Looper

In my previous post reviewing PTA's The Master(2012), I said that I don't always review new releases and I really don't. I definitely don't write back-to-back posts reviewing new releases, in fact this is the first time I am doing that in over a year. But, then again I also haven't seen two movies in theater on two consecutive weekend that are worth talking about in a long long time. I haven't seen movies in theater on two consecutive weekends in a long time. Period. This time I have. So, let me take this chance and get into Rian Johnson's Looper(2012) which incidentally was third time-travel movie I saw in last 10 days.

Set in the future, 2044 to be precise, where time travel is not yet invented but it is invented in 2074, 30 years in the future. In monologue opening the film, our protagonist Joe tells us about it. He is a looper, hired by employers 30 years in the future, a special brand of people who do very specific but important job - kill people sent back in time. As soon as time travel is invented sometime in future, it was banned immediately. So, in 2074 mob had to use the time travel very secretly. What they do is send their targets back in time where loopers like Joe are waiting for them. Loopers have the time and place where there targets will appear. They go there and wait for them. As soon as they arrive, blindfolded and hands tied behind their back, Loopers kill them, collect the loot on them, pick up their money and enjoy the rest of their life. Reason why they are sent back to be killed - apparently it is very difficult to dispose off the bodies in future. However there is one thing that all the loopers worry about - closing their loop. Since Loopers know so much about this business and they also know about time-travel, some time in the future they themselves need to be eliminated too. So, one day target in front of them will be their own future self. Every time Looper gets rid of a target, he gets silver bars as a reward. If your reward is Gold, that means you have closed your loop. You collect your gold, come back, collect your money. Once they close their loop, their contract as a Looper expires, they get to retire from the business, enjoy the rest of 30 years of your life and then die. Usually it all runs pretty smooth but one day, one of Joe's colleagues Seth, faces ghastly consequences when he chickens out after seeing himself in front.

Joe is a little different from all other loopers. All the loopers know that at some point or the other, they will close their loop and will have only specific time to live after that but not many of them think forward and plan for future - Joe Does. He thinks about how will he spent those last 30 years of life and is making provisions for it. He stores all his silver, he is teaching himself French so that he can go to France. After a while, inevitable happens with him as well. Joe faces himself but his older self doesn't appear blindfolded or with his hands tied behind. Because he isn't sent from future, he's come on his own with a specific purpose. Joe hesitates for a second and old Joe knocks him out and flees the spot. When he comes back to life, with the example of Seth fresh on his mind, he realizes what is at stake and he goes out looking for his older self. If there is one unforgivable sin for loopers, it is to let your target escape especially if that target is you. Since Joe has violated that one rule, his boss Abe has one of his men, Kid Blue looking for him. While Joe is trying to get hold of old Joe, kill him and get on with his present life, not to mention Old Joe has his own plan as well. While hiding from Kid Blue and figuring out what Old Joe's next move will be, Joe takes a refuge on a barn of Sara. Joe has a reason to believe that his old self has some unknown interest in something around Sara's barn. Joe's plan is to stay at her house and wait for Old Joe to come there, take him out and return to his old life. However, in this game of Cat and Mouse, nothing is as easy as it looks - Well, except the ending.

Even though I felt that the overall performance of the movie was little underwhelming, I will give it to you that there is a lot to like about in Looper especially with the cast. Joseph Gordan-Levitt is perfect in central role of Joe but that's hardly a news. This dude rarely disappoints. He is great in initial carefree, partying Joe but always with one eye on future. However, he is especially great later in the film as walls start to crumble around him. It's also great to see Bruce Willis in yet another action film and doing it convincingly. Put a gun in his hand and he gets into his own. Emily Blunt, though in a supporting role of Sara, probably was the best part of it mainly because I don't remember seeing her in any role remotely close to the one in this and also because of the perfect southern accent she picked up. Being a good actress helps too I guess. 10 year old Pierce Gagnon playing Cid also deserves a mention for doing freaky part really well. Rian Johnson's direction is commendable. His eye to the detail is very apparent, especially in creating the initial glimmering but still hollow world of Loopers. However just like his previous film Brick(2005), Looper falls just a little shy of greatness. The more I try and reason with myself, I get something more that works in its favour but I also think of something else that counteracts it. With the almost unanimous praise that I have seen it garner, I might not have my expectations in check but that doesn't hide the fact that it didn't feel up to the mark.

My basic problem is with the pacing. Though it never becomes boring or tedious and it does keep story moving with some kind of activity, it does not move uniformly. It keeps on going up and down a lot of times and I am blaming it for never getting me on the edge of the sit which with the story like this, I expect to be. I have also seen a lot of people talking about how it keeps all the scientific time traveling mumbo jumbo out and lets a viewer enjoy it as a movie. In my book, that's a dig against it, more so if you want to call it a time-travel movie. Simplicity isn't always Good. And then we have the ending. I will say that I actually liked the ending. It was easiest and also smartest way out of the situation and it did give me that WOW! felling for a minute but also with that ending, he walked right into the classic time-travel paradox that every time-travel movie probably should avoid. There are a couple of more things that didn't go down as well but they can be considered as minor spoilers and to keep this review spoiler-free, I won't mention them in detail here. All in all, once again movie worth watching for it's cast but one that falls a little short of its ambition.

Rating(out of 5):

The Master

If you remember reading my last post, which miraculously vanished from my drafts couple of days after publishing it and I never found it, I promised that I am going to try and write down some kind of review of The Master(2012), Paul Thomas Anderson's latest venture. Anyone who has seen this movie or read what someone else has written about it, you probably have some idea of why I am saying that I will 'Try' to write a review. The Master isn't a kind of movie you will come out of and expect to have understood it fully. On top of that, I usually do not write about latest releases because generally I watch movies considerably late than everyone else and take my time to write anything I write. Combine the three things together and common sense says I shouldn't be writing what I am right now. But, it's PTA - if I broke my rule for Chris Nolan reviewing The Dark Knight Rises(2012), I can do that for PTA too right? and once in a while, I have seen it in time. I think I am little more used to writing now as well. So, I am going to look at this as a challenge and take it. I DO NOT guarantee the outcome will be pretty.

So, The Master. Right from the very first scene when we see Freddie Quell, we know that he is a disturbed individual. We catch up with him on his ship, working in Navy in second World war. War ends soon after and they all have to come back to civilization to start re-building their lives. It doesn't really say anything about it but from what we learn about Freddie in a process, tells us that Freddie isn't exactly thrilled about it and there are reasons. Freddie isn't exactly what we will say - a people's person. He is much more savage, much more raw and unconventional even by today's standard. As you would expect, he struggles to find livelihood in normal world going from one trouble to another. I have no idea how he lands up in the cabbage farm, somewhere in East Asia I am assuming, from the department store or from there on board of yacht of Lancaster Dodd. Dodd is a founder of some kind of philosophical, cult movement called 'The Cause'. After some initial interaction, Dodd believes that Freddie needs help and he should help him. After their first one-on-one session which Dodd calls 'Processing', he is rather convinced that he can not only help Freddie but can make him "His Masterpiece", an answer to those non-believers who question the methods of The Cause. Dodd, like many leaders even in Real world, definitely possesses one ability - to make people believe in what he is saying, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. I may not agree with a single thing they say but I can not help but admire the way they hypnotize those around them. However it isn't an easy way for either Freddie to work within the confines that someone else has built for him or for Dodd to tame the beast like Freddie. Also, the fact that no one else in The Cause, including Dodd's wife Peggy, believes Freddie to be fit to join them isn't helping either of them. We follow the winding path that they both follow in each other's company but the real question is can either of them learn anything from or help the other one and if they do, who ?

For a lot of reasons, I think this is this year's The Tree of Life(2011). Both the movies are extremely beautiful to look at, have some of the stellar performances that will certainly be in the mix in the award season, and also because of their unconventional presentation and cold characters. If you can connect with them, you will love it. If you don't, you will hate it. I really wouldn't be surprised if people call this movie pointless. Well, they have. For what it is worth, even Roger Ebert did and I can definitely understand their point of view because that's what I feel about The Tree of Life. Only difference for me is somehow I connected with The Master and didn't with The Tree of Life. Throughout 137 minute length of movie, it challenged my perception, my need to compartmentalize the characters as Good or Bad. Freddie Quell is compulsive alcoholic who would literally mix anything he can get as long as he gets a kick out of it. In fact, that is the reason Dodd keeps him on his yacht on very first night, because he likes whatever Freddie has concocted but his habit and need nauseated me, he answers every question asked to him in his first processing session quickly, firmly and with amazing conviction(I have no idea how the hell did he do that scene. My eyes were watery just watching it) - that fascinated me. And right until the very last shot of the film, he never knows what he wants out of his life, probably more importantly IF he wants anything at all.  He is completely a lost cause and I pitied him. For my money, I do not remember a character or a movie that has evoked such a range of emotions from me. Even Amy Adams' character. There is a point in movie where her character kind of turns it on(quite literally) and she is nothing like before from that point onwards. From then on, we know what's her worth in everything that master is building.

However divisive The Master may turn out to be, I am sure that almost everyone will agree about few things. All the three leads giving stunning performances would probably be the first one. You can say that the characters are cold(which they are) and story doesn't really go anywhere(SPOILER: It pretty much ends exactly where it started. But that doesn't mean it didn't GO anywhere, does it?) but I doubt if anyone will question the quality of the performances from all the three leads. PTA has always been great in eliciting memorable performances and he doesn't disappoint here either. I wouldn't say I have seen whole lot of Joaquin Phoenix, playing the central role of Freddie Quell but from what I have seen and heard, this should be his finest performance till today. From the word go, this guy was so much into his character, it was scary. Even smallest of his movements, single twitch of a muscle does not feel like out of place. I might sound like a broken record talking of Phillip Seymour Hoffman, titular master and as solid as ever, but I really have never seen him in a bad role. Personally, Amy Adams is probably THE favorite actress working today. So, maybe I am biased but she is just as great as two male leads. Given the script that mainly revolves around male leads, she doesn't have a lot to do. But even then she left a strong impression on me. Shot in 70 mm, it looks stunningly beautiful, score and background music used is haunting. I never knew that PTA's films were so divisive. I always thought of him as one of the best directors with very distinct style and loud voice. I understand that most of his movies are rather difficult to stomach including this one and have some of the ultimate WTF? moments(Frog rain in Magnolia(1999), Bowling Alley scene in There Will Be Blood(2007) or last shot of Boogie Nights(1997)) but in my opinion that's what makes him great. However, real selling point here will remain to be story and it's characters.

Now, about the things that did throw me off a little. First of all, it jumps up a lot. Within a blink of eye, he goes from that department store to cabbage farm and then when he gets in trouble there, on Dodd's yacht. We have no idea of time or location of either of them. On couple of occasions, it also jumps in and out of reality like nobody's business. I had no idea what's happening after Freddie gets a phone call in the theater until I assumed it must be a dream. Not necessarily a bad thing but it is a story that takes time to grow and demands your complete attention. However, the positives out of this movie far outweigh the negatives. If nothing else, it is worth watching for all PTA Fan-boys and for three central performances.

Rating(out of 5):