Rian Johnson is one of the more intriguing and exciting young American filmmakers working today. His two previous flicks, "Brick" (a smart, stylized updating of the classic Noir tale in a modern American high school - and vastly underrated) and "The Brothers Bloom" (a fun, occasionally hilarious caper) are both new twists/perspectives on classic and often tired genres, and show an imagination and eye for both story and filmmaking that make Mr. Johnson's career one well worth following. Oh, and there's the fact that he's directed two of the stronger episodes of "Breaking Bad", season three's "Fly" (a serious achievement in directing) and season five's "51". Now comes feature flick number three, "Looper".
In the not-so-distant future, time travel has been invented but is highly illegal due to the potential timeline effects and as a result is used exclusively by the world's largest criminal organizations to eliminate people in the past, as murder is all but impossible in 2072. In the film's present, 2042, assassins called "Loopers" are employed to handle the job of eliminating these targets. This film's vision of the future seems to indicate that the next 30 years will not be kind to the US of A or the greater world. Homelessness is rampant, vagrants roam the streets, and a violent lawlessness has taken over the major cities. Loopers arrive at a set time and place, kill the hooded individual as he or she arrives, take their payment from the person of their victim, dispose of the body, and go about their day. It's a pretty clean and efficient system, largely untraceable... the only issue is the loopers themselves. At some point, the future organizations will "close the loop", by sending the future self of the assassin through time, the assassin will unbeknownst to himself, kill his future self, take his resulting large payday, and enjoy the next 30 years of his life. Loopers enjoy a pretty easy life in this future dystopia, with steady and good pay (a few years of "Looping" pays enough for a lifetime of relative leisure), few responsibilities, and steady access to drugs, parties and women. A looper's only concern is ensuring that his target meet his intended demise, as letting a target escape is simply unacceptable, with potentially devastating consequences.
Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt - "wearing" a CGI-ed face to make him resemble the older version of himself, played by Bruce Willis) is one such Looper. He enjoys life in the city and is quietly stashing away half of his pay, hoping to move to Paris after his time as a looper is up. All of his dedication and plans are waylaid when, through the unusual circumstance of his target arriving without a hood, he hesitates and allows the older version of himself to escape. A manhunt ensues, and Joe finds himself in a race against the clock and his employer to hunt down himself.
"Looper" is smart, very smart, and expertly done. The plot crackles, the performances shine, and via narrative techniques like flashbacks (flashforwards?) we are shown the stakes and the film's vision of the fluid nature of time. You will never be able to make traveling time make sense, so it's best to just establish your rules and run with them. Looper does this, and so escapes most of the headier discussions of time travel that are guaranteed to: 1. make your head spin, 2. descend into nonsense, and 3. sound like an episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" where you're just making up pseudo technical sounding nonsense. Note: Looper isn't able to do this completely, but what it IS able to do is completely switch directions completely midstream without hitting a hiccup and effectively create a whole new and parallel narrative that exists alongside the main narrative but is largely separate. Basically, Looper is two movies, 1/2 crime/caper/gangland thriller and 1/2 redemption/family/relationship story and 99% of flicks would fail when trying to pull something like this off, but somehow Looper does it largely seamlessly and effectively. This is a serious achievement. Characters have distinct development and motivations. Joe and Joe (JGL and Bruce Willis) share enough besides the CGI-ed face that confrontations between them are fascinating, with a young man's headstrong foolishness butting up against his older counterpart's wisdom and know-how.
The good: the performances. Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of the finer young actors working today, even if he did try WAY too hard throughout his SNL hosting gig. Bruce Willis is a pro and could play this role in his sleep. Emily Blunt, who I've always thought had a tendency to sort of drift through her roles as scenery, really owns this one, and she'll grow on you. Jeff Daniels has a lot of fun with what could have been a stock part. The plot is smart and seamless and has very few holes... something that you can't often say about flicks featuring time travel. There are some characters that exist merely to further the plot, but there are worse sins a movie can commit, Chris Nolan has been doing that trick for years. What starts as a dystopian action-er turns into a character piece, and this flick is worth seeing for that alone. It's shot spectacularly, makes great use of its characters, will have you at the end of your seat at times, and really uses its time travel elements pretty ingeniously. I liked this one a lot.
The bad: as I said, any discussion about time travel bears the risk of crossing over into silliness, and this flick comes close a couple of times without ever crossing over into straight silliness. As I said, some characters have no point except as a plot device and that can feel cheap. I personally would have wanted the future to be MORE fleshed out, but I'm a nerd for world-building like that. It's why I love George RR Martin. Really, there are few criticisms here. This is one of the best movies of the year.
"Looper" is smart, it's tense, it's fun, but above all, it's very, very well done. A must-see. Worth multiple viewings.
9/10
Showing posts with label Bruce Willis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bruce Willis. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
2012: The Year in Film: "Moonrise Kingdom" Review
Few, if any, filmmakers are as distinctive and insular as Wes Anderson. His unique, often childlike, hipster-retro aesthetic that is a uniting feature across all of his films (excepting, arguably, "Bottle Rocket") makes him a favorite among a certain set. I fit into that set. As a confession, I own all of Wes Anderson's films, and I'm pretty sure he's the only director for whom that is the case. Some treat his aesthetic (roughly summed up as the pinterest page of a 29 year old MFA retro Manic Pixie Dream Girl with a healthy dose of indie rock tunes) as a negative, while I would argue that the quirky, quaint world allows for realistic characters and often emotionally powerful and occasional profound story to shine without getting caught up in the constraints of a needlessly complicated world. Indie movies try this all the time.. and yet Anderson's films are infinitely more expansive than just about every indie movie you'll run across, with more characters, a grander setting and a more expansive plot. In my book, I'll count that as a strength. His films, Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The Darjeeling Limited and Fantastic Mr. Fox often feature the same group of actors, and seem to take place in the same universe.
Into this world comes "Moonrise Kingdom", which takes place on a fictional small island community in 1965, featuring a quirky cast of characters including a troop of "Khaki Scouts" and their scoutmaster (Edward Norton), a family with unhappy lawyers for parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDurmond), a small-time police captain (Bruce Willis). Among this community are an orphaned Khaki Scout, Sam (newcomer Jared Gilman) and "troubled youth" Suzy (newcomer Kara Hayward). After a chance meeting and letter correspondence, Sam and Suzy decide to run off into the wilderness together. The two lonely, strange young lovers bond in the woods while the grown ups and deputized Khaki Scouts pursue them as a tropical storm approaches. Tilda Swinton and Jason Schwartzman have small, but memorable roles.
Arguably, Anderson has been obsessed with adolescence and the fading innocence of childhood for his entire career as a filmmaker and here addressed it head-on, treating his youthful protagonists as earnestly and sincerely as any of the adults in this film or in any film he's done. This honesty and sincerity, combined with Anderson's usual charming character work and infectious humor and dialogue, is whimsical, sweet, irreverent and ultimately very sweet. Our young heroes win the audience and the film's characters over the course of the film, culminating in a tense and charming last half hour.
The film's strengths are the aesthetics and the acting, as a talented cast, charming setting and irreverent plot can't help but win you over. Norton, Willis, and the two main characters are the film's strong suits. By taking the children as seriously as he takes his adults, Anderson tells a sweet and effective story through their eyes. It's a less-tragic Romeo and Juliet meets the Life Aquatic, and that's a winning comination in my book. If you like Wes Anderson, you're guaranteed to like this one. The tone is pitch-perfect and this film, while irreverent, certainly has its charms. The film is ultimately sweet, silly and charming, choosing the right tone to explore the story of young lovers who find companionship in one another.
Ultimately, it's funny, it's charming, it's well-acted and strangely believable if incredibly quirky, and does a great job of depicting childhood. It's a bit too short and irreverent to be counted among Anderson's best, but it's a damn good time at the movies.
8/10
Into this world comes "Moonrise Kingdom", which takes place on a fictional small island community in 1965, featuring a quirky cast of characters including a troop of "Khaki Scouts" and their scoutmaster (Edward Norton), a family with unhappy lawyers for parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDurmond), a small-time police captain (Bruce Willis). Among this community are an orphaned Khaki Scout, Sam (newcomer Jared Gilman) and "troubled youth" Suzy (newcomer Kara Hayward). After a chance meeting and letter correspondence, Sam and Suzy decide to run off into the wilderness together. The two lonely, strange young lovers bond in the woods while the grown ups and deputized Khaki Scouts pursue them as a tropical storm approaches. Tilda Swinton and Jason Schwartzman have small, but memorable roles.
Arguably, Anderson has been obsessed with adolescence and the fading innocence of childhood for his entire career as a filmmaker and here addressed it head-on, treating his youthful protagonists as earnestly and sincerely as any of the adults in this film or in any film he's done. This honesty and sincerity, combined with Anderson's usual charming character work and infectious humor and dialogue, is whimsical, sweet, irreverent and ultimately very sweet. Our young heroes win the audience and the film's characters over the course of the film, culminating in a tense and charming last half hour.
The film's strengths are the aesthetics and the acting, as a talented cast, charming setting and irreverent plot can't help but win you over. Norton, Willis, and the two main characters are the film's strong suits. By taking the children as seriously as he takes his adults, Anderson tells a sweet and effective story through their eyes. It's a less-tragic Romeo and Juliet meets the Life Aquatic, and that's a winning comination in my book. If you like Wes Anderson, you're guaranteed to like this one. The tone is pitch-perfect and this film, while irreverent, certainly has its charms. The film is ultimately sweet, silly and charming, choosing the right tone to explore the story of young lovers who find companionship in one another.
Ultimately, it's funny, it's charming, it's well-acted and strangely believable if incredibly quirky, and does a great job of depicting childhood. It's a bit too short and irreverent to be counted among Anderson's best, but it's a damn good time at the movies.
8/10
Labels:
Bruce Willis,
Edward Norton,
Movie Reviews,
Wes Anderson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

