Review: Interstellar (2014)

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.

Review: Cek Toko Sebelah (2016)

Rating: 7.0 out of 10

Cek Toko Sebelah is the second feature film from Ernest Prakasa, an Indonesian stand-up comedian turned writer/actor/director. Cek Toko Sebelah tells the story of Erwin (Ernest Prakasa), a succesful young man on the verge of a promotion, his screw-up brother Yohan (Dion Wiyoko), and their father Koh Afuk (Chew Kin Wah) who leaves Erwin with his small business.

Cek Toko Sebelah has a simple but powerful premise, and it has a promising start. It establishes characters pretty well, filled with witty dialogue including some laugh-out-loud moments, but everything seems to go downhill from there. Ultimately, Cek Toko Sebelah is a typical Indonesian movie, played out in a typical Indonesian fashion: very linear, unimaginative storyline with one dimensional characters. In Cek Toko Sebelah, the story writes itself, and not in a good way. Everything plays out basically exactly like you'd expect with little to no surprises, especially during the first and second act. The characters' storyline does not intertwine in any meaningful way, with minimal character development. The movie does offer good laughs, but everything else is not enough for me. Fortunately on the third act, things started to get a little more exciting, and it does slightly redeems itself.

What's frustrating is, Cek Toko Sebelah has the potential to be an extremely good character-based family drama/comedy. Instead, it only reaches for the easy low hanging fruit, and is either unwilling, or unable to aim higher. Erwin's character is ripe for conflict, but ultimately, he has given nothing to lose. The writer thinks that everything that's being thrown at Erwin is conflict, but Erwin is not given time to process it--and neither was the audience--so ultimately they did not become conflict. They were just stuff. Stuff that happens. Cek Toko Sebelah is a film that does not dare to hurt the characters, therefore it becomes a relatively uncompelling viewing experience. Yohan's dark past is hinted, but is wholly unexplored, and the movie is afraid to put obstacles in front of him. Natalie (Gisella Anastasia), Erwin's girlfriend, has exactly one purpose in the movie (being the nagging girlfriend), and the only attempt to give Ayu (Adinia Wirasti), Yohan's wife, a dimension besides being, y'know, "Yohan's wife", falls flat. The only compelling character is Koh Afuk, largely because of Chew Kin Wah nuanced portrayal. This father figure is not perfect: reserved, cynical, stubborn, but he cares deeply about his family and his employees. He does not say much, but Kin Wah was able to carry it all with authenticity and wit, that we could not help but to fall in love with his character.

Aside from family, there's another theme explored in this movie: living as a Chinese-Indonesian in Indonesia. On that account, Cek Toko Sebelah is very successful in showing the nuances of their everyday lives. Ernest Prakasa himself is Chinese-Indonesian, and he frequently talks about it back from his stand-up comedy days, so it's not surprising. Diversity overall, is a win here. But there are also some problematic social treatments in this movie. I was really hoping that this movie would be above resorting to male gaze for jokes, but with how the males treat Anita's (Yeyen Lidya) character repeatedly, apparently not. In general, the female characters in this movie are uninspired at best. It also features typical Indonesian representation of an LGBT character (a comic relief that other characters laugh at), which while it is funny, only cements the stereotype.

I hope I do not come across as mean or nitpicking, or unsupportive of local films. I really, really do hope for quality filmmaking in Indonesia and this is my way of supporting it. TL;DR Cek Toko Sebelah offers good diversity, some pretty funny moments, but serviceable characters.

TV Shoutout: Black Mirror

Honestly, I originally intended to write this TV Shoutout in time for the Christmas Special, but I foolishly thought that it airs on the 25th instead of the 16th. But that's okay, because now I can tell you that the special was full of usual Black Mirror greatness. And here it is about the show:

What it is about: Black Mirror is a British dystopian anthology miniseries. The stories for each episode varies but the running theme is humanity and technology, usually set in an imagined 5-or-10-minutes-into-the-future. And for lack of better word, Black Mirror is exactly what the title suggests: our dark reflection of who we are as human being.

Or in shorter words, it's The Twilight Zone for today.

Why you should watch it: Because it is a brilliant satire. It is scifi-esque, but definitely everyone can enjoy it because most times the technologies are incorporated seamlessly into its world, just like ours. In it's heart, Black Mirror is less about flashy gadgets and more about social commentary. What it's not though, is safe or comforting, in the way that some art should not be. It is intended to be shocking and eye-opening. I doubtlessly would not recommend a few episodes (like The National Anthem) for the faint of heart, but it is absolutely worth it. Black Mirror is lovely and funny at times (Charlie Brooker the creator actually did award-winning comedy work), but equally terrifying and heartbreaking, in the best way. Most people who've watched it agree that Black Mirror is one of the best TV series they've encountered, and for good reason. If that does not convince you yet there are more trivial reasons, like the fact that it is beautiful to look at and beautifully directed, and it features familiar brilliant actors from Mad Men, Captain America, Game Of Thrones, etc.

Who should watch it: Those who like great storytelling, sci-fi or not. Those who thought that there's something missing in today's television and demand "more" from their entertainment. Those who think that underneath the flashy and happy exterior, the world is dark and full of terrors. And whether it sounds like Black Mirror is your thing or not, I wholeheartedly encourage you to at least try to watch one of the episodes, because otherwise you might miss one of the masterpieces of modern TV.

Where you should start: It is an anthology (a collection of short stories), so basically you can start at any episode because each episode is self-standing. But if you're squeamish or less tolerable for more "racy" stuff, I do advice you against The National Anthem (season 1 episode 1) at least until you get the hang of the show.

Status: Black Mirror had 2 full seasons (each had 3 episodes) and one Christmas Special (listed as season 3). A full season might be coming in 2015.

Lastly, if I had not succeeded in explaining what Black Mirror is all about, Charlie Brooker the creator/writer might. Here he is talking about the concept and the meaning of Black Mirror:

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: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

So, if you live on Planet Earth, you have probably read reviews/heard from other people about how amazing Thor: Ragnarok is.

I’m not gonna be one of those people.

Alright, I don’t think it’s terrible either. I just think Ragnarok is okay, and somewhat on par with other “okay” Marvel’s Cinematic Universe (*cough* Ant-Man *cough*).

I could say that the one great thing about Ragnarok is that it has a lot of personality. The sin of previous Thor movies were that they were not only forgettable, they felt “cookie-cutter”. They felt like you’ve seen them before, and in fact you definitely have. Meanwhile, Ragnarok is definitely its own beast, and that is for sure thanks to Taika Waititi’s clear vision as director. His vision in infusing fun and humor is definitely something that Thor sorely needs. And that proved to work, as evidenced by its success both critically and commercially.

However, Taika’s brand of humor is not my brand of humor. Because the story is quite thin, Ragnarok definitely hinges a lot on its humor. So if you like Taika (see What We Do In The Shadows) then I guess you’ll like it, but if you don’t get the laughs then you won’t enjoy it as much. I’ve always said that Marvel movies are always unexpectedly funny, but although there were laughs, they were not usually at the expense of the characters. However, Taika likes to make fun of his characters, to the point that he makes them look quite foolish. He probably was trying to make them more “relatable” or something, but for me, they just make me respect our heroes less.

The villain is played by none other than Cate Blanchett. Cate Blanchett just has that enormous movie presence that makes every movie better, but her character Hela was not given the gravity it deserves. Given that Hela is Thor and Loki’s sister (and given what happened to their father Odin), Ragnarok is ripe for a real, emotional family story. But Ragnarok failed on that front. Sure, Ragnarok touches on that in one or two scenes, but they definitely were not enough. An emotional core like that should be ingrained in its story, but instead it just felt tacked on. Just because Ragnarok is a funny movie, that doesn’t excuse the lack of heart in this film. Just look at Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2. That movie was funny as hell, but the emotional content of that movie was through the roof. Sadly Ragnarok couldn’t do anything like that, instead Hela just felt like another Malekith (villain from Thor: The Dark World, if you don’t remember, who was not that good of a villain to begin with).

Ragnarok, though, definitely plays on Chris Hemsworth’s strength. Hemsworth is an incredible comedic actor, and he fits right in this new tone. I couldn’t grasp much of Hulk/Bruce Banner’s character in this movie, mainly because in-universe we have not seen him for 2 years. He has changed a lot but we were not given time to revisit his character more. Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie though, is really great! She is badass and memorable, and is definitely a worthy addition to MCU family. About Loki… I can’t believe I’m gonna say this, but I do think that Loki’s character has definitely run its course. Unless something happens to the character that changes him, I can’t see how Loki could add value to future Marvel movies.

TL;DR If you need some laughs, or you have 2 hours to kill, Thor: Ragnarok is definitely a great movie. But if you’re looking for something more emotionally profound, you’re not gonna get it here.

Review: Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

I've never really admit it before but I've always loved kid-becomes-spy movies like Spy Kids (2001), Agent Cody Banks (2003), and Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker (2006), even if quality is sometimes secondary. For me they're the ultimate wish-fulfillment: to be young with a very cool secret, gadgets, weapons, the ability to kick ass and escape from our boring lives, and maybe even get a pretty girlfriend along the way. And in Kingsman: The Secret Service, we could be very, very British too—which is always a code for being damn classy.

Before we start, although I did mention the (family-friendly) movies above, I have to remind some audiences that Kingsman is in fact closer to Wanted (2008) and Kick-Ass (2010) (fun fact: all three were based on Mark Millar's graphic novels but I won't open that can of worms), with the latter also directed by Kingsman's and X-Men: First Class (2011)'s director, Matthew Vaughn. If you are not familiar with those films, basically what they have in common is that they all have genuinely fun, inventive—borderline wacky but definitely cathartic—action and violence. It's not overly bloody or anything (most of them consist of quick-cuts or scenes that are so stylized they're beautiful) but it does require you to at least crack a smile when people's heads are blown off, otherwise you're missing half the fun. But don't worry, they're the bad guys.

The kid in question is Gary or Eggsy (Taron Egerton), whose father trained to become Kingsman but died when he was little. Agent Galahad (Colin Firth) is grateful of Eggsy's father for saving his life and wanted to return the favor by taking Eggsy into Kingsman too. And hence began young Eggsy's training to become a proper British spy.

And when I say British, I really do mean British. I don't know what it is about England (maybe a leftover from the popularity of James Bond), but the best fictional spies are frequently from that side of the pond. With Kingsman it's easy to see why. There's something reassuring (and effortlessly cool) that our hidden saviors are good-mannered gentlemen in exquisite suits with respect for top-shelf bourbon and impeccable gunwork. They have Arthurian code-names and weapons disguised as umbrellas, it doesn't get much more British than that. Colin Firth, our resident dapper Englishman, is surprisingly badass as Agent Galahad. Egerton is also brilliant as a working class kid trying to survive in the streets of London—also quintessentially British, in another way. 

The movie (and Matthew Vaughn himself) states its love to "old" spy movies before the dark, grim, and gritty era: back when those movies actually had fun and less tortured, complete with its trademark crazy villains with crazier plans. The villain in this movie is Samuel L. Jackson with a lisp and name like Richmond Valentine, accompanied always by his false-legged killer butler/bodyguard. If that's not an old-Bond movie logic, I don't know what is. While expressing its love to old movies, Kingsman always felt new and shiny. It doesn't bow down to tropes and it really is a testament to the strength of the script that I never once felt like anyone is save, ever (and people do die in this movie). The action sequences are as exciting as they are beautiful, and they also have good use of music in action scenes, not unlike Kick-Ass whose soundtrack I loved.

TL;DR All in all, if you like good action movie, or just plain fun movie, you owe it to yourself to see this film. Just look at those gifs (or trailer). They're glorious.

Review: Oldboy (2003)

Rating: 9.0 of 10

Oh Dae-Su (Choi Min-sik), a drunken and crass office-worker, was locked up in a mysterious hotel room for 15 years for no apparent reason. He was confused and desperate at first, and ended up just plain angry. When he eventually got out, with the help of one sushi-bar worker, he was determined to find out why he was held and the identity of his captor to take revenge.

Oldboy (actually based on a Japanese manga of the same name) is one of the most popular and acclaimed example of South Korean cinema in international stage, frequently listed as one of the best movies of all time and is firmly ingrained in the minds of modern cinephile. After earning cult status with Oldboy, Director Park Chan-wook eventually directed his first English-speaking movie, Stoker, in 2013 with Nicole Kidman and Mia Wasikowska, and Oldboy itself was remade by Hollywood with Spike Lee directing and Josh Brolin as lead (with less critical acclaim). I can’t tell you the merits of those two films, but I can tell you that Oldboy is very deserving of its cult favorite status.

Lacking normal social skills due to more than a decade being confused and alone, it was clear that Dae-su was a changed man, forever scarred by the absurd circumstance of his life. Dae-su was volatile and dangerous, a far cry from his previous buffoon self, and Choi Min-sik was equally believable as both. With range not unlike Robert de Niro in his best years, Choi Min-sik frequently changes from incredibly cold and menacing, to incredibly sad and pitiful without a blink of an eye.

With the absurdity of its premise, Oldboy had a perfect tone. Definitely not a typical grim-revenge story, it managed to keep a degree of surrealness—palpable from the moment we see Dae-su nagging in the police station but cemented the moment the octopus-eating scene arrived—only grounded by the sight of violence and blood. Inventive and highly stylish in its violence, the film is definitely not for the squeamish, but the actual horrors was largely visceral and psychological instead of purely gross visual. Oldboy is also partly a detective tale and partly a coming-of-age story (whatever age that is), providing much more layers to a simple vengeance story.

TL;DR With memorable images and moments throughout, Oldboy is a fascinating, heartbreaking, and stylish work about revenge.

Review: The Nice Guys (2016)

Rating: 8.0 of 10

From director Shane Black, comes The Nice Guys, a tale about private investigators, Holland March (Ryan Gosling) and Jackson Healy (Russel Crowe), who comes together to solve a mystery.

If you’re familiar with a Shane Black film, then you’d know that he is a master at black humor and action-comedy, and this film is no exception. Most of you probably has seen his characteristic blend in Iron Man 3, but the project that resembles most to The Nice Guys is definitely his cult-favorite directorial debut, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (that incredibly fun film starring Robert Downey Jr, Val Kilmer, and Michelle Monaghan).

Instead of RDJ and Val Kilmer as the central pair, this time we have Ryan Gosling and Russel Crowe, who both owned their characters. Just when I thought Ryan Gosling probably doesn’t have much range outside of being a stoic or a ladies man, here he’s amazingly perfect as March, a mildly competent private investigator and somewhat terrible father. Russel Crowe also nailed his character as Healy, a straight-to-business kind of guy without being too serious. Teen actress Angourie Rice (also set to appear in the next Spider Man movie, Homecoming) is pitch perfect as March’s daughter. In fact, she serves as the hero of the film as she provides a much needed heart of the film--not just through her relationship with her father but also with her new friendship with Healy.

The strength of this film is definitely in the chemistry between the characters, although the movie doesn’t delve much into their background, which is a bit of a bummer. Plot is amazingly bizarre, but if you’ve seen Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, probably isn’t too surprising. In fact, one criticism I could say for The Nice Guys is that it feels too similar to (and couldn’t surpass) Kiss Kiss Bang Bang--although that probably isn’t a bad comparison for any movie to have. The Nice Guys does have a certain flair to it because of its period setting, but I have to say, The Nice Guys is not nearly as quotable as Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

TL;DR The Nice Guys is a solid dark comedy-slash-action movie with great (not necessarily likable, but relatable) characters.

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: The Martian (2015)

Rating: 9.5 of 10

Space is dangerous, but it's also endearing.

Never the fact has ever been more apparent in the movies, than in The Martian. Set in the near future, The Martian is about a group of astronauts in the early days of human exploration on the Red Planet who were forced to leave because of a heavy storm--leaving one of its members, Mark Watney (Matt Damon), on the surface. For months, intelligence and ingenuity were the only things keeping him alive until he could be rescued.

The Martian, for me, was an important movie because it showed what being an astronaut really is about. Space is a dangerous thing, and the movie never downplay on that, but The Martian also puts space in an endearing light that makes us never wonder why did we ever go to space in the first place. Because the answer will always be: why not? Why not be the first? Why not find out, for the greater human race? For anyone intimate with space travel, when Watney gave lecture about being an astronaut and basically says, "When you're up there, at some point you're gonna think you're gonna die and maybe you will," you know that it's 100% true but you also know that doesn't mean you don't wanna go up there in a heartbeat. It's hard to depict a balanced portrayal about the dangers of space, but The Martian nailed it.

Science is also definitely the hero in this film, which is a surprisingly rare occurrence in popular fiction. Not only did Watney repeatedly was shown applying basic science concept to solve his problem, the film also pretty accurately depicted the workings of NASA; how astronauts, ground control, and teams of scientists work hard and thoroughly to reach a common goal. Aside from being very capable, scientists and astronauts in this film were also pretty humorous--and it's important because real scientists love their jokes too, but are almost never depicted as such. It's a very science-positive movie and I appreciated it.

At one point in the movie, Matt Damon's character, who was a botanist exclaimed, "Mars will come to fear my botany powers!" asserting his conviction to grow food on the surface of Mars--something that hadn't been done by any humans before, ever. That, among many other scenes in the movie, was a clear example of the giddiness, humor, and determination of scientists existed in the film.

But in the very core of the movie, The Martian is about human’s determination to live, that everyone can relate to.

The Martian also nailed it with the casting. Matt Damon has the perfect charisma and cockiness about him, but I mostly want to commend the casting choices for the other characters. The most prominent members of the space crew were women (Jessica Chastain, Kate Mara), and at least half of other supporting characters were of minorities (of African, Chinese, Mexican, and Indian descent). Hollywood movies about space can too frequently feel a bit jingoistic (with NASA obviously being an American organization), but The Martian never felt like that the slightest. From the start, The Martian is a humanistic effort.

Directed by veteran director Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Prometheus, Black Hawk Down), The Martian looked beautiful, and the movie flowed beautifully as well. The threats were terrifying as hell, and there were no fake or newfangled technologies so everything stayed grounded. But despite all the hardship Watney was against, it’s a strangely hopeful film.

TL;DR The movie is an obvious bait for people like me--who loves movies, space, and science in the equal amount--but it's also a damn good thriller about survival that everyone could enjoy.