This is one of those movies that I really wanted to see on the big screen, but alas, circumstances prevented me from doing so. It wasn’t helpful that my local cinema didn’t see fit to actually have it running for very long either. Which is a shame, as I have a feeling it was a similar story up and down the land, and a film like this deserves much better.
Time travel movies often have a nasty brain ache effect, with over complicated stories and plot holes so massive that one could quite easily fit an entire solar system through them. The really odd thing about Looper though, is that it does introduce both brain ache and plot holes, but you don’t really care.
Why? Because the story itself is brilliant. The acting is well above par. The script is well written. It’s very well paced. And there is a key plot point that is hidden so well from the trailers, it adds another dynamic to the whole piece that is so well implemented, you are left to forgive the complexity of time travel and the holes in the story, you are left asking serious questions of yourself.
The premise sold to the audience in the trailer is that this is going to be a typical trace the contact from the future, team up and take on the bad guys type story, formulaic and seen before in many different guises. What it actually delivers is a journey of emotions. At first you let it take you on the formulaic journey, waiting for that moment for Bruce Willis to appear for the story to actually start. You soon realise that there is something much more to this piece.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s stature is growing, and it is he that takes centre stage in this movie, not Bruce Willis. The trailer actually sets things up quite well, it gives you the brief of what is happening. The viewer is presented with a world in decline, the year is 2044 and time travel, well, let’s allow Joseph Gordon-Levitt to tell us:
“Time travel has not yet been invented. But thirty years from now, it will have been. It will be instantly outlawed, used only in secret by only the largest criminal organizations. It’s nearly impossible to dispose of a body in the future… I’m told. Tagging techniques, whatnot. So when these criminal organizations in the future need someone gone, they use specialized assassins in our present called “Loopers.” And so, my employers in the future nab the target, they zap them back to me – their Looper. He appears, hands tied and head sacked, and I do the necessaries. Collect my silver. So the target has vanished from the future, and I’ve just disposed of a body that technically does not exist. Clean.”
And there you have it, the plot as it is presented. These ‘Loopers’ are named so for a reason, because of the illegal nature of Time Travel in the future, the employers from 2074 remove any trace of their involvement with the Loopers in the past that they close the loops. The way they do this is to send the older version of the Looper back in time to be taken out by their younger selves, it is what is referred to in the movie as ‘Closing your loop’. Should the Looper fail to close their loop when ordered to, all manner of nastiness occurs to ensure that the loop is forced close. This is demonstrated quite horrifically in the first third. It’s from this moment on that you realise that this is a serious film, it is going to ask you questions, you begin to ask yourself which side of the fence would you sit? And just as you relax and get your head around that question, much darker and sinister questions arise. For the good of the future, what would you sacrifice of yourself in the past?
It’s at this point the movie introduces the twist, a man of the future called the Rainmaker, a character shrouded in almost as much mystery as Kaiser Soze. This Rainmaker rules the roost in the future, a man who out of nowhere has taken over everything and is closing all of the loops. Joe (the young version) hears of this before he is presented with his next job, his very own loop closure. Bruce Willis appears but is not tied up and is not wearing a hood, the struggle results in Bruce Willis getting away and the chase begins, not only for young Joe to chase down his older self, but also the mob of the present chasing both Joe of the present and Joe of the future.
The life of older Joe is presented in flashbacks, we learn that future Joe became bad, until he met a woman who he fell in love with. From this moment he changed and they built a life together, he felt complete. That is until the Rainmaker’s goons arrive and kill his future love and take him prisoner to transport back in time to close the loop. At this point we learn the future is in danger, this Rainmaker is bad news and life is short of laughs. The future is scared. No-one knows who the Rainmaker is, or where he came from, that is until a minor clue falls into the hands of Bruce Willis.
There are three possible suspects for this Rainmaker of the future, and older Joe wants to take him out in the hope that the future would be restored and his wife will be saved, as well as life for everyone else. So, a noble cause you’d think right? Until you realise that the three suspect, in young Joe’s timeline, are just kids. And their innocence, when presented to you, the audience, is in full display. The decisions taken on from here are truly disturbing, and watching how things unfold is both captivating and incredibly uneasy. That question comes up again, to save the future, what would you sacrifice of yourself in the past? You not only watch these events happen, but it is so well done that you begin to ask yourself, what would you do? We find out why The Rainmaker is closing the loops, and you honestly, as you watch things unfold, do not know who to side with. It’s full of twists and turns, not only in story, but of ones own emotional turmoil trying to figure out what you would do yourself in this situation, all the way to the end. The climax of this movie in itself provides closure, but also questions. Was there another way? You play the movie back in your head several times and always come to the same conclusion, no. Or maybe…. It’s infuriating, but brilliant at the same time!
This is a sci-fi movie for grown ups, people who like to be challenged, and in some cases, perhaps changed by what they experience. This movie provides so many talking points, and I’ve tried to not spoil what is the key to the whole thing, because I want you to decide for yourself without me tainting it for you. If you didn’t catch this at the cinema, and are thinking about watching it now, stop thinking, start doing. This gets a solid 9 out of 10 from me.
It has been a long break for contributing to the site due to Christmas and some side projects. All that aside I have still been watching a lot of movies!
Here is a quick round up of what I have been watching and my brief thoughts:
I hadn’t really planned on watching this but found myself home alone and wanting to watch and Action Movie and had a quick scan on the ‘On Demand’ section on my Sky HD box and there is was. ‘Dredd’ is the latest re-visioning of the 2012AD comics character Judge Dredd, the previous film was a slightly more light hearted affair staring Sylvester Stallone. The 2012 version Stars Karl Urban as our lead and Olivia Thrilby as his new psychic partner. It is a fast paced violent affair which it doesn’t apologies for and nor should it. It is a very tightly put together action film which doesn’t hang around too long and ticks all the comic book fan boxes. My only issue with it is the casting of Karl Urban who really isn’t that physically intimidating.
I always look forward to new Tarantino films, no one puts all the pieces together with as much style and liberal amounts of cool like he does. Jango delivers everything you would expect from a QT movie, Violence, threat of violence, great dialogue and an amazing sound track. The familiarity with his product may be why I didn’t like it as much as I hoped I would. It is similar to my reaction to the iPhone 5 it looks like an iPhone and it does everything my old one did which I liked but where is the innovation?? One of my favourite QT films was Jackie Brown which was a step away from the norm and shooting someone else’s story. I can’t help feeling he should start looking for a writing partner or another great book for his next project. Jango is still leaps and bounds above a lot of the trash that gets released these days.
Ben Affleck just gets better and better in my opinion. He has had a few miss steps as and actor but I think he has potential to one of the truly great American directors and reminds me a great deal of Clint Eastwood. Argo is a masterpiece in story telling, the cast is strong but none of the actors over cook their parts allowing the story which is a great one to play out on screen. I don’t want to spoil the film to much so I will keep this short, just go and see it.
Zero Dark Thirty
Dogged by controversy since its announcement Zero Dark Thirty (ZDT) is Kathryn Bigelow’s latest film and her second modern day war film. The film follows one female CIA operatives crusade to locate and capture or kill Usama Bin Laden (UBL as he is referred to in the film). The controversy stems from two main issues; 1. It hasn’t been long since the events took place, 2. The first third of the film features scenes of graphic torture and doesn’t apologies for it or really suggest that is was wrong. The torture as with most elements in a Kathryn Bigelow film is portrayed in as an authentic manner as possible, what I mean by this is it would have been out of place if the script had featured troops or the CIA questioning the techniques they were using.
I believe I have it right when I say that the cartoon before the main feature used to be a cinematic staple. Why, I just about remember seeing a film as a child that had a short before it, although I must have been very young. Looking back, I think it was the re-release of The Jungle Book. I can’t have seen many shorts (I’d seen enough to get the joke at the start of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, anyhow), before they did away with such entertaining nonsense. I remember being vaguely sad when I realised it didn’t seem to happen any more.
Disney’s Wreck it Ralph may have come out in the US and other territories last year, but it launches in the UK on February 8th. And on that date, when lucky cinema-goers settle into their seats, fistfuls of popcorn in hand, their feet adhering to the already sticky floors, they will be treated to the sight of Disney’s short film Paperman before the main feature, where it should be.
Showing a chance encounter between a man and a woman on a commute, Paperman eschews dialogue, all colour, except for greys, whites, blacks, and reds, and makes a central feature of its music. Featuring subtle CGI that coalesces delicately with the kind of charming, traditional animation with which Disney made its name, and nurtured the imagination of many generations of children. If this doesn’t brighten your day and put a spring in your step, then I’m afraid you’re a lost cause. For all the rest of us, hopefully we’ll have the pleasure of seeing it on the big screen, and rejoice in Disney-Pixar’s quest to revive the cinematic short before the main feature. I’m super-psyched about Wreck-It Ralph, too.
Vive la revolution!
How do you follow up one of the defining television series over the past 20 years? Fortunately for us lesser beings, it’s not a dilemma we’ll ever have to face. David Chase, on the other hand, does. Five years after the televisual phenomenon that was The Sopranos, Chase is about to release his latest opus: Not Fade Away.
Set in the 1960s, and titled after a Rolling Stones song, it already sounds painfully hip. It would be understandable if well-trodden path of photogenic young cast, themes of coming of age, music and love all alongside added trendiness, make you want to barf in your rucksack.
But, with this being David Chase, the man who brought us the conflicted, flawed, but scarily relatable Tony Soprano and his brood, you’d like to think you can trust him to bring us some memorable characters. Partly autobiographical, I am personally hoping it can echo Dazed and Confused, and bring us believable teens and that same sense of nostalgia for a time I never lived that Dazed and American Graffiti engendered.
The Sopranos was more than a TV series about gangsters, using a violent criminal subculture as a prism through which to view society was a masterstroke. Can Chase do it again?
Sadly, early buzz coming out of the film festivals has been mixed, but if one of the GODS OF TELEVISION can’t benefit from the doubt, then I don’t know who can. Check out the trailer below.
This is the third and final part of RBTV’s exclusive interview with Tony Guyan, Production Manager on the classic children’s series ‘The Box of Delights’.
In this part, Tony talks about pyrotechnics at Eastnor Castle, answers some questions from fans of the show, and we get to ask him whether it was actually a dream or not……
Enjoy and Happy Christmas from all at RBTV!
The second part of our interview with the 1984 Box of Delights series Production Manager Tony Guyan.
Here Tony talks about locations including steam trains and stations, ‘Tatchester’ Cathedral, ‘Seekings’ House as well as cast members Robert Stephens, Patrick Troughton and Devin Stansfield. Not to mention some Dreft hurling!
This is our first podcast, and the first in a series of exclusive interviews with Tony Guyan, Production Manager of the classic 1984 BBC children’s series The Box of Delights.
Pull your chair closer to the fire, help yourself to a warm mince pie and maybe a glass of something and listen as Tony serves up anecdotes on locations, cast and crew, giving a nostalgic and unique insight into what it was like to be part of a bit of TV magic.
Please do let us know what you think and Happy Christmas from RBTV!
Quentin Tarantino has a lot to answer for. In his wake has come a slew of verbose, pop-culture referencing crime flicks, trash-aesthetic exploitations films, and a dystopian cornucopia of film student imitators. Seven Psychopaths, writer-director Martin McDonagh’s second film, will inevitably be grouped with said postmodern post-Tarantino crime movies, but it deserves more than that.
Describing the film’s plot is something of an exercise in futility, but here goes: struggling screenwriter Marty (Colin Farrell) reluctantly accepts input on his abortive screenplay, Seven Psychopaths, from his seemingly-unhinged dognapping friend, Billy (Sam Rockwell). Throw into the mix Christopher Walken’s character, Hans, as Billy’s partner-in-crime, and psychotic gangster Charlie (Woody Harrelson), a plan that gradually unravels, and a whole lot of violence, and you have a difficult plot to summarise.
The dark sense of humour McDonagh exhibited with In Bruges is evident throughout here, with violent punchlines to profane jokes. Like Tarantino’s movies, McDonagh’s films seem to inhabit a similar but different world to ours, that owes as much influence to the movies as it does to real life. Just like most films about writers, this film is ultimately about the process of writing, as Colin Farrell’s character struggles with writer’s block, and writer’s boozing. With moments that blur the line between Marty’s screenplay and the reality of the film itself, some might find the narrative too confusing or obscure for their tastes, but ultimately the film’s internal logic holds true.
Colin Farrell is as effective as he was in In Bruges, showing the same instinctive feel for McDonagh’s dialogue, and comic acting that often mark out his best performances. The rest of the cast are uniformly excellent, never better exemplified than in Woody Harrelson and Christopher Walken’s elliptical, violence-free Western-style standoff in a hospital waiting room. However, the film itself is stolen right out from under the noses of everyone else by Sam Rockwell. His gleeful, eccentric performance gives the film its energy, and continues his fine career.
This film is violent. At times, distractingly so, with its graphic nature potentially unsettling even those who are familiar with his prior work. Catholic themes of crime and punishment pervade throughout, also something McDonagh fans will be well-versed in, but there is a streak of violence against women that could potentially leave a nasty taste in the mouth. Although women are shown perpetrating violence themselves, and violence against women is repeatedly condemned by characters, actions speak louder than words. Do I think Martin McDonagh is sexist? No. Did I find some moments troubling? Yes. But I think that is ultimately the point with this story, slight as it is. Your tolerance for violence and appreciation of film references will be key to your overall enjoyment of the film, and it is stimulating to see such a unique voice able to get his work released with some A-list stars. See it, you need to have an opinion on this.
Although Ashton Kutcher may look the part in this picture I have my reservations about his acting ability. Don’t get me wrong I think Ashton Kutcher is good in comedy roles, but this is a different kettle of fish. Here he as to portray a popular figure known all around the world, for some people I don’t think it is a stretch to say they saw him as some sort of technological messiah. The script is in safe hands with Aaron Sorkin who has a proven track record in dealing with stories of modern technological events with his work on The Social Network. In a recent interview Sorkin has revealed he the film will be made of just three acts all set before Jobs is due to go and stage and reveal a new technology. An interesting concept, after reading his biography I wonder how in just three scenes they will be able to give you the whole picture of a very complicated man though?
With the forthcoming and highly anticipated spring 2013 release of ‘The Wizard of Oz’ prequel ‘Oz: The Great and the Powerful’ directed by Sam Raimi (Spider Man, The Evil Dead) it would be worth reflecting on Disney’s forgotten 1980’s predecessor ‘Return to Oz’ which was dismissed by audiences and critics alike when it was released back in 1985 but has since gained a strong cult following over the years from loyal fans of the L Frank Baum’s Oz books and of films from the 1980’s. It has since inspired the Scissor Sisters to write a song, ‘Return to Oz and numerous blogs and tributes have been written by fans all over the world. Here we look at how a film with such promise became a massive box office flop resulting in one of Hollywood’s greats Walter Murch never directing a film again and why it deserves to be considered a cult classic of the 1980’s.
The idea and for making another Oz film initially came from Murch himself in the early 1980’s who had previously won an Oscar for Best Sound Design in 1979 for Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘Apocalypse Now’. Disney owned all the rights to the Oz books at the time and despite Murch never having directed a full length feature before Disney wanted to proceed and bought into the idea of making another Oz film.
Murch’s script was adapted from Baum’s books, ‘The Marvellous Land of Oz’ 1904 and ‘Ozma of Oz’ 1907 but his own ideas were clearly shaping the story. He saw his film as ‘one side’ of Oz and as un-official sequel of the beloved ‘Wizard of Oz’ and not a direct sequel and his Oz was a very different Oz to what Disney and film audiences had originally anticipated. There were strong connotations to the original Oz film such as the yellow brick road, the ruby slippers, Dorothy’s friend such as Tik Tok (Tin man) and Scarecrow, the Emerald City. However, Murch’s story was a much darker re-interpretation of Baum’s stories. Firstly it wasn’t a musical, this film was much more sombre in tone with much more dramatic realism throughout the film. Within the first twenty minutes we see Dorothy (played by 9 year old Fairuza Balk) unable to sleep as she keeps dreaming of Oz. She is subsequently whisked off to hospital by her Aunt Em (Piper Laurie) for electric shock treatment by creepy Dr Worley to help her sleep and this was only the beginning! Once Dorothy escapes and is on her way to Oz, she finds the yellow brick road all destroyed and cannot find her friend Scarecrow who has been turned into an ornament by the evil Nome King so she sets out to find him. Making new friends on the way she encounters the nasty Wheelers who were simply petrifying for the average 8 year old at the time. Dorothy is then imprisoned by the wicked Princess Mombi who has over thirty inter-changeable heads in her castle so for young fans of the original Wizard of Oz this ‘sequel’ would probably be remembered more like a childhood horror film.
The film was marketed by Disney as a sequel and child-friendly fantasy but had been given a PG rating instead of a G. Essentially the film wasn’t suitable for very young children so for those who went to see it at the cinema and were expecting a sweet Disney fairy tale like the ‘The Wizard of Oz’ found it petrifying. Critics at the time were centering more on how sinister the story was given the age group that the film was targeting instead of focusing on the real quality of the filmmaking and screenplay so the film performed poorly at box office. Murch’s production was massively mismanaged and ended up so over budget eventually leading to bankruptcy and Disney made a massive financial loss.
Despite all the production troubles, financial woes, and criticism ‘Return to Oz’ is a hugely entertaining film for those who like their fairy tales a bit more spooky and should be seen as a stand alone film and not a direct sequel to ‘The Wizard of Oz’. The stop motion effects are excellent and deserved far more recognition at the time of release. It is hauntingly imaginative full of quirky characters, such as Pumpkinhead, Tik Tok, Bellina (the talking chicken) and Scarecrow who all have a wonderful friendship with Dorothy. It is full of energy and creativity with a beautiful melancholic score composed by Dave Shire. The costumes, the sets, and lighting also attributed to making this a compelling and irresistible fantasy. Along with other 80’s classics such as ‘Dark Crystal and ‘The Never-ending Story’, Return to Oz’ is highly recommended deserves the 80’s cult classic following which it has gained amongst older children and adults over the past twenty seven years.