200 Movies, 1 Woman, 1 Blog

Looper, 2012, USA/China

I doubt I’ve seen a more thought-provoking film this year. Looper is an intense science fiction thriller that often moves beyond mere thrills into the realm of horror.

Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a looper – a hired gun of the mob sent back in time to murder mob targets that are sent back in time. Eventually their contracts “expire” and their older version of themselves are sent back to them. After killing their older selves, they’re given gold bars and 30 years to live in the manner of their choosing.

As a looper, Joe is living a carefree lifestyle featuring a plethora of drugs and women. When Old Joe (Bruce Willis) is sent back to Joe, he fails to kill him, and must chase after him and correct his mistake. Old Joe has a mission of his own: he wants to track down and kill the Rainmaker – a mysterious figure who has been closing looper contracts.

Time travel is always a tricky subject, especially on film. Each story has its own “lore”, and the rules within each story are generally complicated. Looper does a fairly good job explaining the rules, but keeping the timelines straight was immensely complicated at times. I also caught some potential inconsistencies within the lore of the film. The rules themselves aren’t necessarily straightforward, which lends itself well to film discussion.

Screenwriter/director Rian Johnson managed to do something genuinely brilliant with many scenes in Looper: he made them truly horrifying without actually showing blood and gore on-screen. One sequence involving Joe’s best friend and fellow looper, Seth (Paul Dano) is frightening and disturbing solely because it was not shown. I found the things my mind conjured up more disturbing than anything that could be shown on screen. I couldn’t stop thinking about the scene and it will stay with me for a long time. It takes a gifted director to use the audience’s imagination as opposed to showing every little thing on film.

Johnson does this again later in the film with Sara (Emily Blunt), the woman Joe encounters while he’s on the run. The scene, which remains strictly PG was very sensual, but it uses subtle implication as opposed to full-on sex. It was well-done.

Willis and Gordon-Levitt are great as the two leads in the film. In real life they don’t look much alike at all, but the make-up they used on Gordon-Levitt’s face really made him look like a younger version of Willis. Funnily enough, I didn’t see the similarities between them in the film trailer, but once I watched the film, I could see that they looked alike. That being said, Gordon-Levitt’s make-up was distracting at times.

It was fun to see how each actor handled playing a different version of the same person. Both characters were inherently very selfish, but for different reasons. Young Joe’s selfishness was ingrained in youth and a desire to live the life he felt he’d earned, but Old Joe’s selfishness was aimed at preserving the life that he’d built. It was fascinating to watch the two characters, and I loved their interactions. The two men loathe one another: Old Joe is a reminder of mortality to Young Joe, and Young Joe is the poster-child of poor choices and youthful folly to Old Joe.

Looper is one of the best of the year thus far. I am a huge science fiction fan, and this is one of the best science fiction films in a long time. I highly recommend it!

Moonrise Kingdom, 2012, USA

I’m not sure if I’ve ever professed my love and adoration for Wes Anderson on this blog before, so I’ll do it now. Anderson is one of my favourite filmmakers, and his work has always really spoken to me. I love the humour of his films, and their endearing quirkiness. He has the ability to create remarkable settings, and memorable characters. He’s just amazing. And Moonrise Kingdom is probably his best film to date.

Moonrise Kingdom is a beautiful nod to childhood. It’s wonderfully nostalgic, charming and sweet. Sam (Jared Gilman) is a young orphan who escapes from the Khaki Scouts to run away with Suzy (Kara Hayward), a troubled young girl. When it’s discovered that the two children are missing, a desperate search is undertaken by Suzy’s parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand), Scout Master Ward (Edward Norton), and Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis).

What I loved about the film was its honesty. The children are 12 years old, so they’re quickly approaching adolescence, and Anderson depicts them accurately. Their relationship is innocent at times, but it was also remarkably grown up. The two kids were so sweet and fun to watch. Hayward and Gilman are both talented young actors and their willingness to go far beyond what one normally sees in child performances is admirable. They both have very bright careers ahead of them. While the characters in the film are not grounded in realism in any way, the film is meant as fantasy. Anderson builds his own charming worlds when he makes movies.

The sense of nostalgia is one of the things I loved most about this film. Who didn’t have a crush when they were a preteen? My childhood crush went unreciprocated, but, ultimately, that didn’t matter, because at that age, I felt a rush simply sitting in the same “desk cluster” as him. I lacked the discretion at the time to avoid dissolving into joyful giggles whenever he talked to me or even looked at me, so it was obvious that I had quite the little crush. And, while I never ran away from home, what child doesn’t fantasize about running away to the wilderness?

The film itself is hilarious. The “adults” give admirable and memorable performances in addition to the children. Edward Norton was especially great as Scout Master Ward. I thought his character was so interesting, and he had some of the funniest lines, as well. Bruce Willis was great, as well. At first, I wasn’t quite sure if he’d be “right” for a Wes Anderson film, but he did a great job with his role, and his character was very endearing and almost sad, at times.

If you like Anderson’s other work, you’ll almost certainly find great joy in Moonrise Kingdom. It was just a delightful film.

The Fifth Element, 1997, France

This film wasn’t quite what I was expecting.  I’d been trying to record it on my PVR for months, and when I was finally able to record it last week, I found myself unable to watch it.  I had been expecting a bleak science fiction drama and I’ve been avoiding heavy movies for the past few months.  However, my dad told me that it was a fun, bright, over the top movie, so I decided to watch it last night.

It was certainly over the top and very fun.  Bruce Willis plays Korben Dallas, a New York cab driver and former member of the Special Forces.  As he is working, a strange woman (Milla Jovovich) drops into his cab.  She speaks in a strange ancient language and keeps requesting a priest (Ian Holm).  Together, they must search for the four elements needed to save the world before the evil Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg (Gary Oldman) gets his hands on them.

I loved the look of the film.  As it takes place in the 23rd century, director Luc Besson designed a very bright world featuring extravagant costumes.  The alien costumes are fantastic and realistic, as well.  Besson’s vision of the 23rd century is beautiful and delightfully eccentric. The film is based on a story Besson wrote, and he also worked on the screenplay, so it truly is his own vision.

Gary Oldman rocks one of the weirdest head pieces ever.

The highlights of the film were Oldman and Chris Tucker.  Both were over the top and very fun.  Tucker usually annoys me, and he certainly played an annoying character in this film, but it works in this film.  My only explanation is that this film is genuinely good – as opposed to the Rush Hour series.  Tucker’s character is integrated well, and he never becomes overbearing.  Willis plays the same sort of character he normally plays: a bad ass with a past.  He may not be a particularly deep actor, but he sure is good at shootin’ people.

The Fifth Element was such a fun movie.  It was a great way to escape reality for two hours and the perfect movie to watch on a Saturday night. If you haven’t seen it yet, do yourself a favour and watch it as soon as possible.

Red, 2010, USA

No worries: I’m still working on my current project! But I’m also watching “new” movies as well.

Part of being a broke student doing a movie blog is compromise. And being willing to watch whatever enters the house. My dad went out to rent movies last night and he came back home with Red. I Googled it, saw that it got halfway decent reviews, and watched it with my parents.

Within the first ten minutes, we all realized that a poor choice was made. It was ridiculous and really, really stupid. Frank (Bruce Willis) is a retired CIA agent who has a bit of a crush on Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), the call centre employee he talks to on the phone. Unfortunately, his life is in danger, so when he goes to visit her, he ends up kidnapping her. Together, they go out in search of his old CIA buddies (Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren and John Malkovich) in order to figure out just what is going on.

It was billed as an “action comedy”, but it wasn’t all that funny.  I rolled my eyes more than I laughed.  If there’s a scene where a character uses a gun like a baseball bat to hit a grenade, I just can’t take it seriously.  Many of the laughs in the room came from commentary on the movie.  It was very easy to make fun of it.

Also, Mirren played a contract killer. She’s just too lovely to be believable in such a role.  In fact, all of the actors in this movie could do better.  I don’t know why any of them (other than Bruce Willis) signed up for this pile of crap. But, apparently a sequel is being written.  Joy.

The one thing I did appreciate is that the movie offered roles to older actors.  Many older actors, especially female actors have difficulty finding roles that aren’t the “mother” or “grandmother” type of role.  I do respect that this movie was about retired individuals being forced to solve a mystery and protect themselves, and that they were all in good shape and able to do stunts.  This sort of role does not come up often, obviously.  The movie had potential, but it was just stupid and poorly written.  I do hope that it shows Hollywood that older female actors can be more than just mothers.

At least I didn’t see this movie in theatres.  Wasting $4.00 and two hours of your life is forgivable, but wasting $25 on this movie would have been quite painful.

Twelve Monkeys, 1995, USA

I’d heard people rave about this movie many years ago and never got around to the movie until tonight. For some reason I was expecting more of an action movie. I suppose that’s because I think of Bruce Willis as an action star. But it was a science fiction drama and contained relatively little action.

Willis plays James Cole, a prisoner who lives in a futuristic underground society. Humanity was forced underground after a virus wiped out 99 per cent of the human population. He is offered his freedom if he goes back in time to get a sample of the virus. Along the way, he meets Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt) at a mental hospital. Goines is a crazy anti-consumerist and animal rights activist. He also meets and eventually kidnaps Kathryn Railly (Madeleine Stowe), his psychiatrist at the mental hospital.

I really love science fiction and I’ve lamented the fact that I haven’t watched much of it over the course of this project. I particularly love post-apocalyptic science fiction. I like the examination of humanity. I think our existence is a very fragile thing, and that we must be able to retain our humanity, even in the face of destruction. I’ve argued with people on that point and I’ve been called an idealist because of this belief. But, I think it’s important to be a good person, even if nobody else is around to see it (as in, nobody exists to see it). I argued this point after watching The Road, which was my favourite movie of 2009. In 12 Monkeys, humanity is retained to some extent, but it is implied that the government has taken on a totalitarian tone.

I’ve actually written some over the course of my life, including an entire novella. I’m sure I still have it somewhere. I wrote it when I was 16 so it isn’t anything great, but the idea is halfway decent. It served as a commentary of extremist political beliefs. If I were to ever rewrite it, I’d change some aspects of the plot to further develop that theme.

Twelve Monkeys is also a commentary on political extremism, but it also looks at the impact of memory on the human mind. As we all know, memory isn’t exactly a reliable thing. I really loved the movie. It did drag on at times, and a good ten or fifteen minutes could have been cut, but it was excellent. Unlike many other science fiction movies, this one doesn’t rely on faux-scientific explanations. James goes back in time, presumably using a technology that hasn’t been discovered yet in our “modern” world. It’s not important HOW it happens, just that it happens. I enjoy both approaches, and I think it just depends on what works for a particular movie.

One thing I can’t decide is whether I liked Pitt’s performance or not. He got nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the Oscars and won a Golden Globe for the performance. Something about his performance irked me, though. I cringed every time he was on screen. I guess it just seemed exaggerated and fake to me. But I also understand that I don’t particularly like Pitt. What does everyone think of his performance in this movie? Did they like it or did they dislike it?

I’m thinking of watching Philadelphia tomorrow. I almost watched it tonight, but I was in more of a science fiction mood. Should I watch it tomorrow?

Pulp Fiction, 1994, USA

Recommended by: Jenn

I like Quentin Tarantino. He seems like an interesting guy, and I’ve enjoyed every movie of his that I’ve seen. I like that he has his own style, and divides his films into “chapters”. It makes for a different sort of viewing experience. Since I was familiar with Tarantino’s work, I was expecting more of the same with Pulp Fiction. And that is what I got, even down to the typical Tarantino foot shot/discussion/worshipping. He makes the fact that he has a foot fetish extraordinarily obvious with every movie he makes.

Tarantino divides this film into several different “chapters”, which are placed out of chronological order. Each chapter focuses on a different character. The film has an ensemble cast that includes John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Willis, Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames, Tim Roth and Rosanna Arquette.

Samuel L. Jackson, and to a lesser extent, John Travolta, own this movie. They’re partners, and they work for gangster boss Marsellus Wallace (Rhames). Jackson had some of the best lines in the film. Seeing this film opened up a world of pop culture references that I’d never understood. The most obvious being the famous line from this scene (warning: not safe for work!). The line, and a photo of Jackson from the movie has been made into an image that is posted on forums whenever someone is not making sense, or spelling poorly. I used to post on Rotten Tomatoes, and since it’s a movie site, I’d see the image quite often. I never understood it until tonight.

Honestly, I don’t know why I never saw this movie sooner.  For years, people had been telling me to see it, but I never did. I’m sure it has been on TV a number of times, but I dislike watching edited versions of movies so I never watched it. With all the swearing, violence and drug use, I’d imagine that an edited for TV version would be somewhere around six minutes in length. I guess it was one of those movies I needed a real incentive to watch. It’s a real pop culture movie. It has been endlessly discussed. For example: what was in the briefcase? I’d heard about this mysterious briefcase before, but while I watched the movie, I found that I didn’t care about its contents. I was more interested in listening to the excellent dialogue. The briefcase is what is known as a “MacGuffin”, an object that is used solely to move the plot forward. It never mattered what was inside. I’m never going to lose sleep trying to figure it out.

This film was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, and Thurman, Travolta and Jackson were all nominated for Oscars. It won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, which it deserved. Tarantino is a brilliant writer, and he really has a gift for dialogue. I’ve found in my own writing that it is often difficult for me to write dialogue. I find that many of my characters sound the same, even if they’re vastly different in personality. But Tarantino writes witty, smart dialogue, and makes all of his characters sound unique. It’s a lot harder than it sounds. I’m looking forward to his next project, whatever that ends up being.