"Loop de loop" Looper review

Once in a blue moon, a movie gets released that is both original and completely entertaining. It's a movie that isn't a remake, or an adaptation, or an adaptation of a remake based on a book. It's a movie that exceeds your expectations and leaves you feeling hope for the future of film. The last movie I recall that was this was Christopher Nolan's Inception. Today another movie has joined those ranks. That movie is Rian Johnson's Looper.

To start off this review I have to mention the first time I watched a Rian Johnson film. That film was Brick and also starred Looper star Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I watched Brick on Netflix with my friend on a late summer night. Today, Brick is one of my favorite films. It was a unique mix of noir storytelling woven into a high-school drama (one of my least favorite genres). The two different genres complemented each other so well that it was actually really humorous and terrifying at the same time. If you haven't seen it, I recommend you do, because it's an entertaining and unique film.

So you can understand that when I heard he and Gordon-Levitt had rejoined to do a time travel film called Looper I was more than excited to see how things would play out. Looper was an original film, not based on anything nor is it a remake. That is RARE in this day and age where Hollywood thinks it's a great idea to remake The Three Stooges. How Looper got made in today's Hollywood seems like a miracle, and the results don't disappoint.

Looper feels like a classic sci-fi action film. The world created by Rian Johnson here is set in the future, but it looks and feels much like our present, only with small differences. Cars are old clunkers that have been retrofitted with solar panels to allow them to run. There are hover bikes, but they're less reliable than the clunker cars. Telekinesis is a common ability found in some people, but most consider it tacky and uninteresting. A majority of America's population is living in poverty. Even in the city the film is set in, which features some tall skyscrapers with futuristic helicopters and flying vehicles, the place looks like a dump. It has a slight Blade Runner feel to it, in that this is a dystopia people have, for the most part, gotten used to living in.

In this world Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a special assassin for the mob known as a "looper." Loopers are tasked with rubbing out targets the mob sends into the past from thirty years in the future. If you've seen the trailers you pretty much know this. The beginning of the film has Joe explaining in a narration how, in the future, time travel is only used by powerful criminal organizations for the purpose of disposing of targets. When the mob no longer needs a looper's service, they send the looper's future self for the looper to kill in order to "close the loop." Joe's explanation of the setup and how his job as a looper works is simple and straight to the point. The only explanation Joe gives for why the mob does this is because "disposing of a body is impossible in the future." And it's enough to satisfy you. Looper's concept of time travel has very little exposition, and what exposition it has is very effective. This is one of the defining traits of the film.

However, it's the film's characters that are really the best aspect of this film, with the plot coming in at a close second. Through the course of the film Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Joe comes off as a self-centered jerk. He's an addict who just wants to make enough money to leave the slums of America and travel to France. That's all he cares for, and the way he handles his job as a looper is rather clinical and unemotional. So when Joe is faced with his future self (played by Bruce Willis), he's actually more than happy to kill him upon first seeing him. Of course, future Joe manages to escape and young Joe finds himself in trouble with his employers.

In the middle of the film the focus shifts from Young Joe to Old Joe. We actually watch how Young Joe becomes the Old Joe who arrives in the past, and we soon realize that Old Joe has come back with a plan. As the film progresses your sympathy will jump between Old and Young Joe, both have their flaws, and both have their redeeming qualities. Looper will keep you guessing on who is really the protagonist and antagonist of this film, even though both are the same person. It's this ambiguity that makes Looper an interesting film to watch.

 As the film progresses we see that Old Joe's plan somehow revolves around a mysterious character from the future known as the Rainmaker who is systematically taking over all organized crime in the future. The Rainmaker is somehow tied to a mother (Emily Blunt) and her son (played by Pierce Gagnon who gives a really memorable performance) and Young Joe must figure it out before Old Joe, the mob, or both find him. Emily Blunt's Sara is a tough, down-to-earth, woman who simply wants to raise her son well in a time when most mothers sell their children for drugs. Her relationship with her son, Cid, is shaky to say the least, and they are both harboring a secret that is key to the future. Cid is one of those rare child characters that isn't annoying. He's smart for his age, the kid has a fair knowledge of electronics for being only ten, and the grim world he lives in has made him more aware of how terrible the world really is than a normal child should. You like Sara and Cid, and they both come off as deep, emotional, and damaged human beings. All they want is to live some semblance of a normal life.

This film will keep you guessing what will happen next at every turn. More genre savvy viewers will be pleased with how the film unfolds, because it never goes the way you expect, for the most part. Looper manages to make the time travel tropes we're all familiar with and make them feel new again. As for the rules of time travel in Looper, they're simple to follow and very, very loose. Looper is not the neatest time travel story out there, with it's fair share of paradoxes, but it doesn't matter. Everything that happens, happens, and the film takes advantage of it's loose time travel rules to have some real fun. One instance of this is a horrifying scene of a man slowly falling apart as his past self gets his fingers, hands, legs, and arms amputated. The effects used in this scene are effective and will make you cringe.

Looper is one of those rare movies that takes old tropes and ideas and spins them together into a fun, new, and completely original story. The characters are deep, interesting, and you're not really sure who to root for because everyone has complex drives and histories that make them feel like real human beings. For a time travel movie, it uses time travel as an effective plot device that makes for some memorable scenes and story elements.

To put it simply: Looper is a must see film for anyone looking for a great science fiction film.

I give Rian Johnson's Looper 5 looper blunderbusses out of 5.

 

"The Beginning of The End" Fringe season 5 premiere review

So it has begun, the first step towards the end of probably one of the best science fiction shows in recent memory. Fringe has been one of my favorite shows since the very first episode, and now that we're on our way to seeing it end I (for obvious reasons) am not looking forward to seeing how it ends.

For some strange reason, 2012 has quickly become a year full of endings. I always like to attribute "themes" to years depending upon common aspects I run into in my daily life. For this year, coming to conclusions has been the main theme. Mass Effect, Fringe, Chris Nolan's Batman trilogy, and even Doug Walker's Nostalgia Critic have either ended or are in the process of ending. Some have ended in utter tragedy (subtle I know) while others ended on a high note with a promising future on the horizon. So you can see why I'm anxious, Fringe is yet another one of my favorite series on the verge of ending, and I don't want to have another thing to bitch about for the rest of my life.

However, looking at the fifth season premiere: "Transilience Thought Unifier Model-11" (damn that's a mouthful!) I can say I'm starting to like where the show is going. This is a big turn since I really wasn't a big fan of "Letters of Transit" which provided us with the setup for season 5. I didn't like the dystopian 1984-esgue future ruled by Observers. I mainly blame the Sliders (seasons 4 and 5) feeling I got from that episode, and it also didn't feel like Fringe. This isn't the case with "Transilience" however which basically picks up where "Letters of Transit" left off. Sure, that Orwellian dystopia was still there, but I kinda bought it this time and in fact found it to be a refreshing approach to the Fringe universe. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it was handled much better than it was in "Letters of Transit."

Fringe's previous season was fraught with issues as the show basically hit the reset button by deleting Peter from the timeline. This was an obvious attempt to mix things up and change the formula, which I actually encourage. Shows should never really stay stuck in their rut, they should evolve and grow as the story progresses. House suffered from a lack of this, and I always wished they'd make a change (and they never did sadly). So I gave the Fringe folks credit for trying something new, even if it wasn't really all that new. By the time "Letters of Transit" aired, however, I felt this just came too far out of left field. I never really bought the Observers as being malevolent. Sure they were creepy, but I always saw them as explorers simply curious about events in human history. The sudden twist that they were really planning an invasion never resonated for me until I saw "Transilience."

So when I say "Transilience" is a breath of fresh air I really do mean that. While getting to this point was shaky, the episode makes up for this with some solid storytelling and great performances from the cast (once again, John Noble gives a standout performance but more on that later). The overall feel of the Observer occupied earth is now more Blade Runner than 1984, though I couldn't help but laugh at the Nazi uniforms the human police force wore, someone needs to tell the Fringe guys about subtlety. In fact, my one complaint about this episode is the obvious political undertones. I will, reluctantly, admit this has a place in fiction, but I just hate it when it's presented with all the subtlety of someone repeatedly bashing my head in with a rock. And Nazi uniforms were like the writers waving their arms shouting: "HEY LOOK! THIS IS A METAPHOR! SEE? WE'RE SMART!"

My issues with the costume department aside, this episode provides some thrilling moments. I particularly enjoyed every scene with John Noble, especially when he was getting mind raped by the Observer. John Noble totally sells you on the idea that he's got someone worming their way through his head. I cringed at these scenes. The touching moments between the Bishops throughout the episode also should be noted. There was so much crying in this episode that I'm not surprised this episode wasn't called "Open The Flood Gates." While much of the backstory behind Peter and Olivia's loss over their daughter Etta is merely hinted at in conversation I completely believed that these two had gone through hell between the Season 4 finale to now, and I think it was a brilliant decision to just let the audience connect the dots instead of just showing us outright.

"Transilience Thought Unifier Model-11" was a great start for the last season of Fringe, and I'm glad that my qualms about "Letters of Transit" weren't found here. I found this turn in the story to be refreshing and I can't wait to see our heroes "make some Fringe events" of their own. While the episode does have its flaws, I can safely say I can't wait to see where this story will take us.

I give the Fringe Season 5 premiere 4 egg sticks out of 5.

"I am the law." Dredd review

I should clarify that I don't really read many comic books. Aside from a couple Spider-Man comics over the years I don't read comics all that much. So I never read the Judge Dredd comics. Along with that, I don't remember the Sylvester Stallone film at all. I know it was terrible, but that's about it. So when I went to go see Dredd I basically knew next to nothing about the world the characters inhabited apart from the basic premise. So I didn't have any real expectations for this film apart from it being a good action movie.

So it pleases me to say that Dredd succeeds in reaching my expectations. It's a competent action movie that hearkens back to the classic action movies of the 80's. It doesn't have a truly groundbreaking premise, but I never once felt this movie needed to be anything more than what it is: which is an action film. However this isn't a bad thing, this movie is exactly what it needed to be. In this day and age, where the phrase "big dumb action movie" has taken on a new meaning with the likes of Transformers, it's actually really refreshing to have an action movie that feels more like the films that created action stars like Stallone and Schwarzenegger. It's a classic action movie, through and through, and it proves to be entertaining. 

In fact, from the very beginning of this movie I couldn't help but shake the feeling that Dredd felt like classic sci-fi action movies like The Running Man and Total Recall. Sure, the post-apocalyptic feeling could be attributed to this, in fact this film should be lauded for it's great set design and locations. I wasn't surprised to see that they filmed parts of this movie in Johannesburg, because it serves as a perfect analogue for a post-apocalyptic setting (no offence to the people of Johannesburg but the place looks like Los Angeles' crack whore sister). It's great, and not once was I taken out of the film because it wasn't too apocalyptic enough. And the main setting, a massive super structure called the "Peach Trees," looked fantastically downtrodden. 

However, it's not the locations and set design that make this film entertaining, it's the talented cast. Karl Urban's chin is great as Judge Dredd. He's a tough as nails, cold, and calculating dealer of justice. While the movie does hint at Urban's Dredd having some depth behind the mask, it isn't explored, yet doesn't really need to be. Dredd is like a Terminator, his motivation is simple and clear: dish out justice where it needs to be dished out. If anything, his actions in the film explore what kind of a person Dredd is, and he's a total badass. The more developed character is Olivia Thirlby's rookie Anderson, a Judge trainee who failed basic training yet is getting a second chance because she's got psychic powers. Thirlby's performance is arguably the best as we see her grow throughout the film from a timid rookie to a tough as nails killing machine like Dredd himself. However, because I'm a big fan of Game of Thrones, my favorite character is Lena Headey's Ma-ma. 

Headey brings her menace to the big screen and I never once felt like she wasn't scary as hell. The makeup artist here should be noted here because they are able to turn the beautiful Headey into a believable drug addict/kingpin. While the scars do this well enough (unless you find scars attractive like Krogans and myself do) it's the work they did to her teeth that really sell the illusion. Her teeth are browned and blackened much like a real addict's would be, and every time Headey grinned I cringed (eye gore and teeth squick me out more than anything).

The story is simple: Dredd and Anderson are trapped in the Peach Trees and have to fight their way to the top floor to apprehend Ma-ma. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that and that's a good thing. I know I usually harp on movies not having  a good or deep story, but when it comes to action films I make an exception. As long as the story isn't convoluted and filled with plot holes I don't mind if it just serves to put the characters into increasingly dangerous situations just to get to the action.

The action and visuals prove to be fun and explosive. Regardless of the fact that the film really doesn't provide anything new or groundbreaking the action works. It has a tinge of hyper-violence dashed into it to provide some interesting visuals. I had the misfortune of watching this film in 3D, however this film proved to be competent in making the 3D add depth to the film rather than have stuff fly out at you, however this was mixed with some amazing slow motion footage to provide some fun visual effects. The slow motion action scenes are filled with explosions, gunfire, and bloody gibs and it's spectacular! These scenes are the only time things really jump out at you but they aren't really obnoxious about it. It's all done rather competently.

You may notice I've used the word "competent" often to describe this movie. The fact of the matter is that this is a competently made film. It doesn't insult your intelligence and keeps you engaged in the action taking place. The characters and acting are good. Dredd is awesome, Anderson is a smart and amiable protagonist, and Ma-ma is threatening and terrifying. They story is simple yet well written. The action is fun, hyper-kinetic, and gloriously violent. Even the 3D is competently used. The movie is what it needed to be, and it delivers what you expect. It's a fun movie, one that proves to keep your attention and doesn't insult your intelligence. Sometimes, that's enough to satisfy your expectations. 

I give Dredd 4 Judge helmets out of 5   

Netflix Reviews: "Ink"

If there is a must see movie on Netflix, it is Ink. If I had to choose one movie in all the movies on Netflix for you to watch it would be Ink. This is one of those films that transcends being just another movie and is a genuine experience to behold. It is right up there with films like Lo as being one of the most memorable movies I have ever watched. It is original, simple yet complex at the same time, and at its core has an emotional anchor that manages to ground the fantastical elements in this movie and make them matter.

To call Ink one of the best movies I have ever seen is an understatement. To call it a masterpiece is like calling the Mona Lisa a painting. To put it simply: Ink is why I watch movies. Of all the gems on Netflix, Ink is the crown jewels. There isn't enough good things I can write about this film.

Of course, despite this movie being one of the best films I have ever seen, the particulars of how I came across it is rather ironic. Ink was put into my queue with the intention of riffing on what seemed like yet another lackluster science fiction fantasy movie. It didn't help that during my first time watching it I was actually going out of my way to riff on this movie in the most horrendous way possible. Of course, at first glance, Ink doesn't really have much going for it in the looks department.

Most of the special effects in this movie could be easily recreated on my bootlegged copy of After Effects. That isn't to say that the effects in Ink are terrible. On the contrary, they work for what the movie is going for and are actually rather imaginative. It's the simplicity that gives them its charm, even if they do appear cheap they work.

The biggest hurdle to overcome however are the makeup effects in Ink. While they aren't horrendous the titular character Ink has one glaring aspect that is bound to make anyone laugh at first glance. Ink has the largest nose ever created for film that looks like someone tried to recreate Mr. Burns' vulture-esque snout in real life. It was the crux of many jokes I made about this movie on my first viewing. However, as the story progressed and I began to learn about Ink's tortured past, the large nose became a part of the character and showed just how twisted Ink's spirit had become through self-loathing and despair. Once again, it worked because it made sense in the context of the story.

The story, in of itself, is the main reason why I love Ink. It is original yet simple despite its more mind-bendy ideas. The premise revolves around the existence of spiritual beings known as the Storytellers who bring good dreams to people as they slumber and provide them with positive emotions to help them live better lives. The Storytellers aren't alone, however, there is another group called the Incubi who are their polar opposites who spread despair and nightmares with their very presence. The battle between good and evil here is played out while we sleep with the Storytellers standing guard over us.

Into this world arrives Ink, a lost soul who has been twisted by despair and has become a force of evil who desires to become an Incubus in the hope that they can relieve him of his never-ending pain. In order to become one, however, Ink must kidnap the soul of a little girl and bring her to the Incubi. However, the Storytellers are hot on Ink's trail as they try to rescue the girl from his clutches. The only hope the little girl truly has, though, rests on the shoulders of her estranged father whom the Storytellers realize is her only hope to wake up from the nightmare world of the Incubi.

I won't go any further into the plot because I hope to have piqued your interest enough to watch this movie. Needless to say, Ink is a very unique film to behold.

The idea of the Storytellers and Incubi isn't so much as told to us as it is shown. The first scenes in the movie show us the basic rules of the world of the Storytellers and how they work. It is clear enough to visually understand that you really don't need exposition. That doesn't mean that there isn't exposition to help people understand. There is just enough for people to understand how this world works.

There are some aspects in the movie that are kept in the dark until you get much further into the movie. One example is the introduction of Jacob the Pathfinder. Jacob is a very interesting character because he comes off as a sort of Yoda-like character with an infinite amount of wisdom who is wrapped in a layer of crazy. He is effectively blind, shown via the electrical tape covering his eyes, but is able to sense what he calls "the beat of the world" which allows him to navigate and is also the source of his powers. However, all of this is left for the audience to make sense of as time goes on because there is no one in the movie to explain exactly what a Pathfinder is. It can be irritating at times though by the end enough is shown to understand. In the end, you come to like Jacob because he has some of the more interesting lines in the movie and is an integral part of one of the film's more memorable scenes.

However, the most important characters in the movie are Ink, the little girl Emma, and her father John. All three of which are skillfully portrayed. Then there is Leiv, a Storyteller who comes to Emma's aid and tries to understand Ink's motivations and dissuade him from delivering Emma to the Incubi. Their journey is the emotional heart of this film and the primary reason why it manages to be so successful.

Follow this up with some really well shot fight scenes that carry weight and drama behind them and you've got a movie that manages to stand up next to great science-fiction/fantasy films like Inception. While it may not have the same budget and spectacle like a film like Inception it has what matters: heart and emotion.

This is the only movie that has ever made me cry, and that is something to say after I watched Wall-E without shedding a single tear. I'm the kind of person who doesn't cry at the end of Old Yeller because it just seemed like the logical next step after a dog gets rabies. When I watch Titanic I'm angry, not sad, when Leo Dicaprio freezes to death because he didn't have the common sense to find his own piece of floating debris to sit on. So understand that when I say that Ink managed to make tears stream down my face and pull the cobwebby strings on my heart that that's saying something.

That is why I think Ink is one of the best films I have ever seen and that is why I recommend, no I demand that you put it in your instant queue.