Review: "Looper"

Director: Rian Johnson
Runtime: 118 minutes

Introduce time travel into a narrative, and a suddenly a whole can of worms breaks open. No matter how hard a writer tries, there are issues involving time travel that are difficult to avoid. All movies, even character-centric indie dramas, tend to have at least one plot hole or element that requires suspension of disbelief. With time travel narratives, the opportunities only multiply. So it stands to its credit that Looper, the big (ish) budget breakout film from director Rian Johnson, succeeds as a compelling piece of entertainment, even if it still has some elements that, upon further thought, might possibly invalidate the entire narrative.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who starred in Johnson's debut, Brick (2005), plays Joe, a looper for crime lords. Loopers are recruited in the film's present of 2044, to take out targets zapped back from 30 years in the future. As established via some voice over from Joe and some tight editing, Joe is quite good at his job, and enjoys a life of sex, drugs, and possibly rock 'n' roll (the jury is still out on that last one). Things get messy, however, when Joe's unseen bosses decide to close his loop, which means that Joe's future self (Bruce Willis) is sent back as Joe's target, along with a severance payment for his remaining 30 years of life. As established earlier in a stunning sequence involving fellow looper Seth (Paul Dano), it's not exactly a good idea to let your future self go. Yet future Joe gets a jump on his younger self and escapes, and sets Joe off on a chase to capture his future self and evade his boss' hit men.

One immediate problem that comes up is why would crime lords send a looper's future self back to that looper? Why not just send it to someone else so there wouldn't be any chance for hesitation or doubt? That's the sort of thing that happens when you mess with time travel and co-existing realities. But even though Johnson, smart writer that he is, falls into some time travel traps, his direction does an impeccable job of smoothing things over for the ride. Most impressive is the long stretch involving Gordon-Levitt and Willis' first encounter, shown multiple times to the point where it almost becomes intentionally comical. And, despite the script's use of voice over narration throughout, Johnson does give himself moments to simply let the visuals carry the narrative with compelling results.

Better yet is that Johnson hasn't forgotten how to write characters in his transition to more mainstream filmmaking. The roles filled out by Gordon-Levitt, Willis, and Emily Blunt (as a farmer who shelters an injured younger Joe) all have room to breathe as real characters despite the complex sci-fi premise. Despite the film providing an opportunity for Gordon-Levitt to be the true star, it's his two main co-stars who end up running away with the film. Willis moves just far enough outside of his star persona to deliver a performance laced with fear, anger, and regret, all fueled by injustices in his past and present. Just as surprising is Blunt, who is thankfully given much more to work with than 'love interest sucked into the chaos.' Her relationships with her son (Pierce Gagnon), and Gordon-Levitt give the actress the sort of range she hasn't had room to display in quite some time. Gordon-Levitt gives a solid turn, but he's ultimately the least interesting, as his stakes feel the most basic and least layered. Still, the actions between and among the leads, along with their individual moments, provide enough genuine emotion to make these people worth following. 

This is crucial, because after its more typical first half or so, Looper settles down into the more gradual build up for its hectic (but never rushed) finale. Yet with the characters and environment so smoothly set up, this doesn't become a problem. What could have become a dragging attempt at character development instead enriches the narrative and provides its own gunshot-free moments of intensity. If Looper's screenplay is held back by issues from the time travel conceit, it benefits immensely from Johnson's ability to tell the story and build the characters in such an engaging way without disrupting the pacing. Johnson also isn't afraid to make his world full of real consequences. Without spoiling anything, let's just say that Looper's gunplay doesn't come blood-free (the R-rating is certainly earned).

From a filmmaking standpoint, Looper is certainly aces. The editing (especially in the scenes driven strictly by visuals) is tight and controlled and stitches together the narrative with an intelligence that overrides the time travel conceit. Visuals and effects are nicely handled as well. Despite the $30 million budget, nothing in Looper ever looks less than seamless, whether it's the hover bikes or the futuristic skylines. Nathan Johnson's score also contributes nice touches here and there, and manages to stand out (in a good way) in the last few minutes. And, despite the presence of gunplay, the sound design makes sure than any bit of violence has impact, and that the film never descends into a muddled cacophony of gunfire and shouting. Regardless of conceptual issues, Johnson can pride himself on the overall package here.

It is only in the final seconds that Looper's spell starts to weaken. As nicely drawn as the characters are, the the film does occasionally surrender to the circumstances. The ending is nice enough as it is, but it does come with the catch of presenting a thorny puzzle that doesn't quite add up. For all of the time spent with the characters, the ends of their arcs are surprisingly not as gripping as all of the build up. It's a classic case of the journey, and not the destination, being the selling point of the narrative. But what a well-made journey it is. If Johnson continues on the path to more mainstream filmmaking, let's hope that he strives to keep making films at this level or higher. The worlds of indie, arthouse, and foreign films have plenty of interesting voices, but mainstream cinema is desperately in need of more. Hopefully Johnson takes up the mantle.

Grade: B/B+

Review: "The Dark Knight Rises"

Director: Christopher Nolan
Runtime: 165 minutes

To say that expectations have been high for The Dark Knight Rises would be a monumental understatement. Christopher Nolan certainly got off on the right foot with the 2005 reboot Batman Begins, bringing a brooding and gritty vibe to Gotham's Caped Crusader. With Nolan at the helm, the story of Bruce Wayne took on a newfound sense of darkness and dread, devoid of the campy sensibility that so pervaded Tim Burton's two late 80s/early 90s films and the much-maligned Joel Schumacher films (Batsuit nipples; never forget). Here was a superhero movie that stood, more than any before it, as a testament to the post-9/11 mindset of America, and the world at large. 

Now, I'll admit, I've avoided using the term "post-9/11" to describe Nolan's bat-flicks until just now. Yes, the two (now three) films exist in a darker and more realistic world, but the thematic connection to 9/11 seemed not to click. But the mind has a way of working these things out when we least expect it. Nolan's films show realistically rendered depictions of attacks on American soil in so many ways that have otherwise been absent in comic book adaptations. 

Violence, even for superheroes, was now capable of achieving a rather chilling resonance, whether it was watching Ra's Al Ghul try to launch a biological attack on Gotham in Begins, or watching the Joker's attempts to instigate anarchy across the city, the threats felt more powerful because we lived in an age where A) these things were eerily possible and B) we knew there were people out there who wanted to hurt us. If Sam Raimi's first two Spiderman films (and to a lesser extent, the first two X-Men films) took comic book movies into late adolescence, Batman Begins took them into full-blown adulthood.

Yet it was 2008's The Dark Knight, with a large debt owed to a certain Mr. Ledger, that turned Nolan's series into a critical and financial mega hit. In addition to the gushing praise for Ledger's turn as the Joker, Nolan's film also became labeled as the best comic book movie of all time. And, among certain segments of the population, it has even been hailed as one of the best movies of all time. Period. As in, people were prepared to compare it to The Godfather (let's not go there).

The big question for Nolan and company, of course, then became "how do we finish this trilogy without letting people down?" And when it comes to answering that question on paper, The Dark Knight Rises seems firmly headed in the right direction. Instead of trying to repeat the success of The Dark Knight's iconic villain - a lone figure who essentially defined the film - Nolan has split villain duties (sort of) between Tom Hardy's hulking Bane and Anne Hathaway's slippery Selina Kyle (Catwoman, sans moniker). Lightning doesn't strike in the same place twice, and Nolan was smart to try and spread the role of antagonist among multiple characters.

Yet for all that seems okay on paper, there are equally as many missteps in the writing and in the execution on-screen. There are many individual aspects to pick apart, but it all fits under one giant umbrella: Nolan (and co-writer/brother Jonathan Nolan) have simply tried to cram in too much, despite the 2 hr 45 min duration. Batman Begins contained itself with ease, and The Dark Knight, despite sometimes bursting at the seams, managed to hold all of its pieces together, if just barely. Yet the pressure to create an epic and satisfying ending has, unfortunately, blasted a massive crater in the franchise's armor. The characters and subplots are many, yet even with nearly three hours, there's barely room for any of it to breathe. Combine these problems with the serious tone and massive expectations, The Dark Knight Rises often buckles under its own weight.

Nolan has never made a film that I've found dull, but here he's finally made one where I was actively distracted by the pacing issues. The scenes don't drag so much as they feel like Nolan has misplaced the emphasis. After a fun, Bond-style opening introducing Bane, the movie settles in for quite a bit of set up, which involves everything from a cop (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) trying to help a boys' shelter, to a Wayne Industries board member who won't stop inquiring about an abandoned clean energy project (Marion Cotillard), to Bruce Wayne's physical and emotional recovery after eight years away from his alter ego. Nolan has so many dots to connect that he often races things along. It gives one the feeling that the writer/director simply expects us to just go with each development without daring to question it. The film may never become stagnant (thanks again, Lee Smith), but so often it feels, well, off. As lovely as Ms. Cotillard is, the romance that develops between her and Bruce comes right the hell out of nowhere, only so that it can be used later for a BIG moment that ultimately rings hollow and completely wastes the actress.

All of this is compounded by two big issues: dialogue and narrative structure. Nolan's tendency to have his characters spell out themes and motivations has, sadly only become a bigger problem since Inception. Sometimes it feels entirely appropriate (variations of Begins' "Why do we fall? So we can pick ourselves up again" line), yet often it’s just unnecessary. The personalities of the characters struggle to shine through because they're burdened with such heavy dialogue and thin characterization (as such, the series' returning players achieve the strongest emotional resonance). As for the structure, Nolan falls into an odd cycle of repetition. I'll avoid the details, but the film essentially puts Bruce Wayne through an arc of physical and emotional recovery twice during the film, when all it does is eat up time. It's the second arc that really deserves the time, yet a period of nearly half a year ends up flashing by so the film can charge into its conclusion. Not only does the second arc have the potential for more resonance, but it's also more interesting in what it reveals about Bane, and how it brings the trilogy full circle.

And so when all hell breaks loose in the finale, Nolan is stuck making a bunch of revelations and cutting among a bunch of threads so that they can reach their conclusions. On their own, any one of them could have worked, but in trying to be so epic in scope, the film accomplishes the plots with most of them not coming off as meaning much. In the end, only Wayne and Batman's story, though it has its share of rushed moments and implausibility, resonates. Against all odds its ending provides a lump-in-the-throat moment amid an otherwise emotionally-distant film.

That's not to say that the film is a complete loss, by any means. There's quite a bit that's well done, once one looks past the flaws. The performers, at least those with something to work with (sorry Ms. Cotillard, Ben Mendelsohn, Matthew Modine...) are all perfectly engaging. Bale does nice work in his last run as Wayne/Batman, adding an extra amount of pain and exhaustion where the script fails him. Hardy's Bane is also enjoyable, and his oddly suave and cheeky tone make him a compelling presence, even though he lacks the Joker's overt psychotic tendencies. The film's biggest and best surprise, however, is Hathaway, who manages to make Selina teasingly sexy without making her ludicrously sexual. Watching her switch her personality on and off with an effortless snappiness is one of the film's strongest elements, even though Nolan saddles her with a strange subplot in which she's looking for a powerful computer program.

On the production front the film is also aces, with nice cinematography and art direction. The only puzzling exception is that, for the first time, Gotham actually looks like it's made up of multiple cities (scenes were shot in New York, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh), instead of a cohesive metropolis. Hans Zimmer's kettle drum-heavy score, despite being repetitive, is used nicely to either enhance the tension and momentum, or add them when the film can't quite generate them on its own. And, as much as Nolan is to blame for the film's flaws, he also deserves credit for some of its successes. As a director, he remains capable of moving an audience through a dense narrative with surprising ease, despite the problems that pop up along the way. And, when it comes to pulling out show stopping moments that actually carry weight, his skills remain firmly intact. A massive attack at a football stadium is, besides massive in scale, truly stomach-churning, and the aforementioned finale is nicely handled despite the borderline ridiculous circumstances.

How it ends, I won't say, but at the very least Nolan ends with his best foot forward, more or less. The journey can be rough and overcrowded, but at the very least the ambition deserves some level of admiration, even when the execution sometimes falls short. Unfortunately, it's not just a case of expectations. The film is easily the weakest of Nolan's trilogy, despite some compelling stretches and decent acting. It may improve with time, once the disappointment has worn off and the flaws accepted, but it's a shame that such an adult-minded trilogy had to start tripping over itself as it crossed the finish line. As far as its craftsmanship and ambition, however, The Dark Knight Rises is still more successful than your average summer blockbuster. But in trying to cover so many bases instead of just cutting to the core narrative, this franchise's epic final chapter struggles to stay afloat. It doesn't sink, but only by a hair's breadth, thanks to its conviction and the goodwill built up from its two vastly superior predecessors.

Grade: B-

The Netflix Files: November 21-27

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) dir. Richard Brooks:

A deserving classic if ever there was one, Richard Brooks and James Poe's excellent adaptation of Tennessee Williams' play about southern discontent is still a remarkable achievement, and a great example of how to transfer a dialogue-driven piece to the screen. The main story may be dramatic, but there are little flashes of humor (the way Maggie goes off about May's "no neck" children is priceless) that add the slightest touches of levity. Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman are expectedly excellent, though the show ultimately belongs to Burl Ives as Big Daddy (who somehow missed out on an Oscar nomination for the performance). Toward the end the story does feel a tad drawn out, and occasionally dialogue circles around issues too long before getting to the point, but overall, time has been kind to the film, and I suspect it will continue to be kind for many decades.

Grade: A-

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) dir. Mike Nichols:

It's no horror movie, but Mike Nichols' stellar debut has to go down as one of the scariest, most intense depictions of a failing marriage ever committed to the silver screen. Adapted from Edward Albee's play and only featuring four characters (and four Oscar-nominated performances, with two winning), Virginia Woolf is something of a bottle movie, though the emotional fireworks prevent it the settings from ever becoming constricting. The performances from Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, and George Segal are uniformly magnificent, even if the 2 plus hours of bile-spewing can get exhausting. The wild card is Sandy Dennis as Segal's young wife. It's likely a love or hate performance, and I'm inclined to lean on the hate side. The character is easily the weakest of the four, and by incapacitating her (she gets hammered pretty fast), she feels like the odd woman out. Granted, Segal and Dennis' characters are meant to be be manipulated by Taylor and Burton, but it's a shame the battle between generations ends up becoming 2 vs 1 instead of 2 vs 2. Now that would have been a match up...

Grade: A-

Brick (2005) dir. Rian Johnson:

Splice a hard-boiled noir with a high school drama, and you have Rian Johnson's debut feature. Filled with teenagers who talk in cryptic codes, it's tempting to label Brick as little more than an overblown student film. Thankfully, Johnson's execution sidesteps this label with snappy (but thoughtful) pacing, intriguing characters, and an offbeat score. Joseph Gordon-Levitt turns in a strong performance as Brendan, and watching his stoic exterior slowly (but never completely) deteriorate is a marvel, even if Johnson's direction sticks more to the surface. At times the whole thing can feel overheated (Brendan's exchanges with a conniving drama student are among the film's weakest links), even with the occasional flashes of deadpan humor, but on the whole this unique take on the mystery and noir genres is an understated ride worth taking.

Grade: B+

Review: "50/50"

Putting the words 'cancer' and 'comedy' together doesn't really make sense on paper, unless it's part of some scathing, hugely irreverent satire on the latest episode of South Park. As a subject matter/plot device, it's easy for cancer to transform narratives into either the relentlessly depressive, or the shamelessly manipulative. As far as comedy goes, the notion that the genre could play host to a story about such a disease makes us recoil; it makes us wonder if the resulting film will somehow exploit or mishandle the material to even grosser effect. While I have no doubt that some such film either exists or will exists, the makers of 50/50 can rest assured that their film is both tasteful and honest, all while succeeding at both its dramatic and comedic moments.

After a brief opening where we see Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) taking his morning run, Jonathan Levine's film doesn't waste much time cutting to the chase: Adam has cancer in the form of a malignant tumor in his lower back. We know barely anything about Adam save that he has an artists girlfriend named Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard) and that his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen) drives him to work because he never learned how. Other than that, we don't get to discover Adam's character until we see him go through the various stages of treatment. It's a structure that could have led 50/50 to fail; without knowing much about him before, we're left to care for him strictly out of his situation, and not out of who he is as a person.

Yet somehow director Jonathan Levine and his marvelous cast pull it off. Rather than try and turn the film into and all-out comedy, or some sort of rauch fest a la Superbad, Levine and company navigate the potential minefield that 50/50 presents effortlessly, never once coming to an uncomfortable point in their execution of the material. Whether scenes are dramatic, comedic, or switch between the two, it all flows together fluidly, making the film a comfortable viewing experience, despite its look at such a terrible disease. This isn't to say that the film glosses over Adam's struggle. But, instead of beating us over the head with shots of Adam's chemo-ridden body, or packing every encounter between Adam and his therapist (Anna Kendrick) with tearful confessions about his life, the script gives us just enough to understand. What begins as a young man trying his best to cope with terrible circumstances, seamlessly evolves into a graceful look at the protagonist figuring out how to live his life, and how to manage his various relationships.

Apparently a fan of movie titles with the numbers 5 and 0, Joseph Gordon-Levitt turns in strong work as a man with a disease that's hit him far too young. From his initial denial, to his forced calmness, to his eventual realization that he very well might die, Gordon-Levitt handles every facet with great skill, and his chemistry with the supporting cast works on all fronts. Those around Adam built as characters simply via their reactions to his situation, but the cast makes them all work. The stand-out of the supporting players is a toss-up between Anjelica Huston (as Adam's clingy mother) and Kendrick. The former's character is a bit of a smother mother, but the script doesn't dismiss her and assume that Adam's initial attitude towards her is 100% justified. Kendrick, in a more prominent role, takes a character who could have been nothing but a sounding board for Adam, and makes her a standalone character. There aren't any scenes oriented around her role, but Kendrick and the script bring out just enough in her interactions with Gordon-Levitt to give us a sense of who she is. Seth Rogen, as Adam's friend Kyle, while still something of a goof-off/schlub, reins it in here, delivering one of his more measured performances, if not his most measured, to date.

The lone exception from the cast is Dallas Howard, or rather, her character. It's not that the actress herself misses the mark, but the script makes her an antagonist when it doesn't really need to. All this is good for is to set up another potential relationship, and really, isn't the cancer a big enough "villain?" This one small issue aside, however, the characters are nicely drawn, and help the film's resolution (along with the tears it inspires) feel earned. Special mention should also go to Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer as older patients who befriend Adam in chemotherapy; their roles are small, but every scene the pair have is vital to understanding Adam's evolution over the course of the film. It's characters like these, along with Adam himself, that make the film's sense of humor work so well.

On the technical front there's not much worth mentioning, although there is some nice visual work in a scene where Adam strolls out of a treatment session high on pot. The closest to a standout are the musical contributions from Michael Giacchino (Up), which accent the film nicely when used, without ever becoming melodramatic or saccharine. Like the film itself, the score (along with the soundtrack choices) always feel tasteful. Based on the life of one of Rogen's close friends, 50/50 beautifully captures the honesty of the account. What could have so easily been uncomfortable, manipulative, is instead an exceptional look at one man facing one of life's greatest adversities.

Grade: B/B+

Teaser Trailer: "The Dark Knight Rises" [Fixed/New link]

**Click HERE to find a different version of the teaser (the player can be odd when embedded, so it's easier to simply link to it). The TrailerAddict embed doesn't always want to work for some reason...

Topping The Dark Knight isn't going to be an easy feat, but that hasn't stopped Christopher Nolan from aiming big. Even with the minimal footage (I'm surprised there's any; the first teaser for The Dark Knight was merely a logo with voice over), this teaser gives off a feeling of something big. Nolan has said that The Dark Knight Rises will bring his Batman trilogy full circle, though he hasn't clarified whether that's in a narrative or thematic sense (both?). Either way, this trailer, which contains a brief glimpse of Tom Hardy as Bane, is certainly exciting. That said, however, I get the feeling that, based on the shots of Gary Oldman in the hospital bed, we're headed for even darker territory than The Dark Knight, which is no small feat, especially in a big budget blockbuster.

New "Inception" character featurette

It's amazing that considering the amount of footage available for viewing, that Inception has managed to keep its main plot shrouded in mystery. Obviously we have some vague idea that DiCaprio and crew are after "one last job" and that they can enter dreams, but there's nothing remotely spoiler-worthy about that. Rumors are that many of the cast members, if not all of them, didn't fully understand what the film was about during much of the shooting process; hopefully that means the film is simply a mind-bender and not an overly confusing mess. Long-time Nolan cinematographer Wally Pfister's work here looks impeccable, bolstered by Nolan's insistence on shooting on-location and the vivid VFX work. My only real question actually worth asking is: why leave out Ken Watanabe? We know he's something of a villain, and we've clearly seen him in previous footage, so why leave him and his character title out?