Review: Looper

No matter how well a movie involving time travel is done, it is inevitably going to have plot holes.  There’s just no way to properly navigate a theoretical construct that defies one’s linear sense of time.  Back to the Future, Frequency, Twelve Monkeys – they are all riddled with such immense inconsistencies that if one were to stop and flesh out those problems, these otherwise entertaining narratives would completely derail.  And while Looper, from writer/director Rian Johnson, is not without a paradox or two, it remains an interesting exercise in telling a time bending narrative while staying true to the film’s own inherent sense of logic.  But like many others of this genre, it leaves you with as many questions as it does answers.

This film is a tough one to tackle without revealing spoilers, but what I can safely reveal is that thirty years from the film’s present day, time travel will be invented and for reasons explained in the film, criminal organizations send undesirables back in time for execution at the hands of low rent assassins called loopers.  The loopers perform these duties while knowing that one day they will be sent to retirement on the day they are faced with assassinating their future self – an act dubbed closing out the loop.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Joe, a looper whose life unravels when he not only fails to assassinate his older self (played by Bruce Willis), but also finds that his future self is a man with a very specific plan. 

Based on who you talk to, Looper is either an incredibly complex and highly layered narrative loaded with parallels, innuendoes, philosophical ruminations, and clever plot twists; or it’s another in a long line of action filled time travel movies loaded with a bunch of red herrings designed to trick the viewer.  I am inclined to agree more with the former than the latter.  Is it as complex as some would have you believe?  No, but there is a circular nature to the plot of the movie that not only begs you to ask a bunch of questions, but demands that you not watch the movie passively as a single straight-line narrative.  It’s not as complex or mind bending as Inception or Matrix, but it is a sound writing effort that leaves just enough loose ends (as well as the chicken and the egg paradox) for you to formulate your own conclusions.  It’s the kind of movie that you will discuss with your friends after the fact, and will send you across the web looking for those hidden clues you might have missed.

The best part of this movie hands down is the acting.  Most everyone of significance in the cast deliver strong performances.  Like many actors before him (Pacino, DeNiro, Stallone), Bruce Willis has long since started down the path to becoming a caricature of himself, but in this film it feels like Willis is turning back the clock to deliver  a strong performance as a complex and conflicted character.  Truth be told, it is the first time in a long time that it feels like he cares about a role and movie; it appears as though Willis is actually trying.  As for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, he proves once again that he is one of the better actors working today.  He does a great job of channeling Bruce Willis, not to the point that it feels like a straight impersonation, but just enough so that it feels like his Joe and Bruce Willis’ are separated by a deep chasm born from thirty years of experience.

As for the rest of the cast, Emily Blunt does a great job of exchanging her lovely British sensibilities for a midwestern accent, farm attire, and a double barrel shotgun, almost completely disappearing into the role of Sara.  Jeff Daniels is very good as Abe; his scenes opposite Gordon-Levitt represent some of the best dialogue in the film.  Paul Dano continues to carve out a niche playing the same bumbling sympathetic sad sack always destined for disaster and Noah Segan and Piper Perabo physically embody the decay of the dystopian present in which the plot unfolds.

While I believe that the writing is layered and cleverly open ended and the acting very good, I feel as though this is one of the films where the whole is not greater than the sum of the parts.  There are choices made in this film that are admirable, but those choices alter the tone of the film a bit and throw off the pacing in the second act.  Still, the work of the cast more than makes up for these shortcomings.  While I did not walk out of the theater as enamored with the film as many other people (and some of this is probably born from lofty expectations), I found the film to be entertaining and would feel compelled to see it again.  Something tells me that a second viewing would lend clarity to the questions I have been mulling since seeing the movie.  I would definitely recommend this for a theatrical viewing (and probably a second viewing on DVD), but caution you to be ready to think.

Standout Performance: Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  There is very little that he and Bruce Willis have in common in regards to looks, voice, mannerisms, and persona, and this makes it all the more impressive that he could stand opposite Willis in this movie and completely sell himself as a younger version of the man.

Read More

Review: The Adjustment Bureau

I remember at the outset of The Adjustment Bureau’s theatrical run, some moviegoers had a negative reaction to the film.  It wasn’t so much about the quality as it was about the movie failing to meet consumer expectations.  Having finally seen it, I now understand why.  I believe this disconnect was directly tied into the theatrical marketing for the film, which in hindsight looks like a  textbook example of the good ole “bait and switch.”

The movie is built on the premise that there is a secret organization –The Adjustment Bureau - of men who work for the grand architect (a non denominational way of describing angels and God respectively) who make sure the events of the world follow a master plan.  When things go awry, these men who appear as dopplegangers of the stereotypical G-man of the 60’s) can stop time, erase minds, and alter the course of events.  Matt Damon’s David Norris, an aspiring Senator, has a penchant for going off plan especially when it comes to Emily Blunt’s Elise Sellas and thus the events of the movie are launched. 

While the premise is not wholly original, it has enough sheen that the marketing folks at Universal billed it as this mind-bending film.  Throw-in a series of carefully cut trailers leveraging Matt Damon’s action cache and the “based on a novel by Philip K. Dick” tagline for sci-fi fans, and the message that reached the public was that The Adjustment Bureau is cut from the same cloth as The Matrix.  But really, the movie has far more in common with The Notebook than it does that or any other sci-fi/action film.  With that being said, it is an entertaining film.

There are three key elements to create a successful romantic narrative:

1. Two protagonists who are engaging and dynamic.  They must share the kind of chemistry that will draw empathy from the audience

2. The presence of significant obstacles that legitimately threaten to derail the budding romance.

3. Closure -  good or bad.


Damon and Blunt are up to meeting the challenge of the first element creating characters that have depth and building a genuine sense of tragedy that their characters have been kept apart by powers they cannot fully comprehend.  The rest of the cast accounts for element number two as Anthony Mackie, John Slattery, Terrence Stamp, and a slew of other actors dressed in trench coats and an array of hats (bowler, fedora, bowler, et al) bring life and gravitas to faceless agents who for the most part wield their authority against the protagonists void of emotion.   As for the third element, director George Nolfi does a decent the job of bringing closure to the plot even though it is a bit telegraphed.  Still, it makes  the final statement of the film palatable for the viewer. 

Is it a groundbreaking film?  No.  Is it an interesting story?  Yes.  I would suggest seeing it especially since it’s been out on DVD for a while and can also easily be found on pay cable channels.  As long as you go into the film with your expectations aligned to the actual product, you should find yourself reasonably entertained.

Standout Performance:  Anthony Mackie does a nice job as the third most pivotal character in this film and as a moral compass. 

Read More

Review: The Five-Year Engagement

Sometimes things are all perfectly lined up.  Sometimes a project seemingly has everything going for it and just by looking at the collection of talent on paper you know it is going to do well.  And sometimes despite all these things, the movie does not come together as planned.  I think the latter sums up what happened with The Five-Year Engagement, which had a great producer, a good director, and a strong cast, yet opened in fifth place at the box office earning just over $11MM to go with lukewarm review.   

Let me start by saying that in no way do I think it is a bad movie.  To the contrary, there are some genuinely funny and poignant scenes in this film that are universally relatable.  Even the movie's harshest critics would have to agree with that.  Most of us are familiar with producer Judd Apatow’s resume (Bridesmaids, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Superbad), and while his latest movie is not on par with his greatest hits, for the most part this movie does not stray too far from the pack.

What it has going for it is the cast.  Jason Segel has mastered the art of playing an affable guy with a good balance of comedic male bravado and a high emotional IQ and Emily Blunt is very charming with her rowdy brand of British sensibility.  What makes the cast particularly stand out though are those working in a supporting capacity.  Chris Pratt (as Segel’s BFF) and Alison Brie (as Blunt’s sister) steal the show as a fun-loving mismatched couple providing a sharp contrast to our protagonists.  Rhys Ifans (as the foil), Mindy Kaling, Randall Park, Kevin Hart, Chris Parnell, and Brian Posehn do a great job of accompanying Segel and Blunt along their romantic path and adding a comedic soundtrack to their foibles. 

Yet despite all this wealth of talent at work in this film, there exists a disconnect between the onscreen product and the audience and in my opinion it is born from two important factors:

1. Length and Pacing.  To put it bluntly, the movie runs too long. It feels like director Nicholas Stoller had such an embarrassment of riches that he is hard pressed to leave anything on the cutting room floor.  Unfortunately a good number of these comedic bits do very little to advance the plot and thus the net result is that the pacing gets knocked off and the plot comes to a screeching halt in the third act.

2. Segel and Blunt as Tom Solomon and Violet Barnes respectively are highly entertaining, but as a couple they lose a good measure of their likability.  There is something about their chemistry – as good as it is at times – that made me less than enthusiastic about their prospects.  It was not so much that I was rooting against them, but more that as the movie unfolded, I felt less convinced that they had to be together in order for the film to pay off.  For a romantic comedy, that is an incredibly damning statement.

Still, I would recommend this movie.  It is funny, entertaining, and there is great acting across the board.  I just don’t think you will walk away from this one readily prepared to elevate it into the cannon of Judd Apatow movies.  You won’t kick yourself for watching this in the theater, but I don’t know it demands a big picture showing.  When watching, pay close attention to Rhys Ifans (Notting Hill, The Replacements) as he next appears as the heavy in this summer’s The Amazing Spider-man.

Standout Performance:  Chris Patt as Alex Eilhauer is all over the map in this film in a very good way and outright steals the show.

Read More