MOVIE REVIEW: The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey Extended Edition

When news came out that the somewhat slim Hobbit book would be turned into not one, not two, but three epic movies, the collective voices of the internet immediately shouted, “Shameless Cash Grab!” After the first movie came out last year, critics heaped scorn on its shallow and plodding plot, its uneven tone, and in the case of 48fps showings, its “Masterpiece Theater in HD” visuals.

Well, I’m here to discredit all of that. I saw it in 48fps in the theater last year and it blew my mind. At first I whispered to my wife, “There’s no way. There’s no way the movie is going to look like this for three hours.” The descriptions I had read were accurate. It looked as if you were viewing an extremely detailed live production through a giant window. It was glorious. And even after two hours and forty-five minutes, I was sad to see it end. Now, at the time, the visuals were so distracting (with 48fps, you’re receiving twice as much visual data than the normal 24fps of everyday schmoe movies), I barely paid any attention to the plot or what was happening.

Earlier this year the home video release of the Hobbit came out and I strained hard to resist it because I knew that there would inevitably be a special extended cut that would come out just before the next installment hit the theaters. And the extended cut did come out, just a couple weeks ago, and I greedily swiped it up and proceeded to watch the hell out of it.

After viewing the Blu-ray extended cut, the nine and half hours of behind the scenes special features, the movie again with commentary, and then half of it again in French just to see if the songs would be sung in a different language (they were!), I can safely say that I am qualified to review this movie, and that it is not shallow, plodding or a cynical cash grab by Warner Brothers. Although, the tone does jump around a bit here and there from kid friendly to gruesome, from corny dwarf songs to “serious” talk of mountains and dragons, I don’t personally find it distracting, that’s just part of the charm and epicness of the film. Nobody wants to be grim for three hours straight.

Any fan of the movie or the original Lord of the Rings trilogy should get this edition and watch the behind the scenes material. As was seen on the LOTR extended editions, the behind the scenes material is outstanding. Every aspect of making the film is covered in depth, in detail and in HD. It’s really cool to have a talking head tell you about an incident on the film set, and then they show the actual footage of that incident. Some of it seems pretty personal, for example a scene where Ian McKellen had to act in front of a green screen by himself for a long period of time and became quite upset about it. Other stuff is mind blowing in its conception. That same scene involves the actors performing live on two identical sets, except the one Ian Mckellen is on is slightly smaller in scale. Then they overlap the two and it looks like a large Gandalf walking around a tiny hobbit hole interacting with a tiny hobbit.

While the first disc of extra content covers the technical film-making side of things, the second disc covers the lore and creation of the film’s world. They go into extreme detail on each of the thirteen dwarves, showing their lineage, personalities, weapons, relations with each other, etc. It’s shocking how much of this content does not come across in the film. I’m assuming they will all be fleshed out more in the upcoming releases. At least, I hope so because it’s all really great. Did you know that one of the dwarves has an axe blade lodged in his head, and because of that he can only speak in Dwarvish?

The extended scenes only add up to about thirteen extra minutes of material, mostly taking place in Hobbiton and Rivendell. We get more great visuals and a few minor conversations, and a couple more songs. The scenes are seamless enough that I couldn’t really tell much of a difference. To me, the more material, the better.

Having experienced the Hobbit extended edition, I’m now psyched for the next two installments. I almost wish I could just skip the theater and immediately own the next two extended collections, but then I remember that 48fps. It’s the only thing the theaters can hold over me as competition against my comfy couch. Once again, if you’re into these movies, get this for sure. If you were a bit disappointed with this first Hobbit film, but wish you weren’t, then get this extended edition. I think it will let you enjoy the film a lot more than you did the first time around.

DIRECTOR INTERVIEW: Adam Bowers

 

Adam Bowers is an independent film maker from Dunedin, Florida that made a big splash in 2010 with his critically acclaimed slacker comedy New Low. Praised for intelligent, quick and witty dialogue, the film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January of 2010. The film has achieved a well-earned cult status and Bowers is now poised to make a new movie called Paperback, which will be funded by online fundraising website, Kickstarter.

INVISIBLE VANGUARD: The soundtrack for New Low sets a tone that I find to be an accurate representation of life in Gainesville, Florida. How did you come about selecting the music for the movie?

ADAM BOWERS: Oh, I’m glad you feel that way about it. That was kind of my goal with it, capturing what life was like down there. My other approach for everything in the movie was just trying to use as much of what I liked as possible, so New Low is basically just a big mash-up of everything I was into at the time (that Gainesville sub-culture, the bands on the soundtrack, Woody Allen movies... That sort of stuff).

IV: The quality of the writing in the film is impeccable. When did you start writing the movie and did you find it difficult to make the script into a reality given the budgetary limitations that you must have had to overcome?

AB: That’s really nice of you to say, thanks. I didn’t have much trouble turning the script into the movie, partly because I wrote it knowing I was going to go straight into making it in that DIY, no-budget way, which is how I’d made things up until that point. So I would be careful not to write anything that I didn’t think we’d be able to pull off. I think it helps a lot, too, that the movie is so dialogue-driven, because that’s something you can make interesting that doesn’t cost anything.

IV: The film has some pretty compelling characters, how did you go about casting? Did you intend to play the main part of Wendell all along?

AB: I’d actually made a 40 minute student film version of the movie the year before, for an independent study course at my college, called New Personal Worst, where I played Wendell, Jayme Ratzer played Vicky, and Val Jones played Joanna. I’d wanted Toby Turner for Dave, but he wasn’t available then, so I cast a friend of a friend named Chris Ramenda who was great. But I knew really early on who I wanted for those main roles, and most of the other roles I cast with people I knew. A lot of them came from the college improv group I was a part of called Theatre Strike Force. But as for me playing Wendell, the character was written so much in my own voice that it felt unlikely that I’d be able to find someone who would get it in the small pond that is the Gainesville acting community. So, I just thought it’d be easier to play him myself.

IV: Did the fact that you played the dual role of actor and director slow the shooting of the movie?

AB: I’d say it made it easier, actually. I had to do a ton of stuff on the movie outside of directing/producing, and I was just very OCD about trying to improve the script and everything, so I was kind of just swallowed by the movie for awhile, and that made it so I knew the script front-to-back. So, there weren’t really any times where I would need to take a minute before shooting and learn my lines or anything, because I was just already so zeroed in on it. Not to mention, playing Wendell meant one less person I would have to try and wrangle to the set every day.

IV: The film played at the Sundance film festival in 2010, what is your favorite memory of that experience?

AB: My favorite memory of that is probably going out to dinner with my family after the premiere and just being able to pause for a second. The whole thing, though, was an amazing, nerve-wracking, on-another-planet sort of experience. Sundance is a great organization that really cares about independent film, and I feel very lucky to be welcomed into that community.

IV: The climax of the film might seem a bit abrupt to a lot of people, it’s really up to the imagination of the audience to figure out what happens to the characters next. Have you thought about making a sequel to New Low at some point in the future?

AB: Ha, I have heard it catches people off-guard. I don’t know where it would go, though, after what we see in the film. To me, the ending in the film is the only one that makes sense that I would consider to be a “happy” ending. I think the ending of the film is hopeful, and without spoiling anything for readers who haven’t seen it, I think making things go another way would have meant something sadder for the characters.

IV: I just read today that you are trying to get a new film project going via Kickstarter. Any idea of when you would get started shooting the new film?

AB: Yeah, I just started a Kickstarter for a new film. Actually, to answer your question about the “sequel” to New Low, I look at this movie as a sort-of sequel to that film. It takes place in Gainesville, and there are two characters in it that are very much like Wendell and Vicky from that film, and I think they could be seen as a logical progression of what they would be like five years from the events of New Low, what their relationship would have become. We’re planning on shooting this new film in September. I’m really excited. Please consider backing the Kickstarter, or sharing it with family and friends, so we can make it!

IV: Have you given any thought to what you would like to hear on the soundtrack?

AB: I have, actually. Without revealing too much, it will have a similar tone to New Low’s soundtrack, but I won’t be doing quite the same thing. There will definitely be at least a Gainesville band or two involved, though, that’s for sure.

IV: Can you give any additional information about the project?

AB: Something I’m really looking forward to with this project is working with the team I have lined up. It’s being produced by Andie Bolt, who’s a producer/comedian, and a friend of mine out in LA, and Roger Beebe, who is a UF professor of film and the owner of Video Rodeo, the store my character works at in New Low. It’s being executive produced by Adele Romanski, who’s done a lot of great indie films the past few years, including The Myth of the American Sleepover, The Freebie, and Black Rock, among others, which are all great if you haven’t heard of them. And the director of photography is Jay Keitel, who has made a number of absolutely beautiful small indie movies, like Amy Seimetz’s Sun Don’t Shine. So, I can’t wait to see how it’ll turn out.

IV: If all goes well, when can we expect the release of the new film?

AB: We’re hoping to have it done for festivals in early 2014, with distribution to follow ASAP. The more vocal fans are, the quicker we’ll be able to get it to you guys.

IV: Thank you so much for your time Adam, I look forward to seeing what is sure to be a long and fascinating career for you.

AB: Thanks a lot, I really appreciate that.

You can donate to Adam’s Kickstarter account by clicking  here.

Interview by: Tobias Gaia

MOVIE REVIEW: Iron Man 3

The surprise success of 2008's Iron Man was the beginning of a phenomenon that was strong enough to engulf even the most skeptical comic book fan.  Last year's The Avengers solidified what Iron Man began 4 years prior to its release.  Now with the first arc of Marvel's cinematic universe in the history books, we are now kicking off the next arc with the third installment of the Iron Man series.

Even before The Avengers was released, fans knew that a third Iron Man was coming.  Fans also knew that Jon Favearu, the director of the first two installments, was stepping from behind the camera and allowing Shane Black to take the lead.  I was not quite sure whether the move was voluntary or whether Marvel/Disney preferred the move.  Nevertheless, I was initially concerned that the quality of the franchise would suffer after the exceptional job done on the first Iron Man.  Once I saw the disappointing Iron Man 2, though, I thought the change could do the franchise some good.  Shane Black has a long background with buddy movies and witty banter, so it seemed that he would be good at bringing out the Robert Downey, Jr. that we love either with or without the armor.  Perhaps Shane Black should have directed the second one, for the movie needed some better banter between Tony and Rhodey, but I guess was not part of the plan at the time.  Well, Shane has the reigns now, and while his crack at Tony Stark's alter ego is far from perfect, he ends up succeeding more than he fails.

The best thing that Shane Black realized is that when you have Robert Downey, Jr. playing Tony Stark, you just let him loose and let magic happen.  Once again, Downey, Jr. nails the character and expands it to show even more of his vulnerability, fears, and shortcomings.  You see him suffer from post-Avengers PTSD, his desire to protect his loved ones, his focus on revenge - all mixed in with hilarious one-liners that at least get a slight chuckle.  Of all the superheroes out there in the cinematic universe, Tony Stark is the only one that you want to see WITHOUT his superhero abilities, and Shane Black provides plenty of Tony in this movie.   Even though it is clearly Tony's show, all the supporting cast gets a chance to shine as well.  Ben Kingsley's portrayal of The Mandarin especially stands out, for his performance as Iron Man's nemesis is the most engaging villain portrayal since Heath Ledger's Joker.  The movie takes a liberal approach to his character's origins as well as fellow villains Advance Idea Mechanics (A.I.M.), but overall,  they do not lessen their appeal in the movie.

The main gripes I have with the movie are threefold.  For one, the plot twist at the end was not that surprising in itself, but it was surprising how it left you more disappointed and less shocked.  I will not reveal the plot twist to not spoil the movie for some, but you end up feeling a little unsatisfied by the time you arrive at it.  In addition, while the majority of the movie had good pacing and character development, the all out finale between the enemy and Iron Man's legion of armors was slightly overdone.  It was cool seeing all the armors in action (Hulk-Buster armor!!!), but some of the sequences, especially with Rhodey springing into action to save the President, was too ridiculous to ignore.  Furthermore, even though it is clearly Iron Man's party, I expected some other characters to stop by and say hello during the movie.  At the very least, where was SHIELD when all the chaos and destruction was going down?  Maybe we will get the answer in future offerings from Marvel.

Overall, Iron Man 3 succeeds in wetting our appetites for more Marvel action.  If the subtle hints in the movie are not figments of my imagination, then I am excited to see what happens next.  Marvel has yet to let me down, so my hopes are high.

MOVIE REVIEW: The Central Park Five

"Tonight alive, let's describe the inscrutable
The indisputable, we New York the narcotic
Strength in metal and fiber optics
Where mercenaries is paid to trade hot stock tips
For profits, thirsty criminals take pockets
Hard knuckles on the second hands of working class watches
Skyscrapers is colossus, the cost of living is preposterous
We stay alive, you play or die, no options
No Batman and Robin, can't tell between the cops and the robbers
They both partners, they all heartless
With no conscience, back streets stay darkened
Where unbeliever hearts stay hardened
My eagle talons STAY sharpened, like city lights stay throbbing
You either make a way or stay sobbing
The Shiny Apple is bruised but sweet and if you choose to eat
You could lose your teeth, many crews retreat
Nightly news repeat, who got shot down and locked down
Spotlight to savages, NASDAQ averages
My narrative, rose to explain this existence
Amidst the harbor lights which remain in the distance"

The above quote comes from rapper Mos Def off the song “Respiration.”  Released in 1998 on the album Mos Def and Talib Kweli are Blackstar, many hip-hop enthusiasts consider this verse as one of Mos Def’s best.  The appeal of his words comes from his illustration of life in New York City in the late 1990s.  Specifically, Mos Def presented listeners with his images of crime, corruption, greed, fear, and apathy created by the media, increased police presence, and growing gap between the have’s and have-not’s during an alleged economic boom.  Credit for this New York environment is given to former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and his administration.  His premise in handling crime in New York was to crackdown on the minor crimes and increase police presence throughout the city.  This strategy would serve to deter all crime and decrease the crime rate in the city.

According to statistics collected during his administration, the crime rate in New York did decrease.  However, critics claimed that since the police were the ones responsible for providing the statistics, police officers often underreported the crime stats.  Furthermore, there were multiple high-profile cases of police brutality during the Giuliani era, which many rappers from New York often referenced in their music even though the stories did not get national coverage.  Many people forget that before the September 11 attacks, Giuliani’s popularity was plummeting due to his policies as well as controversy involving his personal life.  September 11 allowed him to save face and legitimized his policies on police presence throughout the city.   Depending on whom you talk to about him, Giuliani’s New York City was either a blessing or a curse.  When I moved to New York, I would talk to one person and he or she would complain about how fun New York used to be before Giuliani came in.  I would then talk to another person, and they would say how bad the city was before Giuliani came in.  In fact, on my first job, a co-worker explained to me Giuliani’s plan.  After he was finished, the first statement that I made was, “Sounds like a police state to me.”  In response, the co-worker emphasized that in order to feel safe, such measures are necessary.

MOVIE REVIEW: Django Unchained

History has shown that competition can be both beneficial and detrimental to society.  Often, the initial motivation for competition is jealousy and envy, and if these emotions get out of control, then they could lead to behavior that is more destructive than constructive.  However, if the common feelings of envy and jealousy can be channeled in the proper way, then it could lead to innovation and greatness.  Competition can inspire people to push themselves to their limits and achieve astounding feats of excellence.  We see it everyday in sports, especially in championship games/series between two professional teams striving for the ultimate prize of the league.  We also see it in music.  A great album from one artist might inspire another artist to work harder on his or her album as a result.  At the end of the day, the audience gets two great albums due to the artist’s competitive drive and possibly more great albums if that competitive drive endures.

How does this relate to Django Unchained?  Well, as far as movies, I imagine that there is a competitive drive to write, produce, and direct films better than your contemporaries, especially if one of your contemporaries receives more accolades.  This is why, after I saw this movie, I was perplexed and disappointed about acclaimed director Spike Lee’s criticism of the movie before seeing it.  Before its release, Spike Lee stated that he would not see the movie because it is disrespectful to the ancestors of African slaves in America.  He goes on to say that slavery in the United States was not a Spaghetti Western, but a Holocaust.  This is not the first time Spike has gone after Tarantino and his films.  He has criticized Tarantino’s excessive use of the word “nigger” in his movies, claiming that Tarantino is “infatuated” with the word as if he wants to be “an honorary black man.” As a black American, I understand Spike’s criticisms.  Although Tarantino was not the only white character that used the word in his hit movie Pulp Fiction, I was immediately taken aback when his character used in within his first few lines.  I remember looking at Samuel L. Jackson’s character and expecting him to punch Tarantino in the face, but he just sat there.  It definitely touched my nerve because it just seemed completely unnecessary and awkward.  The other character who used it was clearly a racist, so I understood.  Tarantino’s character was supposed to be the friend of Samuel L. Jackson, so why was he using it?  One thing that Spike has on Tarantino, though, is that when he steps from behind the camera to in front of the camera, Spike is ten times better as an actor than Tarantino. It is not even a contest.

Still, as valid as some of Spike’s criticisms might be, people always felt that his attitude toward Tarantino was due to envy.  I am a fan of multiple films from both directors.  Their styles were innovative and intriguing.  They can also both get great performances from their actors.  In fact, Samuel L. Jackson and Kerry Washington, who star in Django, have also appeared in Spike Lee’s previous films (Jackson will be in Spike’s next release coming this year).  However, Spike’s critical acclaim has been a lot less than Tarantino.  His movies rarely got nominated for Academy Awards, and when they actually did, the award went to some movie of lesser quality. Personally, I thought he was robbed of the Oscar for Best Picture for the movie Malcolm X, and I never took the Oscars that seriously afterward.  At the same time, Tarantino’s star and legend began to rise, culminating with Django receiving 5 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay.  Since maybe 2005, Spike has not even sniffed the same critical acclaim or even box office sales save for a couple documentaries that aired on television.  It seems like Spike’s notoriety has slowly been dwindling for years, and he is not happy about it.  Of course, there are some people that believe that it is a conspiracy due to his outspoken and controversial statements regarding race, whether in the press or through his movies.  At the end of the day, Spike’s public comments are overshadowing his talent as a filmmaker, and he now just comes off as a “hater.”  Instead of popping off his mouth about Tarantino, I wish that he would have just gone back in the film room and put his all in his work.  Eventually, it would pay off for him because if you really touch people with your work, everyone else will notice.

MOVIE REVIEW: The Avengers

I would like to start this review by being up-front about something. In the pathetic, niche, world of comic book dorkdom, I am what is known as a “DC Elitist”. It means I favor the world that DC Comics has created over other comic companies such as Marvel, Image, and Dark Horse. Not only that, but I generally cast disparaging remarks upon those companies and their fans, waving a dismissive hand and making “pfft” noises when they try to argue me over to their side. It means that I have a huge bias against Marvel and their movies.

Okay, that’s not entirely fair. Marvel has had pretty great success with their movies while DC (excluding the Batman franchise) has fallen flat. Not to mention, DC has really pissed me off recently with their whole “let’s reboot the DC Universe and start over from scratch, then make something new and modern and innovative and really go the extra mile and . . . oh, wait, it’s still the same garbage we’ve always put out” stupid venture. And then they come along a few months later and announce that they’re making a PREQUEL to Watchmen. This is the worst idea of all worst ideas! In fact, upon hearing this, I stood up and vocally renounced my status of “DC Elitist” and disavowed any association with them (post reboot). But I digress.

I actually went in to The Avengers with high hopes, which nowadays is a dangerous thing to do. My hopes lay squarely on Joss Whedon, writer, director, and comic book fan. He handles ensemble casts well, as seen in previous ventures such as Firefly and Hanging with Mr. Cooper (Okay, I made that last one up. Not the show itself, unfortunately, just the fact that Joss Whedon created it). And he really is a fan of the source, not like some directors named Michael Bay.

So, I was surprised to find out that I thought the film was good after it was over. I have this inner contrarian which assumes that anything popular must be garbage, so it makes me nervous when something I’m interested in becomes super popular. But I couldn’t find anything particularly wrong with the film.

You may have noticed that this review has really explained nothing about the movie and that’s because there is really nothing to explain. We’ve seen (most) of the lead-in movies to this. There’s no origin story. A bunch of superheroes are brought together, they fight with each other and then work as a team to bring down the bad guy at the end. It’s all very predictable, and yet also very gratifying.

There are a couple of elements that make this movie as good as it is. Firstly, the threat that they counter is worthy of the team-up. In so many Marvel movies, the villain is usually just an evil derivative of the hero. In the first Iron Man, the villain was just a bigger Iron Man. In Iron Man 2, the villain was just a bunch of robot Iron Men, and the hero needed help from his buddy who was also an Iron Man, called War Machine, only way cooler (which is a major flaw with that movie, amongst other things). In the Incredible Hulk, the villain was the Abomination, which was basically just a big white Incredible Hulk. Though Abomination was played by Tim Roth, which is the only good quality of that otherwise horrible movie. In Captain America, the villain was Nazi Elrond. The point is that those villains were weak, and Avengers gets it right by having Loki as the main antagonist, and then follows him up with an invading alien army. Loki is a good villain because he’s not completely evil, he has weaknesses and doubts and major insecurity. In the end I felt kind of bad for him. The invading alien race is basically just fodder for the Avengers to slap around, and that’s fine, because it lets the heroes have lots of screen time doing what they do best and doing what we want to watch them do.

The second reason why this movie works well is in the way they handle the Hulk. His past two movies have been lame, boredom factories. Hulk works exponentially better in a team environment. Bruce Banner makes the other team members nervous, especially when he starts to get irritated. He’s a bomb ready to blow at any moment, and when he does he’ll take out everything and everyone around him, friend or foe, it doesn’t matter. Everyone knows this, including Banner, and it is used to great effect in creating tension. He’s kind of scary in this movie, and he should be.

I want to see this movie again, which is pretty rare. As I’m sitting here writing this “review”, I keep thinking on certain moments that I’d like to see again. It’s got excellent dialog and interactions. It’s written like a comic book. Every line is important. There is only so much space available to get the story across. There’s little room for filler or fluff. It’s lean and focused and entertaining. That’s more than I can say for most recent movies I’ve watched.

MOVIE REVIEW: Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance

This past Monday a friend and I sat down for a relaxing bout of watching-a-movie-on-Netflix and I arbitrarily suggested the movie Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. I suggested it because I heard in passing that this movie, along with Director Park Chan-wook’s other films (Oldboy, Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, and the now in theaters Stoker), was the kind of film that breaks your brain with insane disturbingness. Why, you may ask, would I want to watch such a thing? Because to me, that sounds like a challenge! And most of the time, the extreme disturbiality is grossly embellished and I walk away with a shrug and a “meh” and think that I’ve seen worse.

It doesn’t shame me to admit that I lost the challenge. Word of this movie’s traumatizing effects on the psyche were not grossly embellished at all. Nay, I would put forth that they weren’t emphasized enough. People that cherish their positive outlook on life should avoid this movie at all costs. And those that are in a bad place already will be screwed for sure at even the most momentary peek of any given frame. Embellishment, this be not!

But on the other hand, this movie is extremely well made and it manages to accomplish exactly what it sets out to do. It’s a weird thing to have experienced something that yearns from the get-go to crush your soul to pieces and then does so expertly. Well done, I say. Cue singular slow clapping in a big empty theater. You really showed me what for, horrible movie. Bravo.

If you don’t know anything about the plot, there’s really not much to go into without spoiling it because its just a series of unfortunate and then grotesque events. A young, deaf guy gets fired from his crappy factory job. His sister is sick and needs a kidney transplant. He’s not the right blood type and the donor list is long. One day he happens upon a sticker on the wall above a urinal that says something like “Organs for Sale”. After meeting up with the proprietors of said organ selling business, they tell him that they’ll get his sister a kidney, but he’ll have to give them one of his and all the money he has in return. He agrees, then wakes up butt naked in the middle of nowhere with a missing kidney.

Wouldn’t you know that the donor kidney then becomes immediately available through legitimate sources, but shucks, he’s plum out of money and can’t afford it. So his anarchist girlfriend suggests that they kidnap his ex-employer’s daughter, hold her for ransom and use that money to pay for the operation. This all sounds well and good in theory, but unfortunately, things don’t work out so well, and it’s all downhill from there. Not just downhill, though, I mean down into the deepest depths of mind warping horror you can imagine.

It’s Friday now and I can’t stop thinking about this film. I’m pretty sure my friend won’t let me pick a movie to watch for a long, long time after this. We both felt physically ill when the whole thing was said and done. However, having said all that, it’s not a technically bad movie. In a way, it’s quite good. The lack of music and long static shots on uncomfortable scenes cut right to the core and achieve their intended goal. I could never recommend anyone watch it, except that I have this urgent need to tell people about it, in the same way that survivors of horrible tragedies need to talk it out with others who have had the same experience. So, I’ve decided to use the tactic of telling everyone I know not to watch this movie. And then remind them frequently not to watch it, over and over. So if someone I know ends up watching this movie, it’s their own fault. I told them not to watch it ever. I told them everyday.

MOVIE REVIEW: Looper

Looper is like film noir without the “noir”. And also there’s time travel.

If you haven’t figured out the basic premise from the trailer, it goes like this: Time travel is discovered in the future and immediately banned. Anti-crime techniques have made it such that mobsters have difficulty disposing of bodies in their time, so they send targets in need of disposal back to the present where Joseph Gordon-Levitt shoots them in the chest with a blunderbuss while wearing a weird looking Bruce Willis mask.

The premise is pretty cool and the ideas get cooler. Eventually, the present day assassin will be sent his future self to off which will “close the loop” and wrap up all the possible crime related loose ends and time travel paradoxes in a nice little package.

It’s all very clean and efficient until Old Joseph Gordon-Willis shows up and meets Young Joseph Gordon-Willis face to face. Old Joe escapes which causes plot problems for Young Joe. Later, they meet up in a diner where the “My Future Self and Me” theme song from South Park immediately pops into your head. Young Joe is screwing up Old Joe’s memories of his wife by taking actions that change the course of his own history and Old Joe doesn’t like that very much so he tells his younger self to quit it. Young Joe is like, “Screw you, Old Joe! Now I’m going to go out of my way to screw up your past just to be a dick!”

Oh, and also there’s a subplot about a future bad guy causing problems for the mob and Old Joe is trying to hunt down and kill the present day child version of said villain.

It’d be no fun to spoil things for you. It’s a clever film which handles the potential paradoxes well (by mostly not talking about them) and it wraps up in a satisfying, but predictable way. It will appeal to sci-fi fans and remains grounded enough to entertain and not confuse the more feeble-minded. Just be prepared for that weird looking face! Man, was it distracting…