Looper.

Review #1563: Looper.

Cast:

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Joe), Bruce Willis (Old Joe), Emily Blunt (Sara), Paul Dano (Seth), Noah Segan (Kid Blue), Piper Perabo (Suzie), Jeff Daniels (Abe), Pierce Gagnon (Cid), Summer Qing (Joe's Wife), and Tracie Thoms (Beatrix) Written and Directed by Rian Johnson (#1027 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi and #1306 - Knives Out)

Review:

"For Looper, I very much wanted it to be a more character-based movie that is more about how these characters dealt with the situation time travel has brought about. So the biggest challenge was figuring out how to not spend the whole movie explaining the rules and figure out how to put it out there in a way that made sense on some intuitive level for the audience; then get past it and deal with the real meat of the story."

As long as there is a good story somewhere in the margins and people involved enough to keep it useful for entertainment or notice to keep attention, you can't go wrong. Born in Maryland but raised primarily in California, Rian Johnson had an developed an interest in film from a young age (noting inspirations such as Martin Scorsese and Annie Hall), graduating from the University of Southern California and its School of Cinematic Arts in 1996 (his first film was a short called Evil Demon Golf Ball From Hell!!!, a low-budget psychological thriller inspired by The Tell-Tale Heart). He would spend years developing and pitching what eventually turned out to be his first feature film in Brick (2005), which proved successful on a budget of less than $500,000. He has continued to keep himself invested in doing distinct movie as director and writer that tell stories in familiar genres that utilize the expectation of the audience at part of the storytelling, which have resulted in five feature films alongside work in television such as Breaking Bad that have been met with fair success.

What, a time travel movie that relies on character-based drama and not so much on time travel as a whole from the 2010s? Granted, Safety Not Guaranteed is a dubious film to compare this to, but the easiest thing that can be said about Looper is that it is an entertaining movie that maintains consistency and entertainment with dutiful direction and cast without shambling into cliché. It certainly seems familiar to those who who have seen the films that proved an inspiration to this feature that ranged from The Terminator (1984) to Witness (1985) to Akira (1988). It loops itself together with enough suitable enjoyment for where the story could unfold next that comes from making a living killing others from a time you have yet to see and then your future ends right by your own hand. It makes a suitable movie about the future and what can come from decisions made or ones that have yet to be made with interesting atmosphere that treats its sci-fi aspects equally with its drama that makes the challenge more about seeing two actors play the same person and how they play off with themselves and others. Gordon-Levitt (wearing make-up to more closely resemble Willis) does a pretty good job here, wry and efficient that comes off with similarity to a youthful Willis without becoming mere imitation, which goes well in tension with Blunt. Willis is given the task of doing his part to play without as much dialogue in general, but he does fairly well regardless, showing the anguish and efficiency that comes from a lifetime that required the latter but didn't see the former coming, and the diner scene where they confront each other (involving a clever way to get around detailing how time travel works without needing exposition) is the best scene with the two in general that lends an edge to the nature of what we're dealing with for a hunter/hunted kind of film. Blunt does well with her gradual role, showing conviction and care as the last key adult piece to the puzzle, going with Gagnon as an interesting family to see play out on screen that gravitates well to our attention from their first few moments on screen. Dano and the other supporting members (including a big-bearded Daniels) do well in lending out the layers of the world the film wants to show involving making a living through a hard and cheap life in the not-too distant future. On the whole what we have here is an intelligent film that rounds its bases with an interesting handle on human nature within time travel that utilizes its expectations from the audience into an engaging time with its own welcome surprises and efficient acting to make for an excellent time to go through 113 minutes with.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Dark Knight Rises.

Review #1562: The Dark Knight Rises.

Cast: 
Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Gary Oldman (Commissioner James Gordon), Anne Hathaway (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Tom Hardy (Bane), Marion Cotillard (Miranda Tate / Talia al Ghul), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (John Blake), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), Matthew Modine (Foley), Ben Mendelsohn (John Daggett), Burn Gorman (Philip Stryver), Alon Aboutboul (Dr. Leonid Pavel), Juno Temple (Jen), Daniel Sunjata (Captain Jones), Chris Ellis (Father Reilly), Brett Cullen (Byron Gilley), Cillian Murphy (Dr. Jonathan Crane / Scarecrow), and Liam Neeson (Henri Ducard / Ra's al Ghul) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, and #980 - Dunkirk)

Review:
"For me, The Dark Knight Rises is specifically and definitely the end of the Batman story as I wanted to tell it, and the open-ended nature of the film is simply a very important thematic idea that we wanted to get into the movie, which is that Batman is a symbol. He can be anybody, and that was very important to us."

Auteur filmmakers can do any genre, as long as they manage to cultivate films that are of their own design with distinct style and interesting consistency to make it a worthwhile experience to look for time and time again. Christopher Nolan rose to that occasion, doing so under the inspiration of wanting to be a filmmaker since he was a child with influences like Ridley Scott and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). A graduate of University College London, he started making his own short films by the time he was 19 and made his first feature with the independently made Following (1998) that was followed up with breakthroughs with Memento (2000) and Insomnia (2002) before being brought in to bring back Batman to the big screen. There must have been quite the high hype for a film like this, one that would prove the end of a trilogy of films that Nolan co-produced and co-wrote (with his brother Jonathan for the screenplay and David S. Goyer for the story) alongside direction (he has done writing for most of his features alongside directing, with this being his eighth feature film). Nolan was hesitant for a third film, only wanting to do one if it served satisfactory in its story (as opposed to being just a follow-up film). If the first film involved fear and the sequel involved chaos, Nolan wanted a film that would involve pain, and the main villain of each film seems to reflect that vision, which also seems to include making the films longer as well (if the first felt long at 140 minutes, try 165 with this one). Nolan was the second director to have directed an entire trilogy involving one superhero after Sam Raimi and his Spider-Man trilogy, and it is clear to mention the success that has been done in capturing an epic of sweeping realism that drew upon certain Batman stories (such as Year One or The Long Halloween) that proved distinct in what they did for superhero films when compared to the various ones that came around since 2005 (or even more so by 2012). There are various comic books from the Batman series that this takes inspiration from, such as "Knightfall" (which had Bane pushing Batman to his limits), The Dark Knight Returns (an aged Batman returning to Gotham after several years), and "No Man's Land" (where Gotham is cut off from the rest of the country due to violence), although one major influence on the story was actually Charles Dickens' 1859 novel A Tale of Two Cities (detailing revolution that also happens to borrow lines from it in one of the last scenes).

I will admit that Nolan has done a well-placed achievement in his career, a definitive end to a series in its own vision of what Batman is as the last leg of an epic series that achieves most of what it sets out to do with scope and gravitas that ties as many ends as it does invite further discussion over the nature of such an extraordinary figure in an ordinary world that have villains that aren't necessarily just big foils to defeat but instead are ones that get under one's skin with coherence. I don't think of it as the best of the three films (The Dark Knight is inevitably an indelible achievement to surpass), but it definitely serves as one of the most interesting films of its year (or if one is more bold, its decade, which had a considerable amount of films based on comic books, but not many better than this). Bale certainly has come a long way in seven years in this role, one that requires an actor who can show numerous layers beyond just playing a millionaire playboy / dressing up as a bat and fighting crime in a deep voice. While it might have seemed a bit silly-sounding at first, I have warmed up to it because Bale does so well in pulling off this dual person that actually seems like three acts when faced with who he is to his close friends, the public at large, and perhaps his real self as Batman. He captures the struggle that comes with continuing to be defined by pain and loss to its logical conclusion with the time that he balances well on screen, where one doesn't really need too much of Batman to still be captivated by what it means to find one self again and become a knight of a city that needs it as opposed to a false ideal or kowtowing to fear or apathy. Caine lends the dutiful hand with sharp elegance and usefulness as one should expect from an anchor of sensibility like him. Oldman carries a mix of honesty with guilt and weariness that still reflects the sense of right and wrong and the choices that come in trying to fitting those goals for better or worse. Hathaway does fine with her role, reflecting differently from the others that had portrayed the role before her in past films with playful care that she modelled after the initial inspiration for the character in Hedy Lamarr. Hardy based his accent on a Romani gypsy (named Bartley Gorman), and it seems well-suited for one meant to be a sort of liberator of pain, one that ultimately does just well enough with serving the film in generating interest as a test of strength and mind, which I think works itself out really well despite maybe one small misgiving about the way the climax handles him; this plays into the other adversary lurking in plain sight that connects itself right back to the first film - Cotillard is a decent actress here and it is a decent twist, but it all somehow feels a bit too convenient to really close everything out neatly. Gordon-Levitt does fine here with generating idealism with instinct that never sparks a false note or seems too off for what is needed to set the film on course when with paired with Bale or Oldman. Freeman and the rest round out a useful cast that do what is needed in filling the depth of characters needed to fill the depth of the city or plot detailing. The film packs quite a wallop in action, executing itself with balance and consistency for capable action in such a distinct atmosphere that keeps itself on the edge with numerous situations and weaving of plot that keeps itself on track despite a length that could've proven bloated with a lesser director of style and substance. While it doesn't reach all the heights imposed by the first sequel to Batman Begins, it seals its legend of Batman as a symbol with conviction as a testament for practicality within the margins of comic book adaptation that honors its source material while closing the book with its own exclamation points as a useful story for the ages.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.

Review #1148: Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.

Cast: 
Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode / Keri Tate), Chris Durand (Michael Myers), Michelle Williams (Molly Cartwell), Josh Hartnett (John Tate), Adam Arkin (Will Brennan), Jodi Lyn O'Keefe (Sarah Wainthrope), LL Cool J (Ronald "Ronny" Jones), Adam Hann-Byrd (Charlie Deveraux), Janet Leigh (Norma Watson), Nancy Stephens (Marion Chambers-Whittington), and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Jimmy Howell) Directed by Steve Miner (#761 - Friday the 13th Part 2)

Review: 
Hmm, a Halloween film review? Must be that time of season again - or perhaps there is a new Halloween film out, complete with ignoring continuity of the previous few films and having it star Jamie Lee Curtis being stalked by Michael Myers yet again. Obviously I wanted to be a bit thorough with this review and some of its background, so I hope you enjoy the final result.

There is something to be said about doing another Halloween film, as this is the seventh film of this franchise that reached its highest point of suspense and terror with its original installment in 1978. Although I do find some enjoyment from some of the sequels that followed (whether for a few cheap scares or laughs), it is weird to see an attempt to try and capture the magic in the bottle once again after seeing how the franchise had progressed in the previous three installments, which reached the bottom of the barrel in scares. The fact that this film washes away the continuity of those films should mean that there is some hope for a good horror film that doesn't delve into a cheap shadow of what had made the original (and to a somewhat lesser extent, the sequel) so effective. Having Curtis back also pulls a point in that hopeful direction, since she had expressed in bringing back people from the original, such as John Carpenter. However, he expressed a demand for a starting fee of $10 million that was rejected, which led to him not directing. The film was based on a story by Kevin Williamson (writer of Scream who is credited as one of the executive producers for the film) that would develop into a screenplay written by Robert Zappia and Matt Greenberg, although Williamson would do un-credited re-writes for certain parts such as character dialogue, and it was his idea to come up with the story-line involving the paramedics that would be followed up in the sequel that was filmed after shooting had ended. The working title for the film was "Halloween 7: The Revenge of Laurie Strode", and there was a version of the script in which the events of 4-6 were actually acknowledged at one point, but somewhere along the way it was decided to go with a title that is actually more ridiculous to say out loud than reading it on a screen. But I suppose the idea for titles in this series were running low, owing to the films that followed - alongside the idea to release it in August, clearly the month one thinks of for horror films.

With all of this, how does the actual product pan out? On the one hand, it doesn't go as low as Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers in terms of execution, but there isn't anything here besides the climax that is particularly interesting, and it doesn't approach the levels of either the original, Halloween II, or even the fourth one, which was really more of a cheap thrill made ten years after the original. Ten years after that, and they still can't make a Halloween installment that actually has some sort of real scares or interesting side characters. Oddly enough, the easiest sticking point I have with this film involves Myers. For the second film (which the film doesn't ignore), he had burnt to a cinder, while having his eyes shot out. With this one, you see too much of him and his eyes (particularly when trying to fake out the audience), which only cheapens his presence for actual moments to try and spook the audience. This is made especially weird by the fact that there is a scene involving Myers in a CGI mask meant to cover up the original mask used for the scene. It's just weird in general that there were numerous masks used for the film in general, as if it was really hard to pick one and just stick with it. By the time the fourth or fifth jump scare happens, the film seems to glue itself into mediocrity. I suppose the best trick this movie has up its sleeve is to try and have jump scares and comic relief bits (such as LL Cool J talking to his off-screen wife about some ambitions to write romance novels) as if they will make up for the already stacked cliches that seem to date this film more than the original. Perhaps they wanted to out-do the original in cheesy dialogue. I can understand what they were trying to do with the focus on Laurie and her trauma and how it affects her after twenty years, especially with her son. However, the writing doesn't make this go anywhere besides cursory moments. However, the climax makes it nearly worth it in a ridiculous yet weirdly satisfying way, a venting out of frustration by Curtis' character that leads to an action that would have perfectly encapsulated the end of this franchise...but of course, that is not quite the case. At least its somewhat tolerable at 86 minutes.

Curtis, in her third go at the role, is the best part of the film. You can see her effort to try and give this role some sort of growth in the time elapsed since the original two films that make her someone worth following. It's easy to see why she wanted to be back for another one of these films (later expressing her love of the film despite calling it a payday movie), and she is easily the best part of the final showdown, taking control of how this film uses its one effective trick. The other actors aren't terrible, but most of them are fairly wooden, with the teenagers not being at all interesting to be with, especially with Hartnett. I suppose they thought it would be really clever to have Leigh (mother of Curtis) be in the film for a few scenes - complete with the same car used by her in Psycho (1960). At least we get to see Stephens (present in the first two films) in the opening sequence, the first in a few ways to invoke memories from the past - for better or worse. By the time Myers starts terrorizing this group, you don't really care who survives or not, and the deaths seem pretty hollow this time around. Maybe its the fact that there is no character in the vein of Dr. Loomis (played by Donald Pleasence until his death in 1995) besides a reference in the opening scene that makes this film feel hollow with its pursuits. Ultimately, this is a Halloween product that only serves as a pale shadow of the original two films that should have served as the end for this series.

But of course, that's not the case, is it...?

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

50/50.

Review #825: 50/50.

Cast
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Adam Lerner), Seth Rogen (Kyle Hirons), Anna Kendrick (Katherine McKay), Bryce Dallas Howard (Rachael), Anjelica Huston (Diane Lerner), Serge Houde (Richard Lerner), Andrew Airlie (Dr. Ross), Matt Frewer (Mitch Barnett), and Philip Baker Hall (Alan Lombardo) Directed by Jonathan Levine.

Review
It's not so much that the movie has a good balance of comedy and drama, it's that it handles its subject matter with enough sensibility to be more than one might expect. The writing (by Will Reiser, who had also had cancer, with his experience being the basis for the screenplay) is what helps the film gain ground almost immediately, with the actors having good chemistry with each other. Gordon-Levitt is excellent, showing a range of emotions without an ounce of insincerity, and he is a likable (if not perfect, but understandable) lead. The scenes with him and Rogen are handled pretty well, having some laughs (including the shaving scene), but also some fine scenes of drama, especially near the end. Kendrick is enjoyable to watch (while one could question her decisions as a therapist, the suspension of disbelief is enough to alleviate for this film), having a quirky charm that works nicely (I also know someone who has a bit of stuff on the car floor whenever I hitch a ride with them, though some of that is school stuff). While her and Gordon-Levitt have some decent scenes together, the movie thankfully doesn't try to refocus as a love story near the end, keeping itself focused but also keeping true to these characters, without coming off as strange as something like The Bucket List (#640) was. There's a decent supporting cast, with my favorites being Frewer and Baker Hall, who (while not in the movie for long) provide some dry elements that fit well with the film. Before I repeat myself over and over again, I'll just say that it's a nice movie that keeps itself balanced, with an excellent cast being the forefront alongside a well handled plot.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Angels in the Outfield (1994).

Review #566: Angels in the Outfield (1994).

Cast
Danny Glover (George Knox), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Roger Bomman), Christopher Lloyd (Al "The Boss" Angel), Tony Danza (Mel Clark), Ben Johnson (Hank Murphy), Brenda Fricker (Maggie Nelson), Jay O. Sanders (Ranch Wilder), Milton Davis Jr. (J.P.), Taylor Negron (David Montagne), Tony Longo (Triscuitt Messmer), Neal McDonough (Whitt Bass), Stoney Jackson (Ray Mitchell), Adrien Brody (Danny Hemmerling), Tim Conlon (Wally), and Matthew McConaughey (Ben Williams) Directed by William Dear.

Review
In honor of Opening Day, I decided to review this movie because...it was easy to find. Of all the teams that deserve to win a pennant, the Angels (Known as the California Angels in this movie, then the Anaheim Angels, now the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. And they say sports is always logical) were probably not high up on the list (Do the word Chicago Cubs come to mind?) to win one. This is a remake of the 1951 classic, and the first big change is the focus on the kids rather then the manager of the hapless team, which I guess makes it not just a copy of the original. The movie focuses more on...depressing "child drama", which I guess makes it more 90's. But it makes it less about baseball, and more of a boring drama that probably felt sappy in the 90's, which makes you want to yell "Get on with it!", over and over. At least you get some nice shots of Angels Stadium, with the Big A sign and all.

I find it funny that this was released in 1994, the year with the infamous baseball strike (Vive Le' Expos!), and canceled the playoffs. Talking about this movie is sort of boring when baseball is in the air, real baseball (though having an Opening Series, then an Opening Night before Opening Day is sort of annoying), with real meaning. The cast are sometimes entertaining (I wish Glover would get more screen time), Levitt is effective in portraying...a kid, I suppose. It's not too hard to do that (Unless you're Jake Lloyd), and Davis Jr pairs off well with Levitt. Lloyd isn't bad, but if you blink long enough, you'll forget he's there. The baseball action isn't bad (the effects are fine for the time, as I barely noticed this was made only 20 years ago), but this is a mediocre movie that is only notable because of all the rising stars in this movie (McConaughey, Levitt, and Brody), and for being a remake. I hope you have a fun Opening Day, no matter how the team(s) you root for do tonight.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

Review #201: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

Cast
Channing Tatum (Conrad S. Hauser / Duke), Marlon Wayans (Wallace A. Weems / Ripcord), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Hershel Dalton / Heavy Duty), Rachel Nichols (Shana M. O'Hara / Scarlett), Sienna Miller (Anastasia DeCobray / Ana Lewis / The Baroness), Ray Park (Snake Eyes), Saïd Taghmaoui (Abel Shaz / Breaker), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Rexford G. "Rex" Lewis / The Doctor / Cobra Commander), Christopher Eccleston (Laird James McCullen XXIV / Destro), Lee Byung-hun (Thomas Arashikage / Storm Shadow), Jonathan Pryce (The President), Dennis Quaid (General Clayton M. Abernathy / Hawk), and Karolína Kurková (Courtney A. Krieger / Cover Girl) Directed by Stephen Sommers.

Review
It's been a few days since my last review, and given the subject matters of the last two films, let's dissapoint with this film. First off, I'm not a follower of G.I. Joe (Sadly, the most I've heard of it was on That 70's Show, and that as a debate over if it was a doll or an action figure), but with this film, I wouldn't want to. The acting is standard, with not much substance to help out. And to certain fans of one actor, you'll be dissapointed that he is in this at all (Those fans? Probably 3rd Rock from the Sun or something) The action isn't much better, at one point I went to sleep at the underwater part (and I had to rewind the film, that's a first) I have one question (among others) Why do they need to steal their own warheads? Why build a base under the polar icecaps? With all the silliness, they could've had the base in space and it would've made sense. You know, with Transformers, there were Robots and humans to go with it. This is just humans and some tech that desn't have much style, but can be a film of dumb fun. Just turn off the brain, ignore everything, and don't sleep at the end. There will be a sequel to this, but after 4 years does anyone really care? Not really.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Inception.

Review #055: Inception.

Cast
Leonardo DiCaprio (Dom Cobb), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Arthur), Ellen Page (Ariadne), Tom Hardy (Eames), Ken Watanabe (Mr. Saito), Dileep Rao (Yusuf), Cillian Murphy (Robert Fischer), Tom Berenger (Peter Browning), Marion Cotillard (Mal Cobb), Pete Postlethwaite (Maurice Fischer), and Michael Caine (Professor Stephen Miles) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight)

Review
The film is...Weird. It's creative yes, but I just couldn't get into it enough. I felt the film wanted to bore me so I literally could dream. At roughly two-and-a-half hours long, it's difficult to watch all of it. I give marks for solid acting and good action though.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.