Review - Oz The Great and Powerful

I did not enjoy this Oz prequel.

When I first saw the trailer for this movie, I was fairly hyped up. The colors and visuals looked outstanding, the idea for the story, while done to death, seemed like it would be a faithful and consistent prequel to the 1939 classic, while providing us a fun experience despite knowing what the ultimate fate of Oz is going to be going into the cinema.

But, while viewing the film tonight (yes I know it's already been out for like 3 weeks; been busy), I realized there's something else I didn't notice before (and probably should have before I chose to watch it). This is a G rated film, which means it is meant for kids. So I cannot really assess this film the same way I normally do with other adult-oriented films...or can I?

<Spoilers>

Sam Raimi, 1939 and Elphaba

The director of this film is Sam Raimi, who also directed the earlier Spiderman trilogy (not the current one). He also managed to drag along James Franco which, in my opinion, was a fairly good casting choice as the deceptive charmer that is Oscar Diggs. I find that Raimi's sense of humor has been hit and miss when it comes to blockbusters, and in this film he's wisely toned it down. If he didn't I would have really hated this film.

Now the reason I only partly hate this film is because there is content in this film which pays respect to its most famous predecessor, The 1939 Wizard of Oz. I imagine most children would never have had the privilege to be introduced this cinematic classic, except maybe occasionally hear someone sing "somewhere over the rainbow" at <Country>'s Got Talent, which is perhaps the most famous song from that film, and I dare say one of the most important songs to usher in 4 decades of musicals and films which followed its initial release.

When Oscar actually arrives in the land of Oz, his hot-air balloon does briefly fly over a rainbow, which I'm hoping is a subtle wink to the adult audience, who at least a percentage would've taken a glance of the 1939 film this film precedes and understood the reference. There are also a few gentle references littered throughout the movie of the origin of the tin man, the scarecrows and the cowardly lion (and apparently even Dorothy's mum makes a cameo).

Unfortunately, this origin story of Oz and the witches does undo some recent efforts in expanding the story and world of Oz, specifically the musical Wicked. If you have watched this musical you would have experienced a very different back story to the witches in Oz as well as the character of Oz himself. There is no Elphaba in this origin story, yet there is a Glinda, and based on this story Glinda knew Oz before he established himself as the Wizard, as opposed to having met Oz post-ordination.

Keeping in mind that there are dozens more adaptations of Wizard of Oz, including prequels, sequels, midquels and spin-offs, I guess I can't be too harsh when this doesn't fit nicely with the other two aforementioned productions. But it means that I need to throw away any prior knowledge of Oz and its inhabitants if I am to embrace the world this film introduces, which is hard when they do reference at least one other film related to this setting.

At least they're not abandoning this film to a dead-end?

3 D's: Distraction, Dizzying and Disappointment

I've never really been sold that movies should be filmed with stereoscopy in mind, which from the opening sequence I could already tell they were planning to reward the parents who paid the extra $3 to go see this in 3D. I did not see this in 3D, and I never do the first time I watch a film (unless it's a big group of friends and I'm not wearing my review hat). The last 3D film I watched was Wreck-It Ralph and surprise, the 3D added nothing to my experience of the film (it was a good film nonetheless).

When watching the 'visual' sequences in 2D, especially the hurricane into Oz, it was really hard to digest because of the overt clarity of each frame, which actually undermines the visually entrancing world the programmers worked hard in. Our brains can process 24 frames per second but not 24 photos per second. Evidently this wasn't an issue in the 3D version, but in 2D I found myself looking away from time to time to give my eyes a break from the overwhelming sharpness and surprisingly intense movement. The camera is just panning around the scenery but when those purple butterflies scatter on the screen it's more like having a thousand butterflies flying in front of my face pointing led lights at me.

I wouldn't say this causes major problems to following the story, because during the drama and dialogue scenes it's filmed normally. It is however disappointing because if we cut out those sequences only made for kids to enjoy in 3D, the film could be 30 minutes shorter.

You can also tell that they've designed the characters with visual association in mind. Why do the witches have elemental powers? Theodora with Fire, Evanora with Lightning and Glinda with Water I presume (since she can create mist, wind and bubbles). Are they like Pokemon? Then Evanora should be weak against Glinda, but then again she is in an evolved form so I guess she has a level advantage.

This decision to give each witch unique powers does not contribute much to the story. It is strictly a way to manipulate our emotions about each witch to more firmly associate them with a moral faction. Fire and Lightning are 'bad' powers, while Fog and Bubble are 'good' powers. Are they tied to the true nature of that person? Do the witches have to select their element when they first start training like you pick Bulbasaur, Squirtle or Charmander before leaving Pellet Town?

"You don't know much about witches do you?" ~Evanora

I'm probably reading into this a bit too much but drinking all that apple juice is making me want to crossover some of my childhood shows.

The 'almost' redemptive side characters

While I did say James Franco was a good casting choice for Oscar, I didn't like this portrayal of the character. His journey from despicable con man to good-natured con man was very clunky and even at the end when he decides saves Oz, it feels like his change of heart happened off screen. That scene with the China girl it seems like he already changed his mind about leaving even before tucking her into bed. So yeah, his character development is a fail in my books.

The witches were pretty one-dimensional. The bad witches you could tell immediately that they were bad, Glinda you could tell immediately that she were good.

The things I did like in this film were the two small guys: the winged monkey Finley and the China girl. Their character developments were had some scissor cutting and gluing, but Finley got a few chuckles out of me here and there (especially the banana joke), and the China girl did move me a bit when it was time for some drama.

Unfortunately, these moments were stripped of their power on us the audience too quickly. After the touching scene where the China girl gets fixed by Oscar while grieving the loss of her family, the next scene is the "annoying kids wants to follow along" cliche, which really takes you out of the film, almost like Sam Raimi said "okay, we can't make this movie too serious or the kids will get uncomfortable". I think there were a total of 4 scenes that had real emotions and stakes, but never lasted more than 1 minute each.

Well at least I did like the side characters. By the way, Finley to Oscar is eerily like Donkey to Shrek. Another theft from Dreamworks?

Now for the REAL hate

I haven't addressed the two biggest problems I had with this film, so lets talk about that for a bit.

Firstly, the lesson taught to kids is really messed up. While escaping the flying baboons in the middle of the movie, Oscar and Glinda fly in bubbles towards the 'safer' part of Oz, whereby they must pass through a wall which only those noble and good-natured will be able to pass through. That's basically God in the form of a bubble, and along with the ending of this movie, suggests that you are born to be good, or born to be evil, and that no matter what your current actions, thoughts and motives are, you are still what your underlying nature is. It is telling kids that "some people are just born to be evil". I thought the lesson should be "it's not what you are, but what you do that defines you".

In my opinion Oscar was a selfish, narcissistic, unethical and overall despicable womeniser in the first half of the film, and if he died during that hurricane he would've died an evil man. But he redeems himself by choosing to stay and do what he can to protect the people of Oz from the wicked witches, so that at the end of the film he becomes good, through his current actions and choices. Movies for kids need more effort than for adults because they have less experience in discerning what they are fed in films. I'm not saying they're sheep that will just believe anything given to them, but certainly they are more influenced by it. So in a way, filmmakers should put more effort and thought and heart into making children's films than for adult films, and so I think there wasn't enough effort in this one.

The other big problem for me was that freaking hot air balloon. I was going to save this for the nitpicks but it was too big a blunder for me. How in God's name did that balloon not be torn to shreds in that tornado, where debris is flying at speeds no less than 80kmph if it can lift up a carnival wagon. Statistically the balloon would've only survived maybe 15 seconds before popping and leaving Oscar helpless to an inevitable drop. Maybe magic from Oz protected it but it's never explained nor justified.

This is especially annoying because once he does land on a running stream in Oz, some rocks punches a hole in his basket pretty quickly, which if it's a 19th century hot air balloon, the balloon itself is probably made of sackcloth and paper, while the Basket is made of Wicker, which is many times stronger and more resilient to impact with other solid objects, especially sharp ones. Sackcloth and paper could easily be punctured by one splinter wood travelling at dart throwing speeds. I guess someone's magic must have protected the balloon, though no idea who was controlling it.

</Spoilers>

Prestidigitation!

To my slight embarrassment I had to google this word. Oscar mentions it with grandeur at least twice in the film, and apparently it's just a fancy word for "sleight of hand". I think the marketing team pulled off a sleight of hand trick and made me go see this film.

I can see how kids would enjoy this film, but there is not much in it for me.  The occasional jokes were insufficient to save the show. Too many times I had to look away, too easily I could predict how the story unfolds. There wasn't anything majorly bad, but also nothing majorly good. It's mediocre, and if it were one of those carnival sideshows I'd probably only put in my smallest change to commend them for the effort.

To paraphrase Theodora, like Oscar himself, the film is not so great or powerful.

4 / 10.

And finally, the nitpicks

1. There was a random Asian dude among the crowd in the second act, when Oscar was trying to decide how he should respond to the hopes and expectations of the good people of Oz. You can obviously tell he's Asian and stands out in a crowd of Anglo-saxons like a sore thumb. Why even put him there if he doesn't say anything or do anything? It's just random! Must be the new Hollywood quota. Like those poor Asian S.H.I.E.L.D. agents who die within the first two minutes of The Avengers and then we see no other Asians throughout the rest of the film. I wouldn't cry racist but I would caution that if you're going to fill a race quota in your film, give them something to do, like Hikaru Sulu in Star Trek.

2. How did this tornado transport Oscar to Oz? Was it a wormhole? Is Kansas really within Tornado-transportable distance from the Land of Oz? I want to know about the geography or physics of it! Three different movies I've watched about the Land of Oz and none of it explains how the two worlds are connected!

3. Who made that prophecy about the coming Wizard of Oz? Are we going to have another prequel to explain the motivation?

4. Now it is established that when witches cry their tear burns their face and leaves scars. This is the first thing the film teaches about witches, which it basically abandons when Glinda cries during the climax of the film, tears for the same reason, but no acid-burning effect? Hmm maybe only wicked witches have acid for tears.

5. Oscar, Finley and China Girl immediately believe Glinda isn't the wicked witch because she looks pretty and she tells them an alternative backstory with no substantial proof to back up her claims.

6. Citizens in Emerald City protest to Theodora and Evanora's public execution of Glinda despite everyone believing she is the Wicked Witch who killed her own father. There were no scenes that establish citizens doubting or questioning of the original rumors.

7. The "China town" sign after picking up the China girl for the journey, another pointless Asian joke...no idea why it was funny but I guess it's as good a cultural reference pun as they could think of.

8. Robert Downey Jr would have been a much more ideal casting choice for Oscar compared to James Franco, but I guess he's too busy working on Iron Man 3, which I am hyped about!

9. Mila Kunis' make up when she turns green is worse than the ones on Elphaba in a high school production. Apart from delivering one good witch laugh the rest of her portrayal as the new wicked witch is just unconvincing.

10. There were no songs I could singalong to. There was only one song briefly sung throughout the film (by the munchkins) but it's unbearable, forgettable and I wanted them to stop as much as Oscar did.

11. So Glinda is a witch, but her father was the King of Oz, which means he was the former Wizard. Does that mean Wizards give birth to Witches now? I swear something is missing or wrong here...or did my understanding of European folklore just get mangled up?

12. Who was Glinda's mum? God Disney movies and their dysfunctional families >.<

Review - Wreck-it Ralph (2012)

Okay so a few days ago I ranted extensively about The Hobbit, so lets move onto the better and final film I saw in 2012: Wreck-It Ralph. To fully appreciate how grateful I am for this movie's existence, we need to travel back a few decade and look at other movies based on games.

Unlike the superhero genre which officially entered mainstream hollywood in the early 2000s, there was never the same level of success for games. We had stinkers like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, the Pokemon movies (except the first one), Double Dragon, The Super Mario Bros Movies, Tekken, King of Fighters etc, which while not terrible and can be kind of fun to laugh at, was way over the top and poorly adapted the game from which they were based on. Then you also have the infamous productions by Uwe Boll such as Alone in the dark, BloodRayne, Farcry and The Third Reich. And finally you have the straight to home video masterpieces with limited or no theatrical release such as Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children, Tekken: Blood Vengeance.

Perhaps the only ones that come even close to moderately decent are Tomb Raider and Prince of Persia. So when Disney decided to give it a go, I was not very enthusiastic and nearly opted to skip the film altogether. But then while travelling in Hong Kong some friends decided to watch it together, so I ended up seeing it anyway. And am I glad I saw it!

First of all, I need to address a secret about this film which I think most people who saw it were somewhat upset about: lots of the familiar arcade game characters (like the ghost from pacman, bowser from Mario bros) that you see in the trailers, well that's basically their only scene. Most of the story isn't really about them and is more focused on fictional games that never existed.

However I was quick to forgive this when what followed was not only 90 minutes of fun dialogue, clever references, visual wonders and memorable characters, but also a surprisingly believable and compelling story about the life and death of arcade games and its characters.

In some ways this film is like a summary of many jokes and parodies and fan productions about the video game characters which has been flooding the internet for a long time, but I was taken aback at how convincing and human these characters were, and how invested I got in the development of the story. The characters had depth, their relationships were genuine, their struggles identifiable, and aside from the villain being slightly one-note, I think this was the video game movie everyone wanted to see for decades. If only they do it this well for my game (which by the way is Runescape)!

Spoilers ahead!

The most interesting character to me in this film was Ralph. While I've seen his character story in other reincarnations before, I think this is the first time I've witnessed it in a movie for children. When Ralph destroys Vanellope's racecar to stop her from running a race which might result in her deletion, I was on the edge of tearing up a little bit.

The message about how protecting someone you love may involve destroying their one dream and losing their friendship is not only a harsh one, but also a brave one. Sometimes to be the hero, one must be the villain in the eyes of those they are trying to save. While being Disney everything works out in the end and they reconcile, but when seeing this scene I was reminded of Watchmen, another great movie which offers the same decision. I don't know how well the kids would have reacted to that scene, but even if only the adults grasped it I think it's a welcomed development.

Another great scene was the backstory to the Sargent Tamora from Hero's Duty. I just couldn't stop laughing at the harshness and extremeness of the way her past was programmed. And it's really fun that these character recognize that their reality was constructed by some game designer, and yet they still convey the same emotions about things they know never really happened. I think Tamora was meant to be a parody of the more modern FPS shooter games representing the brute, harsher genres, but still human and for the most part believeable. But did they really have to stir up a forced romance with Fix It Felix? That story arc just made me feel awkward as their chemistry is about as strong as Katniss and Pete from The Hunger Games.

While praising so much about this film overall, I do have one major issue (aside from the nitpicks) with this film, and that is the behavior of those game characters who mistreat Ralph and Vanellope. For some reason The other racers in sugar rush are very bland and reminiscent of poorly designed high school bullies. They are just mean because they are programmed to be mean because Vanellope is (at the time) the glitch, the weird one, the outcast.

Prejudice is an important lesson for children but the film's portrayal of bullies are surprisingly extreme and oversimplistic; there isn't much exploration behind why they are mean to her. The only rationale is that their memory of her as a princess was erased so they are not aware she has rights to participate in the races. Does that immediately warrant hostility and segregation? The same could be said of the civilians in the Wreck-It Ralph game. They know Ralph is only the bad guy because he's programmed to be a bad guy, so again are they just programmed to be jerks to him?

I guess the intention is to warn children not to act like that, because it hurts other people, but as an adult we know that there are often more than meets the eye with bullies; often they are bullied themselves or have other personal issues and need to be addressed separately. I guess this additional character layer would make the movie too hard to digest for kids who are still learning how to spell "discrimination".

Apart from that, I really enjoyed this movie. It is living proof that the video game genre has not yet game overed. The ending song was also surprisingly catchy, and every scene and dialogue mattered. It was a satisfying movie and I hope to see a sequel in the near future.

8.5 out of 10


Extra Nitpicks

None! I think I've covered everything I can remember.

Skyfall (2012)

From an objective perspective, this film has successfully captured not only the essence of the James Bond character from back in the 60s, it has demonstrated understanding that spy films are great not because of the villain's plot or the gadgets the agents can use, but rather it is the characters that make it interesting. This film was the first Bond film I really enjoyed on first viewing, but is still my second favorite James Bond-related movie overall. Nothing has yet to trump Stephen Chow's spoof of the character. :D

Skyfall is film I cannot really talk about without spoilers, so I'll give my overall recommendation first before I analyse this movie to death: It is definitely worth the trip to the cinema if you haven't already. The action is great, the dialogue is witty and memorable, there are many beautiful sets that they take their time showing which allow you to intimately embrace the world of Bond, and the characters' interactions are unbelievably enjoyable in many scenes. There are aspects of the climax which I felt was a bit unconvincing and out of place, but the ending is a satisfactory precursor to another 50 years of 007.

8/10

Okay now that I've gotten that out of the way, here comes the real deal.

Spoilers from here on!

Having been brought up in the Pierce Brosnan era of James Bond (Golden Eye, Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day), my first impression of the character was of a boy who fancied himself a playboy with limited moral sense of direction and unexplained, unjustified loyalty to his country. The films were always focused on the high-tech gadgets and increasingly stupid scenarios, as if escalation is the only way to keep an audience.

When Daniel Craig took over, and with essentially a restart of the character from its very origin (Casino Royale). Suddenly the world of Bond became very gritty, very bare, and certainly a lot bolder and much more personal, and so I became much more invested in the characters and less concerned of the action scenes and intricate plots. While I actually liked his take on the character, Skyfall is the film where his personality, character and motivation is fully formed.

M (Judi Dench) was also a delight to watch. Being not only the one responsible for the deaths of many MI6 agents, but also the one responsible for the ruined lives of former MI6 agents, she has lots to work with and conveys those emotions and conflicts well. Indeed her death at the end was a bit of a surprise but I'm glad they took this direction. It felt like the only fair way to atone for her 'sins'.

Aside from Bond and M however the other MI6 characters felt almost unnecessary to this story; it felt at times they were forcefully crammed into the storyline and made to seem important just so they can be set up for future Bond films. The exception is Eve. I liked how we really don't know what her ultimate role will be in the story for most of the film, though nearing the end it was becoming clear she was going to end up being Moneypenny. Maybe some sharper-minded Bond fans may have picked it up instantly, but I actually had my money on her being related to the traitor M was alluding to.

It was nice to see the backstory of this often overlooked character, but I felt almost betrayed to learn her first name. Were fans of the franchise really begging to know her first name, when it's been deliberately omitted and kept as a status quo for the past 49 years (like her close-call relationship with Bond)? In fact this revelation was the same as what the recent reboot of Star Trek did; there they revealed Uhura's first name, which was also a well-kept secret in that franchise.

Q (Ben Whishaw) is kind of uninteresting except his first scene where he introduces himself to Bond and gives him his fairly humble tools for the mission. That first dialogue was a cool way to introduce yourself, though somewhat crafted and a bit inflated. The later scenes where we see those intense computer montages with Q speaking techno-jargon actually annoys computer scientists like myself, as there is so many statements that don't make much sense, and he just doesn't bring much to the table except being a very young Q compared to his predecessors, much like how Eve is the first black Moneypenny in a Bond film. Anyway we'll get to breaking down that IT jargon in the extra nitpicks section :)

Now with the main villain. I have to say I have very mixed feelings about him. For one I really really liked Silva (Javier Bardem), especially with how strange his demeanor was (felt like an awkward Joker). His interactions with Bond are some of the funniest and also most interesting dialogues in recent films I've seen, and his motivation for causing havoc on MI6 and M is not only believable but at times understandable, even if he is mentally unstable.

Having said that, his design also confusing at times. At first he plots to attack MI6 but not hurt M so that she can witness a disaster of her own making, then at the public inquiry he seems to simply want to gun her down. Then when Bond brings her to Skyfall for the final confrontation he first sends a wave of gunmen to take them down first. When that failed he directs a helicopter to shoot non-stop into the mansion, throwing grenades wherever he thinks they are. But finally after all the other bad guys are dead, when it's just him, M and that other guy whose name I can't remember left in the church, suddenly he decides to get all intimate and let her choose kill both of them by pulling the trigger, which gives Bond enough time to catch up and throw a knife into his back. Perhaps this is how they wanted to expose the chaos of emotions within him, but it really made me wonder how anti-climatic it would have been if one of those grenades actually ended up killing them three.

The other thing is his whole character and his plot seems to be a reference to WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange to a disturbing degree. I mean look at his matching pale skin and long white hair! Not to mention his entire operation consists of divulging national secrets (specifically names of MI6 field Agents) by 'leaking' them onto the Internet. Okay so in this film they also have guns and beautiful women at their disposal which isn't reflective of the real organisation, but it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to notice the similarities.

In fact, this is something I'm not sure is a fair decision by the filmmakers. Through how the filmmakers set up Silva and his organisation, they have essentially antagonized WikiLeaks as a terrorist organisation too. I'm sure the American government would be in agreement with them, but that big speech by M during the public inquiry seems to not only point out the threat that is WikiLeaks, but by saying that "our enemies are in the shadows" they have potentially attacked Anonymous as being the enemy. I don't fully agree with every operation either of these organisation does, but they are ultimately activists like Greenpeace. Ultimately they are doing it for the people, for the betterment of society (I hope), whereas in the film Silva leaked the details to get back at M, which is a personal revenge; a very different motivation indeed.

Anyway I digress. The last character I want to talk about is Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), who at the end of the film is revealed to be the new M after Judi Dench's death. For those who don't know the actor is, he played John Steed in the film adaptation of The Avengers, another British spy serial (not the Marvel superhero crossover film), which was super boring and ridiculous; you get to see Sean Connery, the original James Bond, tries to talk with his board of directors in a care bear suit. I am not even kidding. I've never watched the TV show before but I hope that he may redeem himself if he is to return in future Bond films.

One thing that I appreciated even more about this film, more than the characters, is the atmosphere and the diversity of scenes we are immersed in. The two scenes I love the most in this film has to be that raft ride to the casino in Shanghai, and the reveal of Bond's childhood home in Skyfall. Both of them are so impractical and unrealistic, but when I was watching these scenes I did not question it (till after the movie). The colors, the tones, the angles, all worked in favor of enabling us to stretch our imagination to the other senses. They were so entrancing I want to visit these locations now!

There were many other scenes which were really captivating. The opening sequence was well done, in fact the very first second of the opening scene already had my heart jump a few beats with that short burst of orchestral notes. Silva's island which he tricked the residents to desert was very realistic, even though the post-war ruins have been overdone in the past decade. It's just a really nice film to look at, and definitely worth the price of admission to a screen bigger than my 15-inch laptop.

So yeah, no significant complaints except for the possibly controversial statements about Wikileaks/Anonymous through the film's villain, everything else in the film more than compensated, and it is definitely a film I will buy when I see it on sale at Big W (the Australian version of Walmart). :)

Extra Nitpicks

1. All their IT security related jargon around the middle of the movie was kind of smart and dumb. "Security through obscurity" and "Polymorphic algorithm" are two terms I picked up when Q tried to gain access to Silva's computers. Both these terms are real computer science concepts, but they are nothing new, and definitely nothing even remotely state-of-the-art in terms of security. I think Google's gmail two-factor authentication security is stronger in some cases since you'll need to get the code off Silva's mobile phone as well before you can gain access.
   
   I guess it's all okay since Silva's intention was to trick Q into successfully opening up his system, but seriously, filmmakers who want to feature high-tech montages should consult with real security experts. Also, people who work on security engineering don't bother with creating fantastic looking but functionally bankrupt visualisations of code/data like we see many times in these type of films.
2. How was Bond planning to leave that casino after dispatching the bodyguards who seems to be employees of the casino. The place is surrounded by water. If Silva is really that powerful he could have just trapped Bond on that island by instructing the ferrymen not to let him cross back to main land. Okay lets assume those bodyguards were just patrons of the casino like that really beautiful lady can't remember her name either, it sounded like Seventeen or something. Even so shouldn't the casino security be stopping him from leaving after injuring two and indirectly killing one (and also carrying a gun)?
3. During the chase sequence when Silva was racing to M and Bond is trying to stop him, he establishes that he has infiltrated some of London's underground and planted bombs in strategic positions. Was he ever planning to use his other bombs? I assumed that wasn't the only one, but we do see earlier that he discreetly receives a package from some fake policemen, which included the fake police uniform and the bomb I guess.
   
   If that was the only bomb, why did he place it in a location that has nothing to do with M? HOW did he place it all the way up in the ceiling which looks unreachable on the third floor, and so quickly for that matter (remembering he was being closely chased by Bond this whole time)? I guess most people won't question this but technically Silva either has more bombs placed around London which is ready to be detonated from his 'radio transmitter', or that bomb was placed in a dumb place and used for a convenient situation.
4. Nearing the climax, after Bond saves M from the assassination attempt during the public inquiry, they drive to Skyfall, a remote-looking town in Scotland and instructs Q to leave a trail of breadcrumbs that only Silva could follow. However he never told Q where he was going, and he even switched from the trackable standard issue car to the old Aston Martin (which is a wonderful car by the way). So by that definition no one knew where Bond and M was going. Maybe Bond still had that radio transmitter turned on from earlier.
5. Who on Earth was that Kincade guy at Bond's family estate? Okay so inside the film they explain he is the caretaker of that property, and knew Bond when he was a boy before the tragic passing of his parents. However quite a number of people were cheering when he first pops up on screen. Did I miss something? Was he in previous films? Suddenly it seems like I had an obligation to like him and care whether he'll make it out alive at the end of this film, when we were only introduced to him over 80 minutes into the film. If he was another reference to earlier films or a character in the novels then that's fine, but otherwise he seems to be a last minute discardable comic relief which actually undermined the intensity and emotionality of the climax. Then again I do like him and am glad he didn't die. :)

Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012)

This movie has left me torn about the whole Twilight franchise. I am not on either Team Jacob or Team Edward, and neither do I hate the previous films (with the exception of Breaking Dawn Part 1). There are definitely strong characters in the films, and at moments the script can be funny, genuine and passionate, even if unintentionally. However the main thing that makes my experience unpleasant is how the whole franchise has handled moral issues, and in my opinion this film is the worst of the lot. But before I get to that, lets have a look at this film on the whole.

The story continues from where part 1 left off: Bella (played by Kristen Stewart) is now a vampire due to Edward (played by Robert Pattinson) having to change her to save her life after giving birth to Renesmee, a half human half vampire. And Jacob (played by Taylor Lautner) has imprinted on Renesmee meaning they're going to be soul mates for life. The Volturi basically want to kill the child to prevent her from growing up into the unstable monster that history has shown she will be, even though her case is slightly different. So the Cullen family rallies supporters to testify for the child and we finally have the big showdown between the Cullen + Jacob's pack against the menacing Aro and his army.

Without giving away the entire plot, I can say that there are two very incompatible focuses being interlaced throughout.

On the one hand we are given an extremely self-indulging look at Bella and Ed's love for each other, which in the first half of the film is a 30 minute long visualisation of their codependence. But even the scenes when they consummate are shot in such an unrevealing, cocktease manner you feel like the violent wedding night from Part 1 was done right.

Obviously they did that to keep the film at a rating accessible to their biggest tween audience but why put it in at all when we've already spent 4 previous films watching them stare at each other intently and say "I love you" with elementary school vocabulary. If this is love from the teen girls' perspective I am very afraid for teen boys. Of course this aspect of the film I was already aware of since film one and was not a surprise when I entered the theatre.

On the other hand, we have a superhero origin story to deal with in this film, as Bella explores her abilities as a Vampire and tries to hide it from Charlie (her father, who was kind enough to make an appearance in this film to give a very rushed closure to his character arc). This was a very unexpected, and surprisingly intriguing element of the film which kept me awake. Perhaps it's my bias towards that genre, but honestly I feel that this whole vampire transformation should have happened much earlier in the franchise, so that her development as a vampire can be fleshed out in greater depth.

Honestly it is the more interesting part of this world, but it turns out she is a child prodigy and is able to control her urges and powers within the second act, so that it can be displayed in all is glory for the climax. They have talked about the difficulties of becoming a 'newborn' in earlier films through other side characters, but since the story is essentially a narrative from Bella's perspective, I would think that hearing her monologue about her own struggles in managing life as a vampire warrants its own film rather than being squeezed into this final film.

So you can tell by now I am not a very big fan of Bella's character, but which characters did I like? I liked both Edward and Jacob even if they were fairly one-dimensional. I loved moments of clarity that Edward has throughout the film regarding how much problems his relationship with Bella has caused for everyone. I liked Jacob in previous films because he was perhaps the strongest and most developed character of the main trio, but this movie absolutely destroys it due to his relationship with Renesmee. We'll get to that soon.

I appreciated the climax which really surprised me with how well it was executed. Aro (played by Michael Sheen) was so over the top I just couldn't help but smile at his effort. The action was great, though for the entire climax I almost felt like I was watching an entirely different film compared to the first half. The plot twist did catch me off guard and so, while an isolated section of the film, this whole part of the third act was very engaging.

There were also a big bunch of characters introduced that I have never seen before. They showcase their abilities, fight a bit and by the time I left the cinema I forgot half their names. I think there was one vampire who looked like Robert Downey Jr, his son who looks like Guy Sebastian, a few token racial stereotypes who were thrown away as quickly as they were introduced, and a bunch of blondes. But beyond them I have absolutely no recollection of who the other characters were, and especially none of the Volturi army except for the top guys.

Now for the bit of the film that bothered me the most: the morals.

Each of the Twilight movies has had one central theme which generally orients around a morally gray issue. Twilight was talking about forbidden love, New Moon was talking about self-harm, Eclipse was about putting your personal relationship with someone above everything (and everyone) else. Breaking Dawn Part I was about pro-life versus pro-choice. All of them which were handled poorly. However it turns out Breaking Dawn Part II was the worst of the bunch!

The biggest (and arguably the only) problem I have with this film is the 'destined' relationship between Jacob and Bella's newborn Renesmee. This might be a spoiler, but it really bothered me that they were 'meant to be'. There's a word for this type of relationship between a fully grown adult and a pre-teen adolescent. What is it? That's right, pedophilia.

At the start of the film there is some demonstrable outrage showing that it is definitely wrong, but by end of the film everyone was accepting of his part in the family. Pedophilia is not in the queue of social change, but the way the film depicts and gentle-ify their interactions implies that it will eventually be tolerable, even acceptable, like it would be the next thing after same sex marriage. And this is simply wrong.

(By the way, Edward is like over 100 years old when he first starts dating Bella who was still a teenager in the first movie; I'm sensing a common thread here)

This is really unfortunate because, up to "Eclipse", Jacob was my most preferred character in this film. He was good at heart, self-sacrificing, generous and most importantly well developed. However this film completely destroys all respectability and potential for him as a 'role model' by forcing him into being Renesmee's expected partner.

At one point he literally says "I have no choice", with an implication that it is not a medical condition but rather a cultural one. At another point he even went as far as jokingly calling Edward "Dad" after his relationship with Renesmee has been accepted by the Cullens. I was shaking my head at both these scenes. Even if this is all fantasy and not based in reality, trying to rationalise, justify and making tolerable any form of pedophilia in any society is simply wrong. And the fact that this was in the book as well makes me weep for mankind even more.

Fortunately, this is the only moral issue the film addresses poorly. The rest is okay. The music is suitable to the tone of the film, and even though I can't hum any of the tunes right now, I remember them being well composed. The visuals effects are good, the climax was edging on brilliant, and like I said earlier there are many things to laugh at so it wasn't an unbearable experience.

Despite dreading to watch the film at first due to how disappointing and morally concerning Part 1 was, I think Part 2 is definitely a significant improvement, perhaps the best in the franchise as far as watching experience goes. It's still not a good movie per se, but it's not god awful either; just mediocre. And like I said earlier, the best bits of the film are what I didn't expect to be in there. Unfortunately I am still not sold with Bella as a character, even if Kirsten Stewert portrays were really well. And seeing there won't be any more films in this saga, I would say it leaves the fans with horribly twisted concepts of what love is and even more troubling moral sermons. I sincerely hope people know better than to learn how to handle their relationships from these films.


Overall Rating: 5 out of 10.

Recommendation: Don't see it if your morality is shaped by what you see on movies or television. Otherwise, worth a viewing if not just to laugh at it.

The Nitpicks (Spoilers alert)

1. Amongst the Vampires recruited by the Cullens to testify for Renesmee, there are these two vampires with heavy Romanian accents who says they were overthrown by the Volturi about 1500 years ago, which is their motivation to join the Cullens in their expected confrontation.
   
   If they wanted to take vengeance upon the Volturi, and given how fast the Cullens rallied 18 vampires to their cause (I think it was less than a week in the movies' timeframe), how have they not at least attempted to usurp the Volturi in all those centuries!?!? So based on their motivations, they should have either been destroyed for trying some time in the past, or have taken over the Volturi by now. Their presence baffles me.
2. Renesmee being a half human half vampire, grows at an accelerated rate, and so within the movie we see her grow from a newborn infant to a young adolescent. Lets say the time lapse was about 6 months before the conflict with the Volturi begins. How on Earth does she learn so fast!?!? I mean she knows how to walk, speak, use her abilities and comprehend concepts like testifying in defence of someone and stranger danger? Maybe being a half vampire it means your brain never tires and functions at 100%. Maybe she's like her mother the prodigy vampire.
3. The J. Jenks guy just makes me laugh. He is the mysterious "man in black" ally of Alice and Jasper who helps them forge passports for Renesmee and Jacob in case things turn for the worse (I think). He is obviously not a vampire, and obviously he is very aware of the Cullen family.
   
   He claims to have worked with Alice and Jasper for a total of 35 years, and it is clear he does meet his clients in person. So shouldn't he somewhat know that the Cullens aren't exactly human? Doesn't this violate the vampires secrecy act? Well maybe he's like Charlie; he sort of knows but not exactly so he's exempt from persecution.
4. Were those passports and the whole sherlock holmes clue trail for Bella necessary? In the final confrontation Alice shows Aro the future should he choose to attack the Cullens, which involves most of his army being dispatched, including himself at the end of the vision.
   
   In that alternate future Aro simply sends a few men to chase after Renesmee, so you could argue that by helping Bella know her daughter will be safe with Jacob, she can focus on the battle at hand and so they would claim victory within the vision so that the Aro in reality would hesitate to turn hostile and retreat instead. But I think Bella would've asked Jacob to take Renesmee to safety either ways if they knew a battle was about to break out, so the whole passport subplot was entirely pointless. Maybe Alice just wanted to show off what a mastermind she was.

Taken 2 (2012)

Action movie villains are stupid. And this pretty much summarizes the major problem with this film. I was a fan of the first movie, primarily because it provided a strong protagonist with a convincing character backdrop to suspend your disbelief despite how formulaic and cliche it really was. This film gave us exactly the same story, same tone, same tempo but delivers poorly in comparison, a large part due to the reduced scope of the antagonists. Also, this movie relies heavily on the fact that you've already seen its predecessor to understand the character motivations and most of the interactions in the first half.

In the first film, we had a story where an former CIA operative Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) straining to re-establish his relationship with his naive daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) and ends up having to save her as she gets herself entangled in a large scale human trafficking operation in Europe. Thus the difficulty of the rescue operation was more sophisticated and genuinely required his past skills and contacts to make his mission possible (and plausible). The second film was a revenge story played very straight, and there was no thrill; from about halfway into the movie any action film lover could already recite the remainder of the plot.

What are the positives? I'd say the daughter was the most interesting character in this film. I guess partly she had a lot more material to work with. She was kidnapped, drugged, sold as a high-price sex slave and saved by her dad at gunpoint in the previous film. Having to move back into a regular life after this type of trauma is not easy, and Grace does portray these challenges convincingly. It also gives her strong motivation to step up when her family needs her to.

The scenes with Grace in bikinis was a bit of naughty fan service. Unnecessary and inconsequential to the story, yes, but the marketing people decided they needed the sex appeal to fill more seats in the theaters (especially for the trailer). At least she is now over 16 and of legal age I guess (or over 18 since the film's set in Turkey).

Neeson delivers a similar performance as in the first film but with no memorable one-liners; a let down by action movie standards and this franchise's standard. The mother receives no character development in this story. She is just a damsel in distress like her daughter was in the first film. In fact I would say she was less convincing in this film despite having a lot more screen time, as we don't see her have any meaningful interactions other than "I miss you".

But the biggest negative ultimately is the antagonists in this film. While their motivation to hunt Bryan's family is understandable, their capabilities to track down and find Bryan's family is comparatively superior to their gun-power  Seriously, it's been over 40 years since action films of this flavor has been around, and no villains decides to take proper fighting/shooting lessons? This type of formula makes me want to skip all action films altogether because it's so predictable and unsuspenseful. And just like how the mother is very one-note, the villains also only have one dimension: "He will pay!"

I think the only time the bad guys within Hollywood films are anywhere near competent is when we the audience are expected to be rooting for them. Here I am talking about films such as Ocean's 11, Inception, and to a lesser extent Entrapment, where the protagonist are actually bad guys or do work that is ethically wrong. Funnily, these are all heist films; I'm sensing this is the other action film formula Hollywood producers alternate to try and camouflage how little credit they give to their audience.

The only exception to these rule I can think of right now is The Terminator series, and perhaps that is why it is considered such a great franchise by both moviegoers and film critic standards, because they worked hard to make the villains genuinely threatening and memorable even if the end result is the same. Times like these I turn to independent films to help push the envelope on how to make a different action flick with fresher ideas.

Anyway I digress. So what's my overall verdict? I loved Liam Neeson and Maggie Grace's performance, the action was standard, and the villains are too plain and painfully cliche. If you liked Taken and hoped this would be another great addition to the franchise, I recommend you just re-watch Taken instead. If you haven't watched either films before, just the first one.

4.0 / 10

P.S. I referred to this film like it was a Hollywood production: I know this is actually a French film, but this film uses their formula, so I still label it as "made by Hollywood".

The Nitpicks 

(Spoilers alert!)

There aren't too many nitpicks this time. I assume moviegoers have accepted the common cliches no matter how farfetched or ridiculous they really are. So I've only listed more serious ones, or the ones that bothered me:

• Near the earlier part of the film when the Albanians first tried to chase and kidnap Bryan, they shot at his car through the front window, which could have killed him, when their boss specifically instructed them not to. Perhaps they were just shooting to scare and slow him down, but given how bad they shoot in the rest of the film they probably could have killed him.
• After Bryan and Lenore gets kidnapped, Bryan secretly calls Kim and asks her to throw a grenade so that he can estimate their distance from each other using the delay in sound. The first explosion takes about 4, maybe 5 seconds to reach his ears, and he determines they are 4.5km apart. Firstly, the speed of sound is actually much slower than that, and should have taken about 13 seconds if they are that far apart. Secondly, unless that's a custom made sound grenade, the explosion of standard granades are hard to hear even at 1km away. Thirdly, those throws are pretty good for someone who has never operated a grenade before. Sign her up as the main star for Taken 3; she's got her father's genes!
  
  I'm sure no one would bother doing the maths during the film, but that first grenade throw was a major distraction for me. The most important aspect of this film, in fact what holds it together and keeps our suspense of disbelief, is that Neeson's character pays extreme attention to details, and so he shouldn't and wouldn't make such a miscalculation. In fact if we were factually correct his daughter should have failed to find them.
• Around the middle of the film, Bryan and Kim, after losing their trail of Albanian mobsters, crashes through the US embassy's gates with a stolen taxi to drop off Kim so she can protected. The next scene is literally Neeson just back on the streets of Istanbul trying to backtrack his way to the mob's base. Why didn't the soldiers or diplomats stop him? He just barged into the embassy terrorist style, endangering the lives of many american soldiers and also having to explain to Turkish government the series of deaths and car accidents he left behind. It's really hard to accept that his friends could buy him out of the political complications he just caused.
  
  Also later on in the film we see Kim finally getting her driver's license, despite having gone on a road rage earlier without any license and breaking hundreds of road rules in the span of 3 minutes. Maybe Bryan convinced the soldiers he was the one driving, but either ways I think the US government would have a few more questions before letting her take the exams again.
• At the end of the film where Bryan had killed off all the low ranks and now confronting the big shots, why didn't Murad (the main boss) carry a gun? Before we arrived at this confrontation they already established their intention to simply kill his wife. When they knock her unconscious to use her as bait so he would go towards her, they could easily have finished them both off at point blank range, which is a much bigger win according to their plan. Instead they have a fist fight, where the big boss could have easily shot Bryan while he was distracted with fighting the surprisingly skilled torturer. Action movie villains are stupid.
• They didn't make anything of Kim's boyfriend! He has two scenes, one early on and one at the very end. He does look slightly Albanian and have some semblance to Murad. Wouldn't it have been more interesting if he was secretly the fourth son of Murad, managed to trick Bryan with a clean-looking background, and tries to kill Bryan at the very end of the movie when he was invited along to their fish and chips dinner? Fake outs are common in action films, but it's a potentially awesome way to end the film! Maybe they'll save it for the next film (if there is one). Maybe there will be an alternative ending with this twist, but I'm still not going to buy the DVD.

Film in 2012 so far

Having started this blog late into the year I feel a bit bad as I did miss out on reviewing some of the bigger films during their run. But rather trying to accomplish the overly time-consuming task of writing the 2000 word essays for every movie that came out this year, even just the ones with wider (Australian) release, I'll just do a single paragraph overall impression of the ones I have seen this year. And just in case you're wondering, they are in the order that I saw them at the movies, not from worst to best.


The Vow

I am not a big fan of romance comedy or romance drama and only watch maybe one a year at the big screen. Most of the time it's too cheesy, too emotionally manipulative or just not interesting, and only a handful of exceptions did I enjoy. The Vow was one of those exceptions. I think the whole 'based on a true story' or 'based on a real person' sub-genre is very unpredictable because Hollywood loves to make all sorts of changes to make the film more marketable. And so the real story may be lost in scripting and direction. However, this film was sincere, and even though there were definitely some changes to the actual events and dumbing down of the christian elements, I think it has some warm moments and heartbreaking scenes/dialogue that captured the reality the real couple went through.

Rating: 8.5/10. Recommendation: Watch once or twice, and also read the story behind the movie.


The Secret World of Arrietty

This was the first of Hayao Miyazaki's films that he did not actually direct. I've actually already looked at it in 2010 when the Japanese language version came out (finally putting my Dip.Lang to good use, sort of). However, I watched the English one as well since the dubbing effort is critical in transferring the effectiveness of the film to western audiences without losing the Japanese touch. I liked how intricate the movie was, seeing how all the borrowers interact with the relatively giant worlds, there was quite a bit of thought put into all the details and daily life routines which in my opinion is what made Miyazaki's earlier work so successful. However the story is a bit too quirky, sometimes hard to follow and the setting much more contemporary, which makes the film's world harder to buy. The translation/dubbing is okay but I would say the Japanese version is superior. And why are they called Borrowers? They never return anything!

Rating: 6/10 for English version, 7.5/10 for Japanese version. Recommendation: Watch once, then watch the Miyazaki's older works (Howl's Moving Castle and earlier)


The Lorax

It sucked. The animation was nothing new, the character was more annoying than whimsical simplicity. I think Dr Seuss is rolling in his grave. It doesn't treat children with much respect and thinks they aren't smart enough without being littered more visual 'clues'. The only thing I would say is a plus is that they did manage to stay faithful in the design of the visuals and the main character, but barely.

Rating 4/10. Recommendation: Don't bother.


A Thousand Words

I think Eddie Murphy has really really past his prime now. All his more recent films, especially the comedy ones, are just not funny. The jokes are recycled, his movies' premises are interesting but not exploited well, and a lot of the scripts seem very forced. This movie is no exception.

Rating 3/10.

Recommndation: Don't bother.


The Hunger Games

This was actually a really well crafted film. Initially it did not appeal to me for its similarity to Battle Royale in its premise. However looking back I have to say they are very different: the children in Battle Royale were high school classmates, having known each other, dated each other and studied together for years (in Japan subject teachers move around classrooms so you have all the subjects with the same group of people). In this film Katniss only barely knew Pete prior to selection; the rest were all strangers and so killing each other was a slightly less big deal. Thus the stakes are different, and the psychology of the whole game is also different.

I did appreciate (but not exactly like) how bizarre and extravegant the elites are, but I don't agree with most of the professional critics who said Jennifer Lawrence did a spectacular job portraying Katniss. She's definitely more expressive than Kirsten Stewert in Twilight (Bella), but falling far short of many other young actresses (Emma Thompson and Chloe Grace Moretz to name a couple). I liked her work in X-Men: First Class a bit better. But nonetheless the movie actually passed the tests in my opinion, and is definitely a better brain food for teens and young adults than a few other franchises in this 'niche'.

Rating: 7.5/10. Recommendation: Watch once or twice, then read the 3 books before the sequel comes out.


The Avengers

I don't care whether Peter Jackson's Hobbit movie is going to be good or not. THIS WAS MY FAVORITE MOVIE OF THE YEAR!!! And judging by online polls and many other critics' reviews, the favorite movie of millions of other moviegoers as well. I didn't actually grow up reading Marvel comics (was more into Manga/Anime) but I think that there has never been a movie that was as anticipated as this one in my lifetime. They literally made 6 other movies to build up to this one! That's not just a huge gamble financially, but also sets an example of whether using smaller movies to promote bigger movies is a feasible franchise strategy.

What can I say everyone else hasn't already said? The action was great, the story is well written, the characters are surprisingly developed even if you didn't watch the other films, it's just so so funny I almost feel like there is no way they could top it in the future films! I sincerely hope this isn't their peak and now it's just sequel downhills, but for one brief moment, I think I've witnessed brilliance in the comic book/superhero genre that even non-geeks and non-nerds could appreciate and enjoy.

Rating: 10/10.

Recommendation: Watch it to your hearth's content. I'm waiting for the collector's edition. :D


Men in Black 3

This was a pleasant surprise given how disappointing MIB 2 was. This film re-captured the style and charisma of the first film, but also giving a very touching story which I think developed Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones' characters a lot more than the first two films combined. The aliens were fun as usual, the jokes were updated, although the villain was really bland, straightforward and predictable, I think the rest of the movie makes up for it threefold. John Brolin does an excellent job being young Agent K, and honestly I thought that it was some pro CGI effort to make Tommy look 30 (maybe 20) years younger. A satisfying experience, though this movie being the one I watched after The Avengers I may be more generous and in a cheerier mood when looking at this film ^_^

Rating: 8/10. Recommendation: Watch once or twice, then wait for Blu-Ray, then MIB marathon time!


Snow White and the Huntsman

The movie itself isn't half-bad. There's virtually nothing to do with the disney version and from what I heard is better than the other snow white movie that came out this year, but it's just really really hard not to watch this film and imagine Bella and Thor.

I think it was just too distracting because their character's personality is virtually a copy of their more famous roles. This made it super hard to judge this movie without drawing comparisons, but like I said it's not bad. At least it kept my gaze for the entire screening unlike some other movie.

Rating: 6.5/10. Recommendation: Watch once.


Brave

I think this is one of Pixar's weaker movies, but given how high their bar has been in the past decade, I think it's still pretty good. The story is very reminiscent of fairy tales/folklores, it's nice to see a strong and realistic heroine + family, and I think there's plenty of fun and moral lesson for kids and adults. Of all the Pixar movies I would say it's slightly better than Cars and Cars 2 but slightly worse than Monsters Inc. I don't remember the details of the movie which is rare, but the emotions I felt watching the movie was definitely positive, though I was slightly disappointed because they've been on a roll between Toy Story 2 and Toy Story 3.

Rating: 7.5/10.

Recommendation: Watch once, and buy Pixar collection when it comes out.


The Amazing Spider Man

I think Andrew Garfield's spiderman is definitely closer to the comics than Tobey Maguire and a lot more interesting to watch. However, I liked the original spiderman series more. I thought they were the ones responsible for opening the doors for big production companies to explore the superhero genre again since the box office and/or critical failures in the 90s. Spiderman 2 in my opinion is one of the best 5 superhero movies ever.

Also this movie had to compete against two other bigger superheros films Batman and The Avengers, and I think it's a clear loser in that respect. Having said that I did enjoy the film on its own it was just hard to embrace it when it wasn't even 10 years since I saw the 'original' one, a term I use lightly because most ideas are recycled and repackaged in Hollywood these days.

Rating: 7/10. Recommendation: Watch once or twice, but don't buy until we see how good the sequels are.


Hmm now for the real challenge: should I resort to doing Top ## lists for movies from past years/decades? Guess we'll see in the coming months!

Looper (2012)

Looper is basically the love child of Inception, Back to the Future and Bruce Willis, though a slightly inferior product. It has the intelligence and the 'continuous revelation' style of storytelling as Inception, it tries to tackle the semantics of time travel, all the while delivering the virtually mindless action of people shooting at Bruce. I think by this movie he has probably starred in the same role over 50 movies, the only difference this time is that he used guns more than his body for the fights. In fact he's basically just playing John McClane in this movie, though he actually does die. I am growing tired of his character in the genre, but I don't see many better alternatives in the horizon so I'll just smile when the director subtly pokes fun at Bruce's other movies.

<Spoiler Alert>

I enjoyed the film during the screening though the second and third act felt really uneven in its pacing as well as the overall atmosphere. The opening shot was brilliant, and was just that: Young Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) shoots his mark right on schedule, no hesitation; like a boss. Those first 2 minutes of the movie basically set the tone for the first act. It was shocking, it was cold, it was exactly what the trailers indicated the film would be like.

Unlike Total Recall, which shows us its vision of the future, Looper tells us through Joe's monologue, and through an almost POV approach to establish the environment where the fights and climax are (where we expect) to take place later. The future portrayed is perhaps closer to home but we mostly see two extremes: the slum-like, crime-infested underworld of urban city, and the traditional farmland lightly fashioned with hovering watering systems that would make FarmVille enthusiasts (addicts) jealous.

In this respect I think the film doesn't do very well, at least in the sense of creating a conceivable future. There is little explanation of why the future from the perspective of the plot's setting becomes seemingly totalarian where no one can escape the eyes of the government or law enforcement (imagine Google becoming the world leader and abolishes privacy). I say this because the whole purpose of the Looper program as described by Joe is to get rid of people in the past where killing and hiding corpses is much easier.

Unfortunately we only had one fast-tracked view of Joe's first time through the story's space time continuum (where he does kill his older self and enjoys his 30 years before being captured and sent back). It happens so fast that most people were trying more to follow Joe's 30 years than to appreciate details of the world as it progresses to the future from which old Joe is sent back. The rest of the future is left for us to imagine after a very basic description, mostly describing the crime syndicate than what the rest of the world is like. Maybe that's the idea but lets move on.

Both Willis and Gordon-Levitt's performances were good, though not great, and I honestly felt they could have shared some more dialogues and played around with the whole "how will I become you". I guess the idea was that Willis is a reformed, reborn man after having met his Chinese wife some time in the future, having been rehabilitated from recreational drugs and also ended his life as a hitman. That's another thing, if he's stopped fighting for like 7 years prior to being sent back into the past for his execution how is he still so good, taking down not only his younger self but also the entire looper organisation? I guess it's because he's BRUCE WILLIS! Ahh, beautiful 80's action cliches.

While I enjoyed this film, the movie does have problems.

The first problem I had was this whole idea of the "Rainmaker", who is basically a kid born with exceptional telekinesis ability mostly drawn out during emotional situations. I think his name was Syd or something. So old Joe, after dispatching his executioners in the future, still chooses to travel back in time so that he can kill the Rainmaker, who in 2044 was still a kid living on a farm with his stepmum/aunt. By the end of the film we learn that it is because old Joe kills his mother during the confrontation that he harbors anger and hatred, thus motivating him to step up the crime ladder and creating the Looper program. This closes the continuum's loop and prompts young Joe to kill himself to rid everyone of the horrible future that would have eventuated.

Putting aside the farfetched idea of '10% of people mutating to have telekinesis' (X-Men ripoff), if the Rainmaker does become so powerful that he not only controls all criminal activities in the future, but also destroys entire cities using his telekinesis, why didn't he send more protection for his own younger self? Or save his mum from old Joe? The science in the film's world indicates it follows the self-consistency principle of time travel the closest, so he knows whatever he changes in the past will immediately affect his future rather than branch off to another parallel timeline (i.e. there is one reality, one spacetime continuum and all paradoxes created by time travellers will resolve itself). I mean if they were okay to send back Abe permanently (head of the present day looper organisation), I would assume the Rainmaker could have given instructions to Abe to keep an eye out for, well, the film's equivalent of the anti-Christ. Just saying.

The second problem, and probably a more serious problem from a storytelling point of view, is the disconnection between the young Joe's life and the old Joe's life, especially the love interests. There were zero attempts to try and reconcile them. First we are shown Joe has a lover in the present day, whom later we discover had a child old Joe hesitates to kill. Then we are shown that Joe has a wife in the future (different girl), but then as the story progresses in the second half Joe meets and gets in bed with Sara (farm mum). We get a brief scene showing that old Joe's memories are being modified to include these encounters and yet somehow still end up meeting his future wife, but this is never addressed in the busyness of dealing with the other loopers and trying to kill Seth (the kid version of the Rainmaker).

Through most of the second act as young Joe becomes acquainted with Sara I was honestly led to believe old Joe's life was gradually eroding due to the decreasing likelihood he would follow the same retirement path. Also he was fairly clean of drugs by the climax so there wouldn't be a need for old Joe to have someone clean him up 25 years down the track! Also the fact that young Joe made out with Sara I basically assumed that old Joe would not have a future with the Chinese lady any more. I think Rian Johnson (director) was aware of this flaw in his final cut, as he does add a scene at the end where Sara closes young Joe's pocket watch without revealing the photo side. Hmm actually young Joe wouldn't have that photo yet since it's only the old Joe who has encountered her in the future, so this scene might have been pointless. Never mind.

The third and biggest annoyance to me (before I move onto nitpicking) was Kid Blue, the young looper who is head of the "gat-man" and also tries desperately to impress Abe. This character was fairly pointless in the first half, seems to be young Joe's lesser rival and a relatively high up in the organisation. Through the entire film he is ridiculed, undervalued and tossed aside by Abe because of his incompetency. He later tries to earn Abe's approval by capturing old Joe on his own, which in turn led to the death of everyone in the looper organisation except himself. And furthermore, he pursues young Joe near the farm and ends up dying. And that's his story arc finished. In fact we don't even see him die with any dramatic facial expression. He is literally gunned down and the next scene is his corpse lying somewhere in the bottom left corner of the scene since our cameraman is focusing back on both Joes. Almost like "gosh that guy was a nuisance, now back to business."

There were a few scenes which hinted at a possibly deeper relationship between Abe and Kid Blue, suggesting either that Abe is Kid Blue's older self, or that Kid Blue was Abe's first pick. However this is neither explored nor confirmed, and even when he finds Abe dead there is no establishing shot of what their relationship might have been or were. This really really bugged me because aside from the main characters he was the only other character that had strong motivations, significant dialogue and screen time, so I wanted him to be more critical to the story's development.

Actually, Kid Blue reminds me of that Andrew Brandt from Equilibrium. He basically brings the protagonist (if I can call old Joe a protagonist) into the headquarters to their detriment. However in the larger picture he is neither remembered nor important from any of the characters' perspective. But thanks to his overzealousness we managed to get Bruce Willis in the middle of a group of bad guys. He will not leave without an incident.

But most of these problems are relatively minor compared to the enjoyment the film did bring me. The idea is cool, the acting is well done, anything that replicates Inception successfully deserves respect, and having Bruce Willis single-handedly take down all the bad guys, always a pleasure. I would say I enjoyed this more than the other films I've seen this year (except The Avengers), though far less than the films I believe it to be inspired by. Ultimately, time travel stories are hard to get right, if ever, and when you put Bruce Willis in the middle of it you know things are going to get ugly, but mostly in a good way.


Overall Rating: 8/10.

Recommendation: Watch once at the movies, then wait for the DVD to go on sale.


Extra nitpicks:

• there are a few nudity/sexy scenes that were completely unnecessary, especially the one that helps establish the intimate relationship between young Joe and his stripper girlfriend. It actually complicated the story in a bad way since we discover later that she actually has a son. Is that son young Joe's or some other guy's. If it's the latter did Joe know about it? They don't resolve this arc and so it becomes one of many questions that is neither philosophically nor socially challenging. It becomes more like a TV soap's episodic cliffhanger to try and reel you in for the next episode, which there won't be any since young Joe is dead.
• the film's future world is confusing. We get told that it's virtually impossible to dispose of a body and not get tracked. Technically sending someone back in time is the same as kidnapping them and shooting them into space on a one-way rocket, right? I mean their phyiscal presence seems to be what's being tracked and even if they can't be found the fact that they're missing means an investigation would still be underway. Weird.
• the film's future world is really confusing. If the Rainmaker has such a powerful crime syndicate why can't they change how the tracking program works so that the people they want to eliminate are not tracked/monitored by the police or something? I mean if they can level cities at will I'm sure changing a few government policies isn't too much to ask for!
• the film's future world is also kind of dumb. Why would they send the people they want to eliminate back in time by only 30 years!?!? Yes, technically they don't exist yet so there's a legal looperhole. But if the bodies aren't disposed of properly, or if one of their marks escapes (like in the movie), they would leave something that could be traced, recorded, documented etc. Then 30 years in the future when the person goes missing they could just dig up the archives to look for anomalies in the past.
  
  If I were this crime organisation and needed to eliminate people via time-travel I would just send them back 100000 years before civilization was around, so that no matter what they did they were dead, and you'd save the money you spent paying those hitman whose job was just to shoot whatever popped up on the rug. But I guess if they did that, we wouldn't have this movie :)