I think it’s time we reconsidered the definition of “adaptation.” Not that adapted movies are anything new, of course, but the film industry has become so overrun with adaptations in recent years that a second type has quietly begun to emerge.

The first type is what I hereby label an “ends” adaptation. These are movies derived from works that were intended to be ends in themselves. “Watchmen,” for example, was specifically engineered to be a graphic novel. “Where the Wild Things Are” was only a children’s book of roughly a dozen pages. “The Lord of the Rings” was roughly a thousand pages long. None of these stories were ever created with big screen intentions, yet Hollywood did inevitably come knocking for all of them.

But now we have a second type, which I’ve decided to call a “means” adaptation. These are the films based on earlier works which were themselves only made as a pitch for a film. Hellraiser is the earliest example I can think of, though Cowboys & Aliens is a far more prominent and recent case in point. Right now, Tron: Legacy director Joseph Kosinski is hard at work on Oblivion, an adaptation of his own comic book.

The fact is that “means” adaptations are becoming more and more common, as would-be screenwriters turn their ideas into books, internet comics, webseries, or graphic novels in an attempt at gaining traction and getting their movies made. So now the question must be asked: If a story was always intended to be a movie, but has to go through another medium before becoming a movie, does the end result still qualify as an adaptation? Personally, I would argue that it doesn’t.

On a totally unrelated note, here’s The Perks of Being a Wallflower. The movie was based on a book by Stephen Chbosky… who also wrote, directed, and exec-produced the film adaptation. Yeah.

Anyway, this film is centered on Charlie (Logan Lerman), who’s just starting his freshman year of high school. That’s hard enough for anyone, but Charlie is a particularly introverted fellow with a very traumatic history. So naturally, his first few days of high school are absolute torture. But then Patrick comes into the picture.

Patrick (Ezra Miller) is a senior with a reputation as the class clown. The guy doesn’t remotely care about the standard social etiquette of high school, so he of course befriends Charlie. Soon after, Charlie meets Patrick’s stepsister, another free-spirited senior named Sam (Emma Watson). Together, they introduce Charlie into their demented and eccentric circle of friends.

Among the supporting cast is Bob the stoner (Adam Hagenbuch); Mary Elizabeth, the punk vegetarian Buddhist (Mae Whitman); Alice, the kleptomaniac who comes from a rich family (Erin Wilhelmi); and Brad, who’s also on the football team (Johnny Simmons). Elsewhere, we have Charlie’s family, with Dylan McDermott and Kate Walsh playing his parents. There’s also Candace and Chris — Charlie’s older siblings — played by Nina Dobrev and Zane Holtz respectively. Melanie Lynskey is also on hand, appearing for a few flashbacks as Charlie’s dear departed Aunt Helen. Last but not least is Mr. Anderson, Charlie’s English teacher, played by Paul Rudd.

…Okay, Joan Cusack pokes her head in as well, but not until the last ten minutes or so.

I mention the characters up front because they’re easily the best thing about this movie. They’re all written superbly well and the cast is uniformly extraordinary. Their problems are perfectly easy to relate to, and the relationships between them all ring beautifully true.

Charlie, for example, is adorably clueless. The guy has no social skills and he doesn’t have any friends who are willing or able to help him, though he really does want to improve in those regards. It’s a perfectly sympathetic position to be in, though a bit cliche. So the film throws in a very novel wrinkle: His social awkwardness stems at least in part from a severe psychological disorder, and he doesn’t have any friends because his best friend killed himself a few months ago. Going into such territory was a bold move, and the film miraculously plays it all in a very tasteful way. As a result, we’re led to invest a far greater amount of sympathy in Charlie, since luck dealt him an incredibly bad hand and he’s struggling every day to improve it.

Then we have Patrick. For those just tuning in, Ezra Miller previously came to fame in We Need to Talk About Kevin. He played the title role in that film, a teenaged psychopath who went Columbine on his high school. Here, Miller keeps the insanity and the utter disregard for what other people think, but he effectively parlays that into a character who lashes out with humor instead of violence. The end result is a character with incredible manic energy who’s not only entertaining to watch, but also easy to love. Patrick is a guy who gives as good as he gets, to his friends and his enemies alike. The guy is so witty in his retorts that it’s hard to see how much it really hurts when people pick on him. What’s more, the guy invests so much in his friendships that it’s all the sadder when his heart gets broken.

Then there’s Sam. She’s another character with a great deal of emotional baggage, though at least she has Patrick to help her sort through them. The contrast between Sam and Charlie is a very interesting one: Charlie is awkward in love because he has absolutely no experience with girls, and Sam is awkward in love because of all the emotional scarring left by her past lovers. Put the two of them together and their emotional baggage proves to be very compatible. What’s more, Sam is a very compassionate young woman with undeniable sex appeal and a quirky sense of humor. As such, it’s no wonder that she and Charlie become such fast friends. Indeed, the two have such amazing chemistry that it’s obvious from the start that they were meant for each other.

Lerman, Miller, and Watson all do incredible work in this film, and the secondary cast is excellent as well. Still, a couple of supporting actors deserve special mention. One of them is Mae Whitman. She elegantly delivers a self-righteous counter-culture activist who turns out to be so emotionally needy it’s pathetic. The other one is Paul Rudd, who does a remarkable job of playing a mentor figure for Charlie. In his hands, Mr. Anderson becomes one of those teachers who helps make adolescence bearable, going however many extra miles are necessary to nurture and inspire his students.

I cannot stress enough that these characters are all remarkable. They’re funny, they’re tragic, they’re sympathetic, relateable, and authentic. All the more regrettable that this movie shows a crippling inability to commit.

For example, consider the movie’s setting in terms of time period. The costuming, dialogue, and politics would all imply that it was set in the modern day. Yet the characters trade mix tapes and play records on vinyl. The film uses ample pop culture references with regard to movies and music, and they’re all phenomenal, but none of it belongs to any particular time period after the 1980s, so far as I could tell. I know it’s a minor point, but I couldn’t get a bead on when this film was set, and it kept bugging me through the whole runtime.

But that’s just small potatoes, really. The far bigger problem is that this film literally has more storylines than it knows what to do with. There are countless subplots in this film, all of which are potentially very interesting, but none of them are developed enough or prominent enough to be considered the main plot. There’s no through-line that takes us all the way from beginning to middle to end.

There’s Charlie’s psychological problems, but they don’t pose any serious threat until the climax. There’s Charlie’s unfinished business regarding his Aunt Helena, but we never learn all the details about why he considers himself responsible for her death or what unnamed scandal she inflicted on him. There’s Charlie’s freshman year, but the film keeps going long after the last day of school. There’s Charlie’s romance arc with Sam and Sam’s own misadventures in romance, but a pivotal scene from both takes place offscreen.

It doesn’t stop with our main character, either. Candace is saddled with a crappy boyfriend, but that storyline takes place almost entirely out of scene. There’s Patrick and his own troubled love life, but that matter is settled long before the film’s end.

Still, I think the biggest waste of potential comes with all the drug and alcohol use. Charlie’s new friends are notoriously hard partiers, and they quickly introduce him to the joys of liquor, marijuana, and LSD. Sure, he has a great time with them, and his friends are responsible enough to ensure that Charlie’s experiences are relatively safe and enjoyable. All the same, it’s entirely possible that Charlie’s friends may be a harmful influence in spite of all that. Unfortunately, this matter is only barely touched upon for one brief scene and never mentioned again. Wow.

Again, it’s not like any of these storylines are awful. In fact, taken individually, they make for some wonderful drama. The problem is that they never gel together into a single cohesive whole, and the overall plot collapses into a smoking mess because of it. Though to be fair, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, as Garden State and Fast Times at Ridgemont High will attest.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is certainly not a bad film. Indeed, the movie earns a great deal of praise for its wonderfully crafted characters, its superlative cast, and its incredible amount of heart. Still, I can’t bring myself to overlook the excessive number of subplots that the film tries to cram in, ultimately doing none of them justice. Because Stephen Chbosky couldn’t just pick a storyline and stick to it, the plot aimlessly rambles from one scene to the next until the credits finally roll.

I can’t bring myself to decide if this lack of structure is a bug or a feature. If you think it’s the latter, then by all means, check this film out at your first opportunity. If you think it’s the former, then I can still heartily recommend a rental.

—

For more Movie Curiosities, check out my blog. I’m also on Facebook and Twitter.

In December of 2009, word got out that Paul Thomas Anderson was developing a film inspired by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Needless to say, it didn’t take long for shit to hit the fan. The film was immediately dumped by The Weinstein Company and Universal, allegedly due to problems with the script. Luckily, the film secured funding by way of Megan Ellison, a computer technology heiress who’s spent the past few years investing in several fascinating film projects through her Annapurna Pictures shingle. With her backing, the Weinsteins came back on board and The Master eventually came to theaters. But the controversy remains.

A lot of ink has been spilled over this film’s alleged connection to Scientology. I imagine this is partly because Scientology is a very controversial subject to begin with, and partly because those who practice it are so famously litigious that it’s rare for anyone in Hollywood to publicly stand against them. In fact, Scientology is so unpopular with the mainstream that it’s rare for anyone in Hollywood to publicly stand in favor of it.

Of course, all of this is completely beside the point. As anyone who’s seen the film can tell you, this whole controversy is about absolutely nothing.

To be fair, there are some similarities between Scientology and the film’s fictional religion (called “The Cause”). Both are derived from the writings of a single charismatic individual, both involve past lives and emotional impurities of the body, both involve various procedures and treatments designed to bring the participant to a higher state of spiritual being, and both are allegedly based on science and fact despite the total lack of objective proof to back up their claims. Moreover, The Cause is very much like Scientology and countless other cults in its use of mental regression, hypnosis, and other such psychological tricks.

However, something that sets The Cause apart from any other cult (including Scientology) is that there’s no monetary aspect. Aside from book sales, the film makes no mention of membership fees, tithing, or any other source of revenue. This begs the question of what Lancaster Dodd (The Cause’s leader, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) gets out of all this if he’s making the whole thing up.

Also, there aren’t any aliens in Dodd’s theology. Make of that what you will.

Getting back to my original point, it’s obvious that this film was never meant to be a biopic of L. Ron Hubbard, nor was it meant to be a film made in praise or in rejection of Scientology. No, this film had much bigger fish to fry.

Watching the film, it’s patently obvious that the basic framework of Scientology was used as a starting point for a meditation on religion in the modern era. The movie isn’t interested in discrediting cults, but instead asks why someone would join one. In this case, the answer is a simple one: Dodd’s followers are just looking for the great answers to the great questions (why we’re here, what waits for us after death, etc.). In fact, after watching the film, I think Dodd himself is sincerely interested in finding those answers as well.

But why start a new religion instead of going to one of the many pre-existing ones? The film never addresses this point, but I’m guessing it’s precisely because the older religions are old. In the past few millennia, we’ve seen countless scientific breakthroughs to help explain life, the universe, and everything. The world has changed, and religion — for the most part — hasn’t changed with it. Therefore, if a new religion is going to survive at all, it must disguise itself in the trappings of a more scientific and enlightened time.

Anyway, I suppose I’ve gone on long enough. Let’s move on to the film itself, shall we?

This is the story of Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix). He’s a sailor in the US Navy, and we meet him just before the Japanese surrender at the end of WWII. Yet even before Freddie goes off into civilian life, we can see that this guy is badly damaged. He’ll screw absolutely anything with a pulse (or anything inanimate that even looks like a woman), he’s prone to random outbursts of violence, and he has a gift for making alcoholic cocktails out of whatever chemicals are in reach. It’s hard to say if the guy is suffering from PTSD, alcoholism, inherited psychosis, or all of the above. In any case, something is seriously wrong with Freddie. The guy is all id, without a single thought in his head to control his destructive tendencies.

Then, through a stroke of dumb luck, Freddie’s path crosses that of Lancaster Dodd. Freddie is taken in by Dodd and his family, and eventually tries his hand at one of Dodd’s “processing” sessions. This leads to an utterly fascinating sequence in which Freddie is forced to confront his inner demons. At that exact moment, Freddie becomes one of Dodd’s most ardent followers.

At this point, it’s worth remembering that Freddie is a deeply damaged individual with a deep subconscious need for redemption and a totally empty noggin. So of course Dodd has absolutely no difficulty indoctrinating him. Even so, Freddie is so unpredictable, so violent, so addicted to his own self-destruction, and so utterly stupid that changing his ways takes a lot of time and effort. Of course, it doesn’t help that Dodd takes a liking to Freddie’s homebrews, which does nothing to curb the latter’s alcoholism.

Several times in the film, the characters are left to wonder if Freddie is beyond their help. After the party scene in which Fred gets so intoxicated that every woman in sight appears naked to him, it’s hard to argue the point. Indirectly, this leads to another fascinating theme of the movie: The conflict between religion’s redemptive power and its limiting influence.

Freddie does indeed grow as a person through the course of this film, and a lot of that has to do with Dodd’s help. But at some point, Freddie (and the audience, for that matter) has to ask if the cult is holding him back. Maybe it’s possible that he’s outgrown the cult. Maybe he’s reached a point where he can find inner peace without the “processing” sessions. Of course, it’s equally possible that Freddie is so far gone that he’s incapable of learning anything that didn’t come from Dodd’s typewriter. Either way, it’s some great character drama. The bottom line is that Freddie has to choose at some point in the film, and that choice requires a degree of independent thought that he didn’t have at the start of the film. Like I said, character development.

Moving on, let’s talk about Lancaster Dodd. It’s very important to note that the film never portrays him as evil or slimy, but he’s hardly portrayed as virtuous or infallible either. As I’ve said before, he’s simply a man trying to figure out the big questions in life. Then he found the answers (or so he thought) and proceeded to share them with the world. As a direct result, he came to be treated by his followers and detractors alike as some kind of prophet. And maybe at some point, Dodd came to believe his own hype. Yet there are so many times in this movie, particularly going into the second act, when it becomes clear that Dodd is no divine being. He’s just a man. For all his intelligence and charisma, he’s only a mortal. We get to see Dodd’s moments of frailty and doubt, even if no one else does.

Dodd’s wife is another character worthy of note. In every possible way, Peggy Dodd (Amy Adams) is truly Lancaster’s better half. Publicly, she plays an active supporting role in promoting The Cause, and she’s scarcely seen away from her husband’s side. In private, she’s probably more committed to The Cause than Lancaster himself. She’s just as blindly devoted as Freddie, but with a great deal of intelligence and ambition to go with that fanaticism. Basically, it’s made obvious with every interaction between them that Peggy and Lancaster would be totally lost without each other.

All three of these lead performances are phenomenal. Joaquin Phoenix does a remarkable job at playing insanity, and it certainly helps that he came to the role with a bottomless reservoir of energy. Couple that with a character who’s dangerously unpredictable, and you’ve got a performance that’s enthralling to watch. Meanwhile, Philip Seymour Hoffman looks like he’s having the time of his life. This is a wonderfully meaty role, loaded with moments of pathos and good humor, to say nothing of all the character’s many psychological layers. This is a plum role for such a seasoned actor, and Hoffman is making the most of it. Amy Adams doesn’t get quite as much screen time as I might have liked, but damned if she doesn’t make every moment count.

Visually, the movie is exquisite. The shot compositions are absolutely masterful from start to finish, and there are some gorgeous motifs at play here as well (water is easily the most prominent). That said, I understand that some select theaters are showing this film in 70mm, and I can’t comprehend that. I saw this movie in a standard theater, and brother, that was powerful enough. Seems to me like all the close-ups would get overwhelming on an IMAX screen.

Though the screenplay is generally wonderful in its dialogue and thematic material, there are some minor flaws. One example is provided by Dodd’s son (Val, played by Jesse Plemons). In one scene, he’s openly questioning his father’s ideology. Then he disappears for something like half the movie, only to show up later on, happily in his dad’s service. When I saw that, I felt like I had missed a scene somewhere. The last third or so is loaded with such moments when I couldn’t understand the characters’ motivations or actions. I lost the thread of the narrative somewhere, and I’m not sure I ever got it back.

The Master is a challenging movie. It can be slow, it can be confusing, but it is never, ever boring. Paul Thomas Anderson’s direction is absolutely sterling, Joaquin Phoenix brings the house down with his performance, and all of the characters are fascinating to watch. The film also serves as a very interesting treatise on the subject of faith and prophets in the post-nuclear age.

This film is easily worth a recommendation just for the sheer craftsmanship on display. Additionally, whether you like the film or hate it, I can guarantee you’ll leave the theater with something to think about.

—

For more Movie Curiosities, check out my blog. I’m also on Facebook and Twitter.

The Great Movie Ever Rolled is neither the documentary Doug Benson fans will really want, or the one Doug Benson deserves, but it is a funny, charmingly sloppy look at how the comedian spends much of his time. Capturing the day-to-day slog of traveling, performing in comedy clubs, traveling more, doing morning shows, traveling even more, and generally fucking about on the road, the film from Ryan Polito was built from only a couple weeks of shooting while Benson toured with pal and fellow stand-up Graham Elwood.

Benson has become a crossover icon in the film and comedy worlds as his podcast Doug Loves Movies has become a staple for movie nerds and stand-up fans alike, with its hybrid format that pulls high quality actors, directors and comedians together to shoot the shit about movies and play trivia games. It’s a successful show by which Benson has spread awareness of his own brand of pot-adled comedy and cultivated a huge network of cool people to work with. You see only the barest glimpses of this though, as the doc focuses pretty much on the traveling and comedy shows. The mileage you get out of this doc will be based entirely on how much you enjoy Benson and Elwood’s humor, as that’s the beating heart of this bare bones flick.

This film is a loose follow up to Benson’s Super High Me, which has become an Instant Watch hit and used Morgan Spurlock’s McDoc as inspiration for a 30-day marijuana abstention experiment. That doc too gave a good look at what it was like to be a mid-level stand up on a day-to-day basis, and Greatest Movie pretty much follows that course, except without a gimmick to drive it. Doug smokes a lot of pot, is funny, travels: that’s what you’re getting here. It’s mentioned that Benson is again riffing on Spurlock (specifically his recent Greatest Movie Ever Sold) by funding the movie with the money he makes from touring to make the movie about the tour that he went on to make the money ad infinitum, but that’s more a joke to start out the film rather than anything that actually drives a story. At this point Benson has no problem selling out shows, so it’s more about hanging out with people and smoking after the show, riffing with Ellwood in the car, and pulling pranks on morning shows.

The film is not a pretty one having been shot on DSLRs and GoPros in airports, rental cars, under-lit bars and parking lots, so it has a very rough, patched-together charm that effectively broadcasts the ambition level from the start. At this point it’s just these guys getting off the couch and making some dough- not an introspective work on what it means to be a comedian and run a podcasting mini-empire. It’s an elaborate video podcast and, frankly, that’s appropriate enough for what amounts to another Instant Watch library title that people will enjoy casually. That said, the film could benefit from distribution that will get it in front of crowds as Benson’s following will surely fill up a decent run of theaters, and the crowd experience is a blast, baked or not.

I would imagine a lot of fans (including myself) would love to see the doc that really captures the feel of Doug Loves Movies, tracks Benson’s interesting development as a popular stand-up, and digs deeper into what makes Benson’s fan base tick, etc. etc., but that’s just not what this is. As much as I would love to see a Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop of the podcasting world, that film has simply not yet manifested. Maybe someday someone will put together something about Benson, Maron, Hardwick and the rest to dig into the awesome new paradigm that these guys are blazing trails within, but for now just rolling one up and giggling at Woot monkeys will have to suffice. And it does.

Rating:

Out of a Possible 5 Stars

If the vaguely dystopian America of Looper is any indication, writer/director Rian Johnson sees a very selfish doom in our future.

Looper is a stunning work of scifi action cinema that is as entertaining as it brilliant, as brave as it is meticulously tuned. It owns being a “time travel” movie in both structure and style, with clever exploitation of its premise, and a story that ultimately grows much bigger than the story of one man on the run. Looper is not just a time-travel crime film- when our hero is forced to hunt himself down, the story progresses into something much bigger that places stakes into the very future of humanity. It’s a future that’s very much in question, as the world of Looper is one that seems on the fast track to outright dystopia driven by the self-absorption and apathy of the doomed…

Johnson’s vision of the country three decades from now avoids obvious signifiers of just what went wrong- you’ll see nothing as obvious as people with mobile phones surgically attached to their heads (mobile devices are almost an after though, in fact). Rather it’s through glimpses of tent cities, the lifestyles of the privileged, allusions to “the vagrant raids” and a sort of perpetual hangover every character seems to live within that suggests the American middle class has become entirely swallowed up by a vast chasm of inequality. Amidst this broken society we meet the Loopers, an organization of broken individuals who are thrust into a high-class lifestyle based on an explicit agreement that they will become murderers for the length of a contract that is terminated by them taking their own, delayed life. You see, this future is perforated by the invention of time-travel in an even more distant future, and these Loopers eliminate targets of organized crime that are sent back from 2074(ish) to 2044, where and when it is still possible to cleanly dispose of a body. These contracts dissolve when the Loopers –who typically receive bound targets loaded with silver that are immediately shot and anonymously discarded– find a final gold payoff included with their victim, who is in fact themselves 30 years older.

Every looper knows the deal so, as Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Joe notes, it is not a profession that attracts forward-thinking individuals.

Through the Loopers we see a society of people who are selfish, drugged up, and otherwise living entirely in the moment as even for those with means the world does not seem to offer much in the way of long-term possibilities. Even a small portion of the population that have developed light telekinetic powers employ them as tricks to impress people in bars- whatever latent new abilities these people have, they’re not making the most of them.  It’s a distressing promise of self-perpetuating decline, juxtaposed with the view of Shanghai where hope and promise seem to live. Lest you wonder if the Chinese co-finance arrangement leaves any fingerprints, take for example that one character stubbornly contemplating a move to France is explicitly advised to move to China by a character who notes that he’s from the future (fortunately the delivery of that advice is brilliant).

The future as seen in Looper is one with bigger cities, aged cars (most retrofitted to some post-combustion system), a few more robots, and some hover cycles yet it’s entirely familiar. Again, the suggestion seems to be that progress and invention have ground to a halt in the decades to come, so 2044 doesn’t look all that much different from 2012. Though a time-travel film, Looper plays with the concept more in the sense of cause-and-effect relationship as different versions of the same individual run around. An amazing montage summarizing what I would call the “Bruce Willis Eventuality” of Joe’s life gives us some glimpse of the farther future, but mostly the time travel and its “rules” are simple and conventional, whereas the clever demonstrations of them are anything but. The action develops from Young Joe searching out Old Joe when he escapes the usual loop-closing self-murder, making Young Joe himself a target of every aimed gun in the city. The expected treat of parallel badassery from Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ultimately evolves into a much bigger plot that will change the destiny of humanity, with the script beginning to emphasize elements of the film the trailers have held back on as the time-travel and Looper exposition recedes.

Despite being a lonely, shitty guy, Young Joe is our hero and Joseph Gordon-Levitt effortlessly takes on the Bruce Willis bravado. Bolstered by a make-up job that gives him a Bruno nose, redefined mouth and more Willis-like eyes, JGL is not subtle about delivering the film’s spare narration and smart-ass dialogue like a John McClane in his prime, though don’t for a second think there’s not a real performance with a unique beating heart beneath the affectations. Gordon-Levitt’s Joe is a truly lost soul and a heavy user of the eye-dropper dispensed future coke that the Loopers enjoy, and though he’s troubled by an early decision that sells a friend up the river in order to maintain his financial status, you get the sense that he’d probably make that decision again.

Once everything is flipped upside down, Young Joe is as eager as anyone to gun down his older self- however empty and unfulfilling his life may have been up till that point, the boy wants it back. Old Joe however, has been ripped from a future in which he’s found a very real life –something like redemption– and is willing to do some very extreme, terrible things to preserve that eventuality for himself. It’s here that Johnson shows real bravery through the places he’s willing to take this story, and formidable skill in how he’s able to portray these moments without losing his audience. Not only does Johnson carefully handle key moments and trust in Bruce Willis to hit the right notes in their wake, but the script also perfectly times other revelations about characters that ensure the film earns every difficult choice. With directing, writing, and performance working in such delicate concert you’re witnessing clockwork filmmaking, and it’s a wonder to behold.

Johnson’s skills behind the camera have always had an effortless style to them in which every camerawork mannerism pushes along a moment or an emotional beat- beyond the clever dialogue and cute conceit, this is what makes Brick so special. Here Johnson takes it up a notch once again and finds gorgeous, innovative ways to capture and stage action, conversation, and visual exposition. It’s true that the occasional effects shot borders on clunky, but Johnson’s filmmaking still scales up for action very effectively. It’s not just how he moves the camera- beats within scenes are staged with such confidence that the way someone flips up a gun or slams a door helps drive a scene deeper into your mind and punctuate dialogue.

The production design and costuming are remarkable and perfectly support that aforementioned vision of a decaying, if not fully dead America (just imagine the whole country is future Detroit). Precise, indispensable sound design is built into the architecture of the edit, while Nathan Johnson’s propulsive, haunting score explores a variety of textures and techniques that fit the varied landscapes of the grungy city and the dusty cornfields where much of the film takes place. All this together represents a deep level of sophistication that permeates every level of the filmmaking and gives the film that groundbreaking, instant-classic quality.

Going back to performances, Willis is as confident as you would expect in this role, but this is surely one of his most nuanced performances in ages (with Moonrise Kingdom, it’s a good year for him). It’s rare that a film pulls weakness and deep-seated desperation out of Willis when he’s in action mode, but it’s all on the table here and by the time Willis does unleash a superhuman hail of pain, he’s goddamned earned it. With such iconic performances from the two leads, the buttressing supporting cast has to be awfully strong to stand out, and from Emily Blunt to Paul Dano to the steely Garret Dillahunt they’re all spectacular. Blunt in particular has a great rapport with Levitt, but it’s her chemistry with the frighteningly cogent performance from 7-year-old Pierce Gagnon that will stick with you. Jeff Daniels gives an appropriately lazy turn, and has several of the film’s best line deliveries .

Avoiding the bigger events of the second and third acts means very vague praise for some of the film’s best elements, but suffice to say that the level to which Looper gets taken by its end moments and the perfect series of events that actually conclude the story are just this side of magnificent. This is now a classic science fiction story, and like the best of the genre it also pays off and re-visualize pioneering work from those that came before. The obviously influences like Phillip K. Dick, Ridley Scott, and The Wachowskis are all there, while Katsuhiro Otomo is eventually revealed as a big influence as well. One would expect that namedrop in particular will raise some eyebrows…

It’s rare that a film demands an instant rewatch both because of its rewarding intricacies and because it’s so damned entertaining, but something about the best scifi action does just that. Looper stands confidently alongside thoughtful, contemporary blockbusters like The Matrix and Inception, while preserving so much of the intimate details of films like Primer and Moon. Rian Johnson has proven himself a worthy studio filmmaker who has vision enough to fill out a large budget and give us bigger ideas to match the bigger films. Looper would be a contender for best film in any year it was released, and this year it stands out from all other blockbuster efforts by a large stretch. It deserves virtually every positive adjective you can throw at it and it is the kind of film with which a message can be sent to the studios that audience are hungry for ideas with their spectacle.

Looper is incredible, and you simply can not miss it.

Rating:

Out of a Possible 5 Stars

THE SPY WHO ORPHANED ME

Having a song stretched across the opening titles is a time-honored tradition in the James Bond franchise.  It’s something that fans, both casual and fanatical, look forward to with each upcoming installment.  In fact, I’m willing to bet anything that chatter about who might croon the next Bondian tune for the currently-untitled Bond 24 begins shortly after Skyfall hits theaters…if it hasn’t already.

As Renn told you earlier this week, the band Muse is pushing hard for their song “Supremacy” to become the opener for Skyfall.  Aside from the fact that Adele is basically a given at this stage and there is no way on Earth that EON will agree to using a song that already features on Muse’s new album, it’s still a fun piece of music and I can’t help but respect them for trying.  They aren’t the first to do so and I’m sure they will not be the last to vie for the chance at being immortalized in a 007 adventure.

What’s that?  There are more unused and rejected Bond themes out there?  In a franchise that is celebrating its 50^th year on the silver screen, of course there are.  Some are pieces commissioned by the filmmakers themselves.  Others were done on spec and were turned down.  All are interesting pieces of cinematic history and odd little capsules from their moments in time.  What do you say we explore them together?  I knew you’d say yes!

Goldfinger is first on the list.  It was the third film in the series and, as fantastic as the previous two are, it’s the one that really set the stage for the rest of the franchise.  Shirley Bassey’s classic opener is considered by most to still be the best song the series has produced to date.  It wasn’t the first version, however.  Initially, the song was recorded by co-writer Anthony Newley and here it is…

Did it feel a bit odd for you to hear someone else singing it?  It did for me too.  It’s easy to see why they decided to take things in another, more bombastic direction…and we are all the better for that wonderful decision.  Thunderball was the next entry and things were even crazier behind the scenes on this one.  Composer John Barry and lyricist Don Black concocted a fantastic son in the form of “Mr. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang” that was intended to be the film’s opening tune.  While an early demo was recorded by a returning Shirley Bassey (which you can listen to here), the final version was belted by Dionne Warwick.  Late in the game, the producers decided that they wanted a song centered around the title of the film itself and the iconic Tom Jones theme was born.  An instrumental version of the Warwick song is still used throughout the film itself and the tune has always been highlighted on soundtrack and compilation releases throughout the decades; thankfully never being forgotten.  It has always been among my absolute favorites of the series and here it is laid over the opening titles of the film…

Remember how I said Muse wasn’t the first to offer up a song on spec for the producers?  As far as I can tell, the first artist to do so was Mr. Johnny Cash.  Here is The Man In Black’s submission for Thunderball, once again laid over the opening credits for dramatic effect…

You Only Live Twice actually went through two earlier iterations before landing on the Nancy Sinatra classic.  The first is a more rockin’ tune that utilizes a bit of the Bond theme and was recorded by Lorraine Chandler…

The second took things slower and had Julie Rogers providing the vocals.  While both are interesting, once again, I happiest with what we were given.  Here is the Rogers’ version:

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service doesn’t have an alternate version.  The existing song is an instrumental and perhaps my favorite piece of music in the entire franchise.  It DID, however, have lyrics at one point in time.  This was ultimately abandoned before recording though, as director Peter Hunt decided that he wanted the film to open with an instrumental just like the first two films.  Yes, even From Russia With Love.  It’s a common misconception that the film opened with the Matt Munro song, which doesn’t actually feature until the end of the film.  We don’t come to another alternate theme until 1974’s The Man With The Golden Gun.  For Roger Moore’s second outing as 007, Alice Cooper thought he was the man with the golden tune, if you will.  I love you, Alice Cooper, but in this instance it is YOU who are not worthy.  Care to see for yourself?

Yikes!  No wonder the producers passed.  We only have two more “almosts” from the Moore era.  The second one, Laura Branigan’s version of “All Time High” has unfortunately never been released.  We do have access to Blondie’s rendition of “For Your Eyes Only” though.  Debbie Harry had agreed early on to do the song, but ended up backing out once she found out she’d be collaborating with composer Bill Conti.  Bill went on to do a song for the film with Sheena Easton, but Blondie pushed ahead and recorded their own odd little song anyway…which you can listen to here.

Dalton’s first Bondscapade, The Living Daylights, had a great deal of musical shuffling as well.  The Pet Shop Boys recorded a demo that was ultimately unused and later reworked into “This Must Be The Place I Waited Years To Leave”.  In the meantime, John Barry had begun work with The Pretenders on two original songs.  The second, “If There Was A Man”, ended up playing over the end credits of the film.  The first, “Where Has Everybody Gone”, was originally intended to be the main theme for the film and the music for both songs run rampant throughout Barry’s score (his final for the franchise).  The song itself is also present in the form of henchman Necros’ Walkman.  Here it is in all its badass glory…

Ace of Base was brought in early on to craft a song for Goldeneye.  While the production ultimately went a different way, the band eventually released the tune in a slightly reworked form in 2002 as “The Juvenile”.

Brosnan’s Tomorrow Never Dies also played musical chairs.  Saint Etienne recorded a piece for the film that went unused, but is still praised by Pierce.  That one can be heard here.  Other bands, including Pulp tried their hands at a theme and were similarly rejected.  It is the song that composer David Arnold wrote with k.d. lang that is the real loss.  While it still ended up over the end credits, it is clearly the better tune when held up against Sheryl Crow’s.  It is a crime that it wasn’t chosen and here is “Surrender” in its rightful place…

Madonna and Chris Cornell were always the choices for Die Another Day and Casino Royale, respectively.  It wasn’t until Quantum of Solace that we had another musical shake-up.  David Arnold and the producers had spoken early on to Amy Winehouse, but that never panned out.  Arnold went off on his own and began working with Shirley Bassey to potentially grant her a fourth time at bat for the series.  In the meantime, EON and Sony scrambled to get something going, ultimately landing on a duet between Alisha Keyes & Jack White.  While I have nothing against either artist, the resulting “Another Way To Die” is incredibly half-baked and the worst effort to date in my eyes.  Had they been given more time I’m sure they could have crafted something worthwhile, but such is life.  While it didn’t pan out for the film, Arnold & Bassey ended up finishing their song and it was included on Dame Shirley’s next album.  Here is the product of their collaboration, “No Good But Goodbye”…

Now that’s more like it, Mr. Bond!  Artist Eva Almer submitted a piece for Quantum of Solace on spec, “Forever (I Am All Yours)”, that was also rejected…

I flip-flop back and forth between which one I would have rather ended up with to open Daniel Craig’s second outing.  Neither is perfect, but both are infinitely better than what we were given (sorry, Jack!).  And that brings us up-to-date with the latest 007 adventure, Skyfall.  While rumors shortly after Quantum of Solace had The Killers pegged as a possible collaborator for David Arnold on Bond 23, it is Adele that has been the singular name attached to this film since it began shooting.  While still not “officially” confirmed, the songstress is pretty much a lock at this point.  All signs point to her collaborating with composer Thomas Newman on the theme.  Rumor has it that it will intend carry the same title as the film itself and that it is most similar to a-Ha’s “The Living Daylights”.  Whether either tidbit ultimately pans out, we’ll know soon enough!  I think we can safely say that Muse’s “Supremacy” won’t be making the cut though.  Sorry fellas!  Maybe next time?

What does the future hold for Bond musically?  It’s hard to say.  Will director Sam Mendes be coaxed back for Bond 24?  He certainly doesn’t have anything lined up yet and by all accounts everyone has got on really well on the new one.  And if he does, will series newbie (and Mendes regular) Thomas Newman return with him?  Or will David Arnold return to the fold and recapture the throne that he has held since 1997?  And if so, will he finally give Daniel Craig and the fans a new Bassey classic?  Only time will tell.  I hope all of you have enjoyed taking this little jaunt through alternative Bond history with me.  I’ll be returning at the end of next week with another piece on the franchise and will continue to do so until Skyfall his screens in the U.S. on November 9^th.  See you next week!

Addendum – As an added bonus, here is an alternate song for 1983’s Never Say Never Again.  I didn’t include it above because it is an unofficial entry in the series (and a remake of Thunderball!).  The film was Connery’s last turn as Bond and the byproduct of a long-going legal battle against the producers.  We’ll get into that more later on though.

THE SPY WHO ORPHANED ME

LICENSED TO KILL

NOBODY DUBS IT BETTER

THUNDERBALLED

DR. (K)NO(W-IT-ALL)

A VIEW ON THE THRILLS

SKYFALL & BEYOND

Ah, time travel. That classic sci-fi staple that can instantly turn any story into a complicated mindfuck.

There are so many reasons why time travel stories can easily devolve into a hot mess. Possibly the most prominent reason is the fact that (as of right now) there’s no real-world basis for it. This isn’t like robotics, space travel, computers, biological engineering, or anything else that we’ve been actively using and developing for the past several decades.

We literally don’t know the first thing about time travel. This means — among other things — that there are no hard and fast rules about the subject. The point is that there’s no shared knowledge about time travel between storytellers and audiences. Storytellers can make up anything they want about time paradoxes, interactions between past and present selves, and other mechanics of time travel, reinventing the wheel every time they do.

To be fair, we do have hard and fast rules for things that don’t exist in any way, shape, or form. We know, for example, that vampires can be harmed by sunlight, and the only way to kill a zombie is by destroying its head. Even so, such fictional monsters still have to be redefined with every story they appear in (Can silver hurt a vampire? Can zombies use weapons?). Also, the motivation and destruction of flesh-eating creatures is a relatively simple matter next to screwing with the space-time continuum.

Exploring the various causes and effects of time travel can take a sci-fi yarn into increasingly complex and esoteric directions. And all the while, the audience is powerless to do much of anything except hope that it all makes sense. Primer is an excellent case in point.

Shane Carruth’s film offered some fascinating ideas about time travel, with mechanics that sounded alarmingly plausible. Unfortunately, these heady notions made for a story that was utterly incomprehensible. I maintain that anyone who claims to understand the plot of Primer is either a genius or a liar.

With his film, Carruth proved himself a man with brilliant notions about time travel, but a crappy storyteller. Fortunately, Carruth took his creative mind and served as a time travel consultant for Rian Johnson, who’s proven himself to be a very good storyteller indeed. Thus we have Looper.

Pay attention, because things are about to get complicated.

Tonight’s film concerns a slightly distant future when time travel has been made possible, but it’s also been made highly illegal. So naturally, this means that only criminals use time travel. They have a great need for it, too: Thanks to advances in forensic technology, it’s become borderline impossible to hide a corpse.

Thus, when the mob bosses of the future need someone dead, they strap the target with a handful of silver ingots and send him back to the year 2042 or so, roughly thirty years before the invention of time travel. Upon arrival, the target is promptly killed by a specialized assassin native to the time period, known as a “looper.” The loopers of course know precisely where and when the target is coming, so the actual hit is a quick and clean operation. After the target is dead, the looper collects his silver and disposes of the corpse. The corpse, remember, of a person who won’t actually exist for another three decades.

(Side note: It’s interesting to note that the loopers are paid in silver, as it leads to a plot point involving one friend betraying another for pieces of silver. Was the Biblical nod intentional? I’ll let you be the judge.)

However, there’s a catch that comes with being a looper. After all, the mob bosses can’t leave any witnesses to report all of this to the feds. So it is that when time travel eventually gets invented, the mob tracks down those loopers who are still alive. These loopers are then sent back to the past with a fat payday of gold ingots and killed by their own younger selves, who may then enjoy the next thirty years with their huge retirement fortune. This is called “closing the loop.”

Oh, and another thing about this future setting: About ten percent of the population is mutated in such a way that they’re telekinetic. It’s actually not that big a deal, though. TKs can levitate a coin about two inches into the air, but that’s about it. Remember this if you see the movie, it’s going to be important.

Anyway, the film concerns a looper named Joe, played by exec-producer and returning Rian Johnson colleague Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He’s your average looper, spending huge amounts of money and killing time-travellers like it ain’t no thang. Additionally, the guy’s a junkie, he has no aspirations aside from spending his retirement in France, and his love life consists pretty much entirely of an unrequited crush on a prostitute (Suzie, played by Piper Perabo). The guy’s got a good thing going and he’s having the time of his life, though he’s still clearly an awful excuse for a human being.

But then the time finally comes for Joe to close his loop. His older self pops up (we’ll call him Old Joe, played by Bruce Willis), and manages to avoid execution. So now both Joes are on the run, as every looper, criminal, and bounty hunter in the area is out to kill the both of them.

Naturally, Joe is out to save his own life (what’s left of it, anyway) by hunting down his older self. But Old Joe has bigger fish to fry. See, at some point in the future, an enigmatic figure known only as “the Rainmaker” will show up. Nobody knows anything about him — or her — except that Rainmaker will somehow conquer all organized crime in the country by himself. He doesn’t even need an army or anyone else, he just does it entirely by his lonesome. Of course, this regime change involves tons of people getting killed, including and especially the loopers. Yes, one of the first things on the Rainmaker’s agenda is to start closing the loops. All of them.

Who is the Rainmaker? How did he come to power? Why would he get rid of the loopers when they’re probably the best way for organized crime to get rid of bodies? All of this will be answered as the film continues.

Getting back to Old Joe, he’s now in a time before the Rainmaker came to power. Armed with some chance bits of information and whatever weapons he can find, Old Joe sets out to find and kill the young Rainmaker.

Now, take a moment to think about this. We’ve all talked or heard or thought about using a time machine to go back and kill Adolf Hitler as a child, but be honest with yourself. If you were actually looking into the eyes of a five-year-old child, blissfully unaware of the monster he’ll one day become, could you really bring yourself to pull the trigger? Moreover, what if there was only a one-in-three chance that this was actually the kid you were looking for?

This brings me to the Joe vs. Old Joe thematic conflict. It’s been said that the great advantage of age is experience. The elderly are to be respected because they’ve seen and learned so much more than those who haven’t been around as long. This notion takes on a whole new layer with time travel, and the film utilizes it to the fullest extent.

Older Joe — just like anyone else, really — has seen and done a lot in his past thirty years of life. Not only has he personally seen the terror of the Rainmaker, but he’s seen a great deal of joys and pains. This naturally means that Old Joe has a ton of advice and wisdom for his younger self, but Joe isn’t having any of it. He doesn’t know about anything that will come to pass, he just wants to get on with his life.

This might make Joe an obstinate young idiot (and remember, he was never exactly a likeable guy to begin with), except for one little thing: The future isn’t set. We know for a fact that the timeline can change. As such, it’s entirely possible that Old Joe is clinging to a future that may never come to pass. So it is that before long, Old Joe comes to symbolize the viewpoint that the future is predetermined, while Joe represents the idea that we can change our future. Which of them is right? Well, I’d argue that the film doesn’t answer that one way or another. Smart move, in my opinion.

Another character to make use of the “age is experience” theme is Abe (Jeff Daniels). He’s a mobster from the future who was sent back in time to supervise the loopers. Needless to say, Abe knows more than anyone else in this movie about future events, the mechanics of time travel, and the criminals behind this whole operation. Not only does this knowledge lend Abe an inherent air of authority, but it also leads to some humorous moments when he talks about recurring trends and the future plans of his loopers. Both look considerably different from a time-traveler’s perspective, after all.

With regards to Daniels’ performance, he’s… okay. To be sure, he gets the character’s wry sense of humor down pat, and he can even play a decent commander when the need arises. But when the time came to see Jeff Daniels try to be intimidating, I just couldn’t see it. Sorry, but I couldn’t bring myself to think of Daniels as a guy who could break a man’s fingers. He’s simply not scary enough to pull that off. Then again, the loopers are a very autonomous bunch and we’re told that supervising them is a very undemanding job, so maybe the mob sent Abe because he was the runt of the litter? Hard to say.

As long as we’re talking about the secondary cast, let’s move on to Emily Blunt. She plays Sara, the mother of a young boy who may or may not be the future Rainmaker (Sid, played by a superbly talented child actor named Pierce Gagnon). Blunt does a wonderful job with the character, effectively delivering a devoted mother and a very strong woman. Moreover, it’s obvious that a lot of her strength comes from emotional scarring, which begs the question of what secrets she may be hiding. The same could be asked of Sid as well — the kid is so intelligent and so creepy that there’s clearly more to him than meets the eye. But is he supervillain material? Hard to say.

Really, the only huge misstep with regards to Sara was in her relationship with Joe. I can’t even call it a romance arc, since it consists entirely of one scene that comes from way out of left field. Granted, JGL and Blunt have decent onscreen chemistry, but their first kiss still felt very out of place, and nothing important really comes of it. The whole thing should have been better-established, in my opinion.

Moving on, there are a few other noteworthy loopers to discuss. Garret Dillahunt plays one of the loopers chasing Joe, and goddamn is it good to see him up on a screen again. Guy doesn’t get nearly enough work for how talented he is. There’s also Kid Blue (Noah Segan), an egotistical little prick who’s one of Joe’s primary rivals. Last but not least is Seth (Paul Dano, and I was genuinely surprised to see him in this picture), one of Joe’s closest friends. Seth gets in trouble early on because he fails to close his loop long before Joe does. I initially thought this turn of events was worthless, since we could have guessed for ourselves that letting a target go is a bad thing. However, this turns out to be very useful in terms of plot. Not only does the older Seth (Frank Brennan) establish the Rainmaker very early in the proceedings, but he helpfully demonstrates how past and present versions of the same person can affect each other.

I suppose I should also give some mention to Piper Perabo. She makes it obvious that Suzie will gladly take whatever money and affection Joe gives to her, and she’s happy to give some TLC in return, but it’s all in the job for her. Joe is clearly one of her favorite customers, but a customer and nothing more all the same. It’s an interesting balance, to be sure, but the character is far more interesting in terms of plot relevance than anything else.

As for Bruce Willis, the guy’s still got it. I know he already proved as much with The Expendables 2, but Willis is still absolutely a viable action star. He played a very convincing badass in spite of his age, and it was a hell of a thing to watch him mow down a small army of armed thugs. But at the same time, Willis doesn’t make any attempt at hiding his age. After all, the crux of Old Joe’s character is the fact that he’s an older man with a long history of murder and heartbreak. Willis plays all of that wonderfully, particularly opposite JGL. Additionally, it’s worth noting that Old Joe remains a very sympathetic character from start to finish, even as he’s gunning down children. This is partly due to the inner conflict that Willis brings to the role, though it also helps that he’s genuinely trying to stop a mass murderer from coming into power.

Regarding the other Joe, it’s worth pointing out that the filmmakers had to use prosthetics to make JGL look more like a young Bruce Willis. Sometimes the effect looks wonderfully lifelike. Other times, particularly in close-ups, it doesn’t look nearly as good. Fortunately, JGL is so thoroughly committed to his Bruno impression that he makes it easy to overlook the occasional makeup flaw. It also helps that Joe has a dynamic and interesting development arc, which gives JGL a lot to work with.

Visually, this movie is wonderfully impressive. I was especially fond of the futuristic takes on old technology, particularly with regard to the older-model cars that have visibly been retrofitted with clunky yet eco-friendly attachments. Additionally, the movie largely takes place in a very worn city, overrun with poverty and vagrants. The film shows us a man stealing from a school bus and getting shot in the back for his trouble, for God’s sake. But here’s Joe and his friends, driving through all of this in an impossibly fancy car, drinking and partying with the mountain of cash that they got through committing rampant murder, with scarcely any regard to the people starving around them. It’s a powerful contrast.

Speaking of symbolism, the film makes a prominent motif out of watches and clocks. Par for the course in a time travel film, obviously, but none of the clocks or watches in this film are digital. The movie only shows close-ups of analog timepieces, which I thought was rather strange. I mean, Joe uses a pocketwatch in this film. Who on earth still uses a pocketwatch in this day and age, much less in 2040? As best I can figure it, Johnson eschewed digital clocks because they don’t make that distinctive ticking sound, which is another motif in the film.

The cinematography is also wonderful. There are a lot of creative camera movements, such as Rian Johnson’s novel choice to roll the camera upside-down when Joe takes drugs. The approach was very simple, but neatly unsettling. The VFX were also quite good, especially with regard to the TKs. I don’t know how that telekinesis trick was done, but I’m left assuming it was a simple stage illusion, it looked that damned real and tactile. Also, there are a ton of storylines in play here and not all of them take place in the same time period, so kudos to editor Bob Ducsay for keeping it all coherent and well-paced.

As for the screenplay, it’s… flawed. I’m not particularly fond of using voice-over for exposition dumps, as this film does, but the voice-over narration pays off quite nicely at the end of the film. Also, I thought that quite a few story points seemed a little too easy and convenient. The Rainmaker’s origin is one example, but I can’t go into that without discussing spoilers. So instead, I’ll point out a different example: Old Joe’s search for the Rainmaker started with a single number. How did Old Joe get that number? How did his source get the number? Why did the number go from one to the other? If any of these questions were answered, I’ve forgotten it.

Still, the screenplay’s novel execution of heady thematic content is just too good to ignore. The conflicts of young vs. old, destiny vs. free will, and how much the ends justify the means are all made wonderfully intriguing when seen through this film’s time-travel lens. It also helps that the film only tells us just enough about its time travel mechanics to help us make sense of the plot, which keeps things nice and simple.

Despite some very minor cases of fridge logic, Looper is a wonderfully entertaining film that was made with intelligence and creativity to spare. It’s always a great thing to see a science fiction movie that’s both action-packed and thought-provoking, and this film elegantly fits the bill. Additionally, JGL turns in yet another fantastic performance, Bruce Willis proves that he’s still a viable action star, and Rian Johnson proves once again that he’s a superbly talented filmmaker.

This one comes absolutely recommended.

—

For more Movie Curiosities, check out my blog. I’m also on Facebook and Twitter.

I liked The Amazing Spider-Man. Granted, it doesn’t hold a candle to the first two films in Raimi’s trilogy. And a film where the general consensus appeared to be “Hey, that wasn’t as bad as I thought,” doesn’t inspire much anticipation for continued adventures. I’m almost loath to revisit the film because, as I admitted in my review, the 3D really is the best part. The experience will surely lose something in a home viewing.

Despite tepid reviews, those inflated ticket prices helped bring Amazing to $751,657,162 gross (box office mojo) – so a sequel was assured. What wasn’t a surety until today was the return of director Marc Webb – rumored to have had a falling out with Sony over the director’s obligations to Fox. Well, as Drew McWeeny over at Hitfix now reports, cooler heads have prevailed as both star Andrew Garfield and Webb are now signed and delivered for the sequel. Emma Stone is also reportedly in talks to return as Gwen Stacy, though it would seem her deal is still in the works.

The sequel sees itself on a fast-approaching (in movie time) May 2^nd, 2014 deadline. It doesn’t sound like Webb had the best time battling the studio over creative decisions on the previous film. With a high-budget project on such strict time constraints, can the filmmaker really be expecting things to run smoother the second time out?

I take photos of dumb shit. Some of you do too (submit yours HERE). Life’s too short and there’s too many dumb things out there to allow it going unnoticed or people not getting called out for it. This is where I shine a light at fools, loons, hypocrites, and in many instances my own dumb self. If you dig this, please share it on FB and Twitter (links right above this) or participate in our message board thread devoted to it.

1. Believe it, bitch.

This would be the best book ever if the cover art was a woman sitting on the beach in Normandy surrounded by invading soldiers. In a situation like that the Allies and Axis forces would unify in puzzlement with the surprised loom knitter. Or if it was a person surrounded by wolves in the night, their fangs bared for dismemberment. Or a puzzled housewife falling from the wreckage of the Columbia. These are all highly inappropriate locations and situations for the magic of loom knitting. To be beside yourself in excitement over something BY LAW requires that thing to be interesting. Examples:

HOLY FUCK I’M WHIPPING A KARATE EXPERT TO DEATH!

I AM ASTOUNDED TO BE HANG GLIDING IN CAVES!

I AM INCREDULOUS AS THE SIZE OF THIS DICK IN MY HAND!

HOLY SHIT! BIRTHDAY CAKES!

LOOK OUT MOM, I’VE BEEN WITNESS RELOCATED!

FUCK OFF, WHAT A NICE CHABLIS!

2. I’m allergic to mushrooms and ejaculate.

There’s a recurring theme in the DUMB about the city of Cumming, GA. I don’t care. It’s a fuck name. Makes me want to move away. Like to DVDAtown, Ohio.

It had to be Penn State, didn’t it? The one college in the world where kid’s candy emblazoned with the school logo doesn’t evoke school spirit as much as bloody-assed young people limping home for supper.

4. We get it. You travel a lot. Or you buy stickers online.

Communing with nature is its own reward. You don’t have to be a goddamn show off. In a minivan.
Twist ending: I pulled up next to the fattest hiker in town. Less stickers, more hiking.

5. This product totally exists.

I may be a little naive but I didn’t not know it was even possible to buy over the counter penis piss.

The purpose is apparently too fool one’s potential job prospect should they ask for a drug test. Because taking getting a new job seriously and going in clean is ludicrous. You ought to do what I do when I go into a job interview. I tell them that I’d be happy to piss for them but because I’m so excited to be considered for the position there’s going to be a large percentage of semen in the cup too.

That tells them I’m the ideal candidate.

6. Even Marilu Henner couldn’t make this sexy.

“Billy Ray, remember that scratch-off lottery ticket windfall I had the other week?”

“What is the definition of windfall?”

“Funny, dude!”

“No really, I dropped out after Montessori School.”

“Shut the front door, when I pulled seven G’s out of the machine at the Piggy Wiggly. I almost snotted my tattered wife-beater I was so blown away.”

“Oh yeah, we got fucking high as fuck.”

“Well I invested the rest of that shit and for real. In luxury motherfucker. Step outside for a look at my new ride…”

7. Math!

“Let’s add up some height, distance, objects, and years to create a complex mathematical equation.”

“What the fuck does that do? What does that number quantify?”

“It’s like a mixture of algebra and some other algebras.”

8. The prequel to ‘Oh Heavenly Dog’.

The answer to the question “How do you kill all the history, toughness, coolness, and notoriety out of motorcycle culture in one fell swoop?”

9. You can almost see the farmer’s fingerprints.

Produce n.: 2. Farm products, especially fresh fruits and vegetables, considered as a group.

Am I looking at store fixture or a field? I can’t tell. I mean, if you look real close it may not look like a shitload of naturally grown fruits sitting there but I gotta believe everything I read. That shit is PRODUCE! Look at all those goddamn fruits.

10. Loser Superstore!

At 10am the curtain comes down and they shoot you in the face.

By the way:

Message Board Thread.

For 17 years Ira Glass has been bringing us stories illustrating the American condition with popular publicly syndicated radio show This American Life. It’s no surprise the acclaimed personality was drawn to a project like Sleepwalk with Me – a film written, directed by and starring comedian Mike Birbiglia in which Glass served as producer and writer. If the story seemed interesting to Glass, it’s wholeheartedly personal to Mr. Birbiglia. Loosely autobiographical and recounting his own rise to prominence as well as his battle with sleepwalking, Sleepwalk shows Birbiglia struggling to make his way in the world as his relationship with his fiancée slowly degrades (check out Renn’s SXSW flash review).

As a purveyor of stories both challenging and thought-provoking, the independent comedy speaks to Glass’ curiosity – a trait evidenced as our sit down interview began. Full disclosure, I arrived at the interview unaware of the fact I had a blue mouth – having just enjoyed a sucker on my way from cashing a check at the bank. Of course, Glass’ trademark curiosity got the best of him as we broke the ice and began discussing this excellent film.

Sleepwalk with Me is currently enjoying a limited release; I highly suggest seeking it out if it’s playing nearby:

In gearing up for my review of Rian Johnson’s Looper, I kept searching to find a definitive train of thought that’d illustrate what makes the film so special. Whenever I’d arrive at a conclusion I’d be visited by another observation that’d completely morph or enhance my perception of the film. Complex, oscillating and categorically immersive, Johnson has unleashed a filmic vision that’s as rewarding as it is emotionally resonate. Looper is an all-timer – a film that, years from now, emerging young filmmakers will credit as one of the works that inspired them to hone their craft.

Speaking strictly from a science-fiction standpoint, Johnson raises the bar. He accomplishes what only the finest of storytellers are capable of: he creates reality. One that feels troublingly askew yet wholly true to our own. Looper, with a bullet, now stands side by side works like Blade Runner, Star Wars and 2001 – visionary science-fiction tales by artists working at the height of their crafts. That it might even reach further than one or two of the above-mentioned works is a debate that can only be answered in time.

And time is exactly what this film is about. The moments that change and shape us – often proving to be our undoing long before we’ve realized. What would you risk to save a single moment in time? A nurturing glance from his lover, a memory tapering away like an echo, lies at the heart of Old Joe’s (Bruce Willis) crusade. Memory is not an exact science, even if the feelings it generates are profound. This elder Joe is at an impasse – struggling with feelings of regret and rage in what he’s lost – his transgressions carved into his soul like personal engravings. And when the person he loves is taken away, his self-destruction becomes the world’s burden to bear. Not his world exactly, but we’re getting to that.

Time travel hasn’t been invented in the decrepit, decaying gangland of 2044 America. That comes 30 years later. We first meet Young Joe as he’s still a fresh successful Looper in 2044. Loopers are hitmen called upon to kill people from the future that the mob, now in firm control of the US, want to dispose of. Victims are sent back where they’re immediately finished off by the blunderbuss gutshot of a waiting Looper –their bodies disposed of in the most creative, efficient way possible.

Loopers are bestwowed with a lavish life of money, drugs and women. But it comes at a grave price. The name “Looper” is derived from closing one’s own loop – meaning that, once the mob decides it’s your time, your future self is sent back to be finished off by your younger self. As those being sent back are cloaked in a hood, Loopers often don’t know they’ve finished themselves off until after the deed’s already done.

The Joe of 2044 senses that his time’s coming close, as night after night his peers are looping themselves with increasing regularity. A mysterious crimelord from the future, known only as The Rainmaker, has decided to close all the loops. It’s a realization of ever-increasing angst that gets complicated when his elder self shows up without hood. In a moment of hesitation, Old Joe makes a run for it and Young Joe is left to track down his future self and close out the loop.

Where Johnson could have cast one actor and have him play both characters, his is not a film confined to such gimmickry. Instead, the onus falls on Joseph Gordon Levitt to inherit Bruce Willis’ mannerisms and look (with some minor assistance via makeup). And he performs his task splendidly. Once a child star in films like Angels in the Outfield, it was Johnson who reintroduced audiences to JGL with his brilliant Brick. That he’s now brought about the actor’s two finest performances is a credit to both a director and a star that have continued to impress in the early parts of what promise to be very long careers.

Levitt’s surrounded by a magnificent cast. Bruce Willis is here to play a very familiar character, this is classic Bruce. But he does so with an intensity and weariness that we only see in the films the actor truly gets up for. Willis is a performer often phoning it in, but it’s a tradeoff I accept when he appears in work like Looper. Equally impressive is Jeff Daniels as Abe, the skeezy crime lord doing the mob’s work in 2044.

Emily Blunt delivers what I believe to be the best performance in her career as Sara, a cane farmer that Young Joe is forced to protect from his older self. To reveal why would be to giving away too much. But the most astounding performance in the film, one that’s as creepy as it is complicated, belongs to Pierce Gagnon as her son Cid. This is the most memorable child performance I can recall since Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone. It’s a weird comparison, but it’s not often that a director is able to finagle such an effecting performance from such a young actor – one that not only contributes to the film but enhances it. That Gagnon is five is astounding. More than anyone else, he is who people who’ve seen Looper will be talking about next week.

These actors all perform their best to bring Rian Johnson’s vision to life. His is a script that’s thought of everything. Just when you think there’s a hole in the boat, the writer / director seamlessly seals it shut. He not only invents the rules, he plays by them ardently as soon as they’re introduced. This is a film that doesn’t care if you have the angles figured out before it accounts for them. Johnson lets the story build on its own time and is content to leave some questions unanswered. One in particular, regarding Daniels and his antagonist protégé Kid Blue (Noah Segan), has me going back and forth about the nature of their relationship. I have to imagine I won’t be the only one.

Above all else, Looper stands as a superb character study of the highest order. It’s a film about acknowledging one’s own self destruction and facing the pain and anguish our selfishness causes to those in proximity. What Johnson manages to do is take those realizations and turn them on their ear – where typically it’s our present confronting our past, Looper presents a reality where more complex confrontations are possible. In a story that takes us from the derogated sprawl of the city to the shivering cane fields of farm territory, this is a beautifully shot work of poetry where every bar confirms what came before and enhances what’s to follow. Heady science-fiction, a next-level script and spectacular performances come together to signal the emergence of one of the great storytellers of our time, and not a moment too soon. This is one loop that should never be closed.

Rating:

Out of a Possible 5 Stars

(…and an All-Timer.)