Looper (2012)

Since where I currently reside the movies are usually dubbed, if I want to see something on big screen I normally have to get on the train and travel 15-30 minutes to a nearby city that is bilingual (so we have a subtitle instead, a double one). But also since the price of the train + of the ticket it's getting a bit too high for a movie, I usually avoid doing like this, limiting myself on the Ro visits to take my dose, or at the seldom cases when the local cinemas hava a VO (original version) screening. Actually, until yesterday I only went out of the city once for this, last year for "Adjustment Bureau", and this motivated mostly by the group factor + my own fixation on P. K. Dick. Since the result was lame = the worst PKD adapted movie that I've ever seen .. and since I'm anything but in a movie seeing mood these days .. I've initially abandoned the ideas I've got when I've noticed "Looper" in English in the region cinemas schedule at the beginning of the week. So I have no idea what got into me last evening (maybe Emily Blunt, again, as subconscious reason :P). The thing is that in the end I've got alone on the train, after I rapidly Google-walked to see where is the "guilty" tempting cinema, hoping that 20 minutes are enough to find it after dawn in a 700m perimeter from the train station. I've got there (actually a bit early), I've bought the ticket, I've seen the movie. And it was worth it.

I started with a long intro hoping that I'll get an idea about how to actually write about the movie. Well, I didn't get it yet. So, I'll start with the trailer and the first three minutes. In the trailer you have something like .. in the future the time machine has been invented. The time machine is used by the mob to send people back in time and get them killed. The context sounds stupid. Why the hell bother to send somebody back to be "terminated" instead of doing that on place. And from here starts an entire series of some apparent plot holes in the movie logic (if you look on IMDb I guess more than half the threads are "plothole related"). To solve the one stated above I'll refer as I was saying to the first three minutes, which is a minor spoiler. I can't explain why is a minor one because it'll make it grow :) In the first three minutes, Joe - "a looper" - one of the assassins used by the mob in the past explains you the context in a very concise way - in the future the people are sort of tagged, making highly unrecommended to be killed there. Therefore, for a clean procedure, without traces, you use the time machine. It's so concise that is not very convincing actually. And this is one of the problems of the movie - the lack of details and in the same time probably being still too dense. For instance the three minutes above might generate a "but, but ..." but you don't get to finish it and answer your question (more details on it later) and you're already at the next one. So, if you're either sufficiently relaxed not to ask yourself anything, or you're capable to accept what's given as it's given and leave everything else for later, or you're thinking fast enough to answer everything on spot :), in any of these cases the experience you get is one which unfortunately doesn't repeat very often in what's out in cinemas today. The way the subject develops is so beautifully built that I really don't want to spoil anything, but absolutely anything from what you'll get. Let's just say that Joe's life, who meets his 30 years older self (stuff that you get from the trailer), has a very complex evolution in a very short interval. Why Joe has to meet exactly Joe, why Joe can't get rid of Joe, and other stuff related with Joe you'll get from the movie .. or you'll have to explain them by yourself :)

At the half way break (around here you have something like this which is around 5-10 minutes long .. reason why I had to run to get the comeback train), the main part, "the whole catch", or however you want to call it, it was just about to be introduced. That makes me come back to what I was saying before - in the sense that information with a high degree of novelty for the current state of the subject is introduced relatively often (that's why I'm saying that the subject is built really nice - you don't have a chance to see the ending to soon since you simply don't have "the building blocks"). But this brain bombing with new story elements gets a bit hard to digest sometimes. I'll continue on the first three minutes as example ... "but, but ..." from above = " but how the hell is different eliminating a guy by a "poof" and he's gone from a bullet in the head and after the "poof" and he's gone " (one "but" from many possible). For stuff like this you have to build your own answer by yourself, the cool part being that the movie is sufficiently vague to leave you space to do it in a more or less limited way, but you can do it = " well... the people in the future have an implant that reports the stop of the brain activity and only that (scalability issue, we don't want to overload the servers with useless periodic reports); with "poof" and he's gone, the implant is also gone and no report is generated = nobody knows that the guy was "poof"-sent back ". This was an easy one :), others are more complicated.

The directing and the original script belong to Rian Johnson. A guy who seems quite appreciated for what he has managed to do up to now - "Brick" and "Brothers Bloom" which I didn't see but I assume were quite "indie". Because you can feel this also in "Looper", the first movie I guess made by this guy who has a substantially higher budget. But I liked that. Maybe it would have been more .. effective to have somebody like Nolan directing, or Zack Snyder thinking at "Sucker Punch", with a more Hollywoodish result. But the simplicity of "Looper" in the first part = without abusing the camera or the FX seems to make it actually more solid, or otherwise said you can't complain that the movie is in any way superficial by hiding the story behind eye-candy stuff, although .. "I'm looping" :) : maybe it would have been more effective, but ... Lots of "but" in this movie. Guess what .. all the lack of visual augmentation from the first part prepares something .. something that starts with a scene whose power is amplified at maximum exactly because up to that point you didn't have any camera effect at the same level .. a scene involving a scream and a safe (one from a locker room not one in the floor, not to confuse somebody seeing it). And after this, we seem to have a different movie visually (it doesn't exaggerate, but something changes). The sound though wasn't that impressive. It's a family work, the composer being the director's brother (if I'm not terribly wrong). It's ok, especially as originality - you get a lot of ambient sound integrated in the soundtrack, broken stuff, phone rings, etc. I would even risk predicting a nominee on sound mixing due to this. Unfortunately though you don't have a theme to stay with you .. as in "Time" by Zimmer from "Inception". Well, since I've dissected the technical part, let me end it with the make-up - and more exactly Joseph-Gordon Levitt transformed in a younger Bruce Willis. Surprisingly, although usually I'm annoyed by the visible fake in such situations, here it actually nails it (despite my deepest concern after seeing the trailer). The reason is probably that Levitt handles his role in a brilliant fashion. The make-up is just half, the other half is done through verbal cadence and even some facial ticks of Willis copied extremely well by the younger version.

To end this, "I'm looping again" to the main issue :) .. The holes in the script, "plotholes" (or "loopholes" :) to get closer to the subject) is a characteristic that I don't think it can be completely avoided by any production dealing with time travel, parallel universes or lucid dreaming. That's why probably also the number of good movies following one of this directions is not very large. And a good one I guess can be defined as either one that succeeds in closing an acceptable amount of holes, either one advancing in such manner that you don't even get to notice the holes. What "Looper" succeeds is to solve in an original, elegant and simple fashion the grandfather paradox, despite other "holes" that appear beside that, but that is one of the main problems in a subject like this. In case it's not clear what I'm talking about, it's the classic paradox in which you return in time, you kill your grandfather, therefore you cannot exist and return in time and do that. Primo, the context in "Looper" cuts this from the start = the idea about the ones sent back is to dissappear as soon as they got there ... otherwise you're messing with the time :). Secundo, when the part before doesn't end up as planned and gets to what we have in the movie .. well .. again it depends on you to put the pieces right in the puzzle, and to see that there is a sequence of "time flow" that makes sense, this of course in case what's on the screen is not convincing enough ;)

PS: And if connecting the pieces gets too complicated :) and with lots of elements of your own .. think ;) : you just got close to a "Looper 2" script

Rating: 5 out of 5

JSA (2000)

Since for some time I don't really manage to get to see something better than a certain level, I've told myself to have a look again into the East .. although even the last experience from the cinema there ("The Mission") wasn't really something to remember. I still can say that either I'm lacking the material or the choice inspiration (amplified by the rate of 1 movie/week) ... or I started being too demanding. Anyway, even if "JSA" is (for me at least) again at the limit, it's a higher limit than the last one ...

Let's start with a bit of history: JSA, or in more detail Joint Security Area, is a militarized perimeter of several square kilometers at the border between North and South Korea, established in 1953 when the truce was signed and used for negotiations, etc since then. A more "exotic" characteristic to say so, is that the respective area maintains the marked split line between North and South, which in server point is just a slab in the ground, along with the strict "do not cross" interdiction ensured by guards from both sides. For more details about the location topography I recommend a Google Search. About the current movie, the main part of the action takes place near a bridge (having the split line in the middle). One evening, both sides are put in alert due to an incident between the two guarding posts. The outcome: two deaths + one survivor heart in the shoulder in the North Korean premise and a South Korean shot in the foot who barely manages to cross the border line covered by the rain of bullets exchanged between squads summoned at the place by both sides. To solve the incident a team of two officers from NNSC (Neutral Nations Supervisory Comission) is formed, NNSC being an entity created along JSA and approved by both parties for arbitrating situations, and currently being formed from Swiss and Swedish personnel. The main investigator of the two officers is a woman of Korean descent from her father's side, born in Geneva. She receives the depositions from both sides with a silent suggestion to solve the situation fast and without complications even if the result of the inquiry won't offer any answer. The official version of the southern soldier is that he was kidnapped and he killed the two when escaping. The only survivor of the northern guarding post is that the southern enemy just came in randomly unloading his gun in everybody there. Making a reference to an Asian classic, both versions are presented in a flashback style a la "Rashomon", followed by the real version .. which of course I'll leave to be seen ...

... Not though without a (sort of ) major spoiler :P, since after all the situation becomes quite clear pretty fast, and the movie itself doesn't do too much to hide stuff from the ending. What we have here is pretty close to the story from "Joyeux Noel", or what happened during World War I at the 1914 Christmas time. No to take the spoiler too far, and risking to get a bit cryptic in the following I won't say what happened then, although is neither very hard to guess nor to find out exactly. The difference in "JSA" is that given the much smaller scale of the story, and the ending that you get at the beginning of the movie, the result is to put it in one word: tragic. Up to the point when from the moment (as said not very advanced) when everything becomes relatively clear about the story, and the movie gets a bit hard to watch. You know where it's going, and the slow way to advance to that point only amplifies the drama. What can I say is that "the end of story" is so well done that the drama is kept, but fortunately for the viewer's psychic :) it's not delivered as harsh as you might tend to expect up to that point. I guess I forgot to mention that "JSA" is among the first movies of Chan-wook Park, more known (and awarded at Cannes) for "Oldboy". And since it seems that an excellent directing compensates more an acting not so good here and there, than the reverse from last time ...

Rating: 4 out of 5 ( .. but still at the bottom limit :) although this time I'm more subjective = not really in the mood for heavy dramas at the moment )

Since again the trailers from that side of the world are a disaster (and you ask yourself how come the movies there are not that appealing), I had to find a sort of alternative - in the current case a clip apparently included in the extended DVD release .. anyway much closer to "the movie feeling":

Page Eight (2011)

This week I have as subject again a made for TV movie, picked while looking over the long Emmy nominations due to an apparently interesting story. Maybe I should've taken a look also at the actual nominations it has (= nothing major), or at least at the number, because "Page Eight" is clearly not a masterpiece.

The movie is a British production, taking place during one week from the life of a high-ranking employee of MI5 (= the UK internal security service). The guy receives a file to analyze from the service director, who is also his best friend. The file seems to have a compromising information somewhere at the bottom of page eight (that's where the title comes from). Information which involves Downing Street 10 (= the prime minister) and which is "leaked" in the inner circle of MI5 and a few other high-ranking officials. What follows is essentially a sort of political thriller in which some people want this circle to stay closed, and others (who in the end are reduced to the first character) are more inclined for the opposite. It may seem that I already gave a big spoiler but there is more to be seen (I actually didn't even spoil the beginning of the movie). Unfortunately we have again a director who probably wanted more than he can actually managed to do. And if the directing is after all so & so, I found the screenwriting (by the same guy) awful. Maybe it's only me, I don't know what to say ... But the typical British atmosphere seems to be pushed a bit too much to the extreme and ends up looking fake. So, to be more clear, the first part of the movie is a chain of dry sarcasm and want-to-seem-witty lines (maybe if this style wouldn't be overused they could actually be considered witty). The second part is another chain of dry melancholy and ... again want-to-seem-witty lines (although in a more moderate quantity). To draw the line, I have never heard anybody talking naturally in the way the movie characters do (not at that frequency of using the bunch of figures of speech you can hear combined with the British imperturbable calmness).

The subject, even if it has some potential and looks actually catchy at some point is solved in a rather simplistic manner in the end. I guess the best part in the movie is the cast. Unfortunately, all the weight given in a positive way by the presence of Bill Nighy as lead character, accompanied by Michael Gambon and others, is practically canceled by the dialogues lack of credibility. Well, again, maybe it's just me and the density of "out of normal" dialogue is not that high = case in which you might have a movie that you might like ...

Rating: 3 out of 5 (at the limit)
 

Alice (2009)

Last year at this time I was writing about "Tin Man", a SyFy mini-series that was quite promising and offered a bit too less, despite a pretty nice story adaptation of the Frank Baum classic. This weekend I had the "inspiration" to choose the next "masterpiece" by the same director, Nick Willing, another rehash for SyFy Channel, of another classic story - "Alice in Wonderland" by Lewis Caroll. The good part is that this time Alice of Wonderland (Caterina Scorsone) doesn't rely exclusively on the blue eyes for the role, and she actually tries to act, unlike Dorothy of Oz (Zooey Deschanel). Further than this, let's see ...

As in the case of "Tin Man" we practically have a sequel to the story, with a mature main character, who follows pretty much the same steps: she lands in the parallel story universe, finds the destination in a desolate state under a tyrannical leadership, the tyrannical leadership ("The Queen of Hearts" in this case) finds out about the "intruder", all this is followed by the run + the detailed story (something happening while running) + the final in which the throne of the story world is taken by a less evil ruler. I didn't give any spoiler, trust me (= if you were imagining something else you should definitely look for another movie). Leaving the joke apart, the detailed context is actually quite original & sufficiently interesting to deserve the time. We have all the insertions of classic characters adapted to a sort of semi-industrialized Wonderland. Add to this a bit of romance, some soap-opera, and even an attempt of an "epic fight". I won't say anything more clear than this because it is the only part that makes the movie to deserve watching. Overall I would say that the atmosphere has something from Terry Gilliam keeping the proportions (I don't know why it made me think at a mix between "Brazil" and "Brothers Grimm"). Unfortunately, the director here is not Terry Gilliam ...

There are some good scenes, but there are also a lot of examples that besides looking like "very made for TV" are obviously mediocre. You have the impression sometimes that you're watching a sort of low budget indie made by a couple of fresh cinema graduates = no polishing, only one take as good as it gets and that's all. If we consider the effects we have the same issue as in "Tin Man" = they're not looking like 2009, fortunately they're not many either. I don't know, maybe I'm too demanding for a TV production. For sure, if I spend some time looking for some long-length fantasy series I will probably find something to be worse than what we've seen here (for instance I remember "Camelot" right now which was lame as production level). On the other hand I don't have to look too far to find something clearly above this level = also at SyFy we had "The Lost Room" & "5ive Days to Midnight". Even if these didn't seem to be exactly for big screen they were certainly on a different class than what we have here. I still have to give this "Alice" credit though, comparing it with the abomination produced by Tim Burton. What we have here, as it is, is definitely more recommendable to watch compared to the chaotic disaster in that movie.

Finally, as a personal wish I have to say that I yearn for a SciFi miniseries by SyFy (not a fantasy one, since from what I see they can't really handle well the production level on these), but unfortunately it seems that "Alice" was followed by .. "Neverland" directed by the same Nick Willing ... So, maybe when the "the classic stories" will end ...

Rating: 3 out of 5 (mostly for the story, too bad for the final result)

Better than the trailer ( especially since I wasn't very positive :) ):

Safe House (2012)

"Safe House" is a sort of rehashed Bourne. That actually comes as a first recommendation: if you didn't like the last Bourne, probably watching "Safe House" is not the best choice, if you did like it you might give it a try but don't expect anything to top it.

The movie starts well, which attenuates a bit from the stupidity of the "Safe House - No One is Safe" tagline. However, considering you've seen this on the poster, it might be still better not to expect too much. The premise of the story though is rather original. Somewhere in South Africa, in a CIA safe house, we have an inexperienced agent (Ryan Reynolds) as the "host", or better said location administrator. Being bored to death and hoping for a promotion, in the spirit of the saying "be careful what you wish for", the guy gets one day the visit of an operative crew escorting a "guest". Which guest (Denzel Washington) is a former agent, went rogue for the last 10 years, and who apparently surrendered to the U.S. Consulate. I won't spoil all the beginning. To put it shortly, he seems to be followed by a whole bunch of very aggressive people who want something from him. In the end the movie is sort of like a continuous run .. a la Bourne .. but this comparison can stop somewhere at two thirds, if not before ...

The movie maintains a rhythm and an event flow built to be sufficiently "catchy" in the first part, but in the end ... 1. Light spoiler that grows up as you watch the movie: for a rather long period you don't really get to know who is the actual "bad guy", aspect that's supported by the standard technique of "subtle" suggestions .. so "subtle" that becomes clear what "surprise" will you get at the end. 2. The movie has a sort of impulse for cliche, but it manages to keep it contained for a while .. but not until the end, therefore making the final besides extremely predictable also quite boring. 3. The violence seemed to me a bit too exaggerated, although I normally don't have any issue with such things, and it's again especially towards the end of the movie .. to be honest I wonder if the director didn't take a holiday for a while making only sort of 1/2 of its job. To give also some good feedback I have to admit that the actors are up to their name indeed. Another thing to mention are some nice exterior shots giving you the feeling that South Africa is indeed the location where the action takes place. More than this .. it's ok as an average thriller to see before getting to bed when you don't have other better options .. it's a pity considering the beginning which was promising ...

Rating: 3 out of 5