was her clone. Oops.)

Why you should watch it: Tatiana Maslany, Tatiana Maslany, Tatiana Maslany, Tatiana Maslany. Seriously.

As already stated, Tatiana Maslany plays the central character, Sarah, who was just one among a set of clones, all also played by her. She was able to play so many different women in one or separate screens, and still be instantly recognizable as different, consistent characters with their own personality and personal lives. There really is no way to accurately explain the kind of acting that she does, other than: just watch her performance. She would, on consistent basis, make you forget that basically half of the regular cast were played by a single actress because each of them were all just that different. Fun fact: Maslany's mother, at one time, actually verbally asked the crew, "When is Tatiana coming back?" all the while watching her daughter filming as another character. She, literally, didn't recognize her own daughter in front of her eyes while acting. That's the kind of acting that Maslany does.

(This is actually a behind-the-scenes video, but I think you can get a pretty good grasp of Maslany as the 3 main clones: Sarah, Alison, Cosima. It's also a very interesting to see the technicality behind it.)

The fun really starts when you see her playing a clone pretending to be another clone (for example, Sarah pretending to be Alison). You can clearly see it was not Alison, but rather Sarah trying her best to be Alison—which is really an almost impossible feat considering they look exactly alike. Really, by that time, you might think that she's just showing off (and you'd still be totally impressed).

Enough about Maslany, now about the actual story. If you're intimidated by the word "clone", don't. The clone thing is just a setting, but the core is really about sisters and family. After accepting their unique bond and condition, they found solace in each other and ended up protecting each other at all costs. Orphan Black is indeed a very suspenseful show as the clones were hunted and monitored, but it is also a very fun one. Characters like Felix, Vic, Donnie, even suburban-mom Alison give plenty of comic relief—not to mention Helena's neverending quirkiness. It's actually a little bit cheesy and soap-opera-esque (in the best way), but it's also suspenseful as heck with a good amount of action and detective work. In short, Orphan Black is the best of both worlds, in terms of (the absurd) masculine vs. feminine dichotomy on TV.

Who should watch it: Due to its inclusion of many genres, I think everyone, men and women will enjoy it, but maybe not for kids because there were some, sparse partial nudity.

Where you should start: If you don't mind missing things out, you basically can start anywhere. Otherwise, you should start from the beginning because it's fun anyway.

Status: Season 3 running.

(all the Felix gifs! Because why not!)

TV Shoutout: Person of Interest

Person of Interest, the best underrated show on TV.

What it is about: A recluse billionaire (Michael Emerson) hires an ex-military (Jim Caviezel) to help people he knows are in danger, from a mysterious source.

Why you should watch it: The series is produced by Jonathan Nolan, brother of movie director Christopher Nolan (Batman's The Dark Knight Trilogy, Interstellar, etc). They do have the same flair and trademark realistic style of filmmaking, but Jonathan is much, much better at portraying character drama.

Basically, there are 2 distinct reasons why Person of Interest is such a great series. One, for it's characters. Person of Interest does an excellent job at developing the characters throughout the series, on a level that you have never seen on a typical procedural. It deals in the grey area of surveillance, organized crime and politics, and there were a lot of subverting tropes that makes it very fresh, and quite a lot genuinely funny moments in a seemingly serious show.

Two, for its portrayal of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (yes, there's an AI in this show). While the show started as a standard case-of-the-week procedural, later it digs more into the nature AI as an all-seeing eye. Very slowly but surely, it turned into a critical discussion on why, what, and how such AI would be like in our world. It portrays AI as a sympathetic but growing entity in a way that, I must again say, is rarely seen on popular entertainment. It might seem unlikely at the start, but Person of Interest has grown into one of the best sci-fi show on television right now, but I can honestly say non-scifi fan would also enjoy it from a pure action, conspiracy, and character perspective. If you don't believe me, just read this 

What else? Because of its top notch, Emmy-level acting (that nobody’s bothered to give awards to)? Because of its badassery? Because Amy Acker is enough to melt your hearts away? Because it has Taraji P. Henson (Cookie in Empire, a great show and actress in their own right)? Because of an adorable dog? Take your pick.

Where to start: Person of Interest is procedural, and I know most episodes in most procedural shows are entirely skippable, but I urge you against skipping anything in Person of Interest even though yes, there are filler episodes. Yes, some episodes contribute less than others to the bigger arc, but a lot of seemingly "case/number-of-the-week" episodes (especially the early ones) helps humanizing and characterizing each of the main characters: Finch, Reese, etc., and even The Machine (the previously mentioned AI). Those character-heavy episodes helped a lot to understand and love each of them.

If you so must insist to skip anything, there's a handy guide to episodes that deal mostly about the bigger arc, but only for first season and the beginning of the second. If you've watched those and liked them, then again I urge you to revisit the episodes you skipped and see if you like them too (I hope you do).

I do have to say though, while I liked Person of Interest from the beginning, it had a shaky start and did not feel particularly special until halfway of the first season (after, I believe, its mid-season break at 11th episode). By that time, they had newfound confidence in the concept of the show and had started to actually have fun with it, although it has always been a compelling show. And there were moments, even in the fourth season, where you might feel things slow down, but it was all for a reason and by the end of the season it will all be worth it. In short: it's not mandatory to watch all of the episodes, but it’s strongly advised if you can.

Where it is at: Fourth season had just ended, and it’s very likely that it’ll be renewed for season 5.

Rant: Why Is There No Science-Fiction Culture In Indonesia?

The recent release of two Indonesian science-fictional movies made me think: what happened to Indonesian science-fiction (SF) culture, or the lack thereof? The movies in question are, of course, Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh which was based on popular novel of the same title and Garuda Superhero, an original Indonesian Batman-esque superhero. I reviewed Supernova and intended to review Garuda Superhero (I ended up just writing a first impression of the trailer). For my failure to fulfill my promise regarding the latter, I'm sorry. I know it may look like I'm a hypocrite, but by the time I found the time to watch it, it had vanished from my chosen theater and before the end of its second week it disappeared completely from all theaters in Jakarta except for one single viewing. I read other people's reviews and the bottomline is that Garuda Superhero is more or less as atrocious as my first impression and apparently is almost as terribly received by moviegoers. Most of the reviews states that aside from being extremely derivative, Indonesia isn't ready to make this kind of film. The question is, why?

To answer, we have to understand what is SF and where did it come from? So in this article I'd discuss the history of SF as we know it (namely Western SF, the biggest SF culture in the world) and also in other parts of the world especially Asia and Indonesia.

Disclaimer: I did read some sources regarding the topic, but by and large this article is absolutely non-academic and might just be the ramblings of a misguided, naive, ignorant 24 year old girl, but I try to do this article justice. Discussions are more than welcome, of course. And brace yourselves, it will be a long post.

SF, with a "science" modifier to its "fiction", is defined by the existence of "novum" of the scientific kind in its stories. Novum literally means "new thing"; that twist that differs it from a tale about ordinary life. So a man in love with a woman is not SF, but a man from 2400 that time-traveled to 1958 and then fall in love with a woman is SF. That example is a crude classification, and there are always some works with arguable definition of novum or science (James Bond and his gadgets sit nicely in the fringe of SF), but that is the general idea.

Hearing the word "science fiction" most people would picture complicated technology and unintelligible conversations about quantum physics and buzzwords about melting positrons. Deriving from that alone, it's not hard to imagine why Indonesia seemingly have no SF culture. Indonesia isn't and never was the cradling bed of science and technology. Not to belittle the work of great Indonesian scientists and engineers (BJ Habibie, Sedijatmo, Warsito Taruno are the famous ones, among many others), but scientific attitude is never part of the building blocks of Indonesian living.

The thing is, in actuality SF (as far as it is from gods and demons) had its roots deep in mythology. You can still see it to this day as SF and Fantasy are frequently classified together (and sometimes collectively called as "genre", which I admit is weird. A genre called genre.). Many people are a fan of both and both are usually featured in the same ;cons, and writers sometimes jump from one genre into the other. Stephenie Meyer, for example, who wrote the notorious vampire love story Twilight series, went on to write The Host about alien invasion (or for more hardcore SF fan: Ursula K. Le Guin wrote both The Left Hand of Darkness and the Earthsea series). SF and Fantasy are both very similar because they both have nova, although one in scientific sense and one in the supernatural. So the question is: how can Indonesia, that is forehead-deep in mythological nova, is so poor of SF? Why hadn't it evolved into SF?

The origin of Western SF can be traced back to "voyage extraordinaires" stories in Ancient Greece. Those are stories about adventures to new and foreign lands, sometimes even to the sky or the moon and stars. Of course physically they were unreachable at the time but they saw the moon etc and thought, what if? What if we could go there? In Indonesia, an overwhelming amount of folk and ancient stories were about good vs. evil and cautionary tales, but there were extraordinary voyages too like the wayang story of meeting Dewa Ruci deep into the ocean. Not only that, there were also other fantastical, marginally SF stories like the folk tale of Timun Mas, which for all we know might actually involve genetically modified infant. We even have Gatot Kaca, who is basically the ultimate superhero before superheroes.

But then Copernicus "emerged" in Europe. The history of western SF was a bit incredible to me because of how specific its development was, sometimes even (roughly) traceable down to a single person. In the 16th century it was Copernicus, with the outrageous (and accurate) Heliocentric theory. The church held the believe that the earth is the center and the only significant body in the universe, but with Copernicus's new theory came the realization that we are just a fraction of whole universe, and an insignificant one at that. Voyage extraordinaires stories still existed, but changed. Before Copernicus, the sky and the moon were usually portrayed in the divine or spiritual sense (as the extension of heaven or the heaven itself). But after, they became material—in the sense that they became an actual place protagonists could visit and meet wacky new creatures. That paradigm change was important in igniting true SF.

There were similarly important figures throughout the years who paved the road for today's SF: Mary Shelley ("Frankenstein" unified contemporary scientific advancement, fantastical elements, and realism to create the first real SF work), H.G. Wells (of The War Of The Worlds fame, whose primary influence is grounding/connecting SF to "the mundane and the present"), Hugo Gernsback (who popularized SF with the rise of pulp magazines), and..... George Lucas (whose Star Wars had HUGE impact in cinematic SF—or cinema, period.). And here is my reminder for readers that those are oversimplication in the most absolute sense. There were TONS of other influential people that I didn't mention like Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov, John W. Campbell, George Orwell, Philip K. Dick, Ursula K. Le Guin, William Gibson, Douglas Adams, the list could go on and on.

I am absolutely tempted to say that the reason Indonesia developed no SF is because we have no Copernicus, but that is cheating. Plenty of other regions developed SF from a separate branch than the west. Voyage extraordinares also existed in the middle east, and the Arab world had identifiable proto-SF work as early as the 12th century. Now middle eastern SF is still not as popular as the western, but genre work in Arabic language is said to be on the rise, although back in 2009 there was an op-ed lamenting the lack of Arabic SF (much like what I do now).

There were several notable SF-esque Japanese old tales like The Tale Of The Bamboo Cutter, but 1900s saw one of the first true SF work in Japan. After the world wars, Japanese SF were more influenced by American fiction but they were distinctively Japanese. Gojira (or Godzilla), for example, were conceived as physical portrayal of nuclear attack--an unfortunate but uniquely Japanese experience. Today, SF theme is very big in Japan and there are countless and countless Japanese SF work in the form of live-action, manga, anime, or even game. Many of them reached high recognition in the SF world, like Akira (the poster child of SF anime), Ghost In The Shell (definite inspiration for The Matrix movie), Paprika, Gundam/Macross/Evangelion franchises (oh yeah I had just lumped those into one!), 20th Century Boys, 1Q84, Battle Royale, Casshern, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, etc.

Basically, SF emerged all over the place like a natural evolution, and that made the lack of it in Indonesia is all the more stark. "Everything not forbidden is compulsory" is a "rule" in quantum physics, and I believe it applies to literature too. People throughout history had always incorporated fantastical elements in their stories, some of them by rule must be of the scientific nature. There is a space or even need of SF in Indonesia, and somewhere, someday that niche will be filled. And, for reasons I'll explain, I'm actually optimist that it will be soon.

I must elaborate that when I say there's no SF culture in Indonesia, I don't mean there is absolutely no SF. There are recorded works, but they are patchy or hard to find (sometimes even with questionable quality). Djokolelono's Jatuh Ke Matahari (Falling Into The Sun), published in 1976, is regarded as the first Indonesian SF novel (which I observed is 100 years too late than others). If there was ever SF before and not long after 1976, it completely fell into the cracks of cultural history and I'd argue is therefore insignificant to its development. SF only regained its life again in 2000s, when novels like Supernova (Dee, 2000), Area X: Hymne Angkasa Raya (Eliza Handayani, 2003), Anomali (Santopay, 2004), etc. were published. To this day, Djokolelono also wrote several SF and Fantasy books for children, young adult, and adult. There were actually quite a lot of SF works in 2000s if we try to list them all, but few of them reached significant popularity or longevity and I'd argue the SF culture is still practically non-existent. Case in point; there is no SF section in the bookstore that makes browsing the bookstore painstaking, confusing, and likely result in no SF bought. I can't remember the last time we had local SF movie and it felt forever until we eventually have Garuda Superhero (and some still say that "we're not ready for it"). Also, aside from few enthusiasts like me, basically no one's talking about SF. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong set of friends, I don't know.

That said, Indonesia is not special in its stagnation. Several other SF culture in other countries struggled too. India's SF, despite its popularity, is regarded as "mediocre and derivative". Chinese radio, TV, and film authority issued guidelines to discourage, among them, time travel stories. And don't forget the aforementioned arabian essay.

But the 100 year gap of SF in Indonesia (only first emerged in 1976) compared to other regions is curious, to say the least. Provided that were true and there were no significant SF work of that period that fell into obscurity, SF in Indonesia have no direct line to the rest of Indonesian literature history (Jatuh Ke Matahari's author Djokolelono is actually a working book translator too, and it seems reasonable to say he was rather influenced by western literature). Lacking real sources about this matter, I resorted to wild guesses. In 18th and 19th century—a significant time of SF history in which it branched out to a notably distinctive genre—Indonesia was under the colonism of Netherlands (actually, Indonesia was colonized way before that by the Portuguese and Spain, since early 16th century). I know it's fashionable to blame things on the colonials (we do like to blame things on them colonials, don't we?), but I figured something must have happened around that time that made situations inconducive for the birth of SF. Proper education for native people were limited only to the elite and therefore, science were too. The development of science and technology is crucial to the emergence of SF, for obvious reasons. Science and technology eventually came to us, but they came fully formed from the west. We never had that anxiety of invention, which is important for the heart of SF. I'm just armchair-philosophing here, but that reasoning seemed probable enough for layman me. Although one might think that the influx of western literature especially during the time of VOC, combined with insurgent situation at the time should be a fertile ground for SF, but hey, apparently not.

Now that we've understood the history of SF here and in the rest of the world, it's time to ask: what should we do next? Quite a few of Indonesian SF lifted elements from Indonesian mythology, which is a great effort to make them "ours" and I hope people would keep tapping on that endless resource. But selfishly I'd like to see something that are more contemporary and speak more loudly (in a true SF fashion) about our condition now, because for me SF are best when they speak with social resonance (if you have a recommendation for Indonesian work, let me know). Poverty, gap of the rich and the poor, corruption, religious anxiety—mixed in with a little alien or dystopia—might be a recipe for truly compelling SF. I kept thinking something akin to Lord Of The Flies, which is weird because it's not SF but it could have been (it certainly is speculative fiction), would be awesome for us. In the realms of movies, I'd like to see more script-based SF (instead of pure visual spectacle), from independent and commercial filmmakers alike. There's no reason we can't produce lowkey projects like Pi, Safety Not Guaranteed, Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World, Timecrimes, 28 Days Later, etc (yes, I'm basically spitting out every title that comes into my head).

But the truth is, we may not realize it but SF in Indonesia is slowly and surely rising. Even now, there are two superhero movies slated for release in the next couple of years (Volt and Gundala Putra Petir remake, if fate permitting), and superheroes Bima Satria Garuda and Nusantaranger are gaining good grounds. Hopefully, other subgenres will follow. I hope the next time I write about the state of Indonesian SF, it will be in a completely different circumstance (possibly raving about The Golden Age that Indonesian SF were having).

Sources: The bulk of western SF's history is from Adam Roberts' book The History of Science Fiction. Other sources can be found through the link.

Edited to add (6/02/2015): So I had a trip to the bookstore today and gave myself time for a thorough browse. I found 5 seemingly-SF books (if not, then certainly speculative fiction): Zombie Aides (Satria Satire), Bumi (Tere Liye), Spora (Alkadri), Gerbang Trinil (Riawani Elyta), and Time[s] (Aya Swords). So SF lives, but some genre savviness (knowing the kinds of title and cover SF usually comes in) definitely help to pick them up from the rest. I bought 2 of them, Bumi and Gerbang Trinil, and maybe I'll give them a shoutout if they're good.