Life of Pi

For F*** Magazine

LIFE OF PI

Director: Ang Lee
Cast: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall
Genre: Adventure, Drama
Run Time: 127 mins
Opens: 29 November 2012
Rating: PG - Some Frightening Scenes

There’s no undertaking quite like filming the “unfilmable”, and director Ang Lee and co. have bravely stepped up to the plate with this adaptation of Yann Martel’s Man Booker Prize-winning novel Life of Pi. Many deemed translating the much-loved story to the big screen an impossible task, and it has been a long road to fruition – but the glorious end result probably makes it all worthwhile.

As a framing device, we have an author (Rafe Spall) visiting Piscene Molitor “Pi” Patel (Khan), who sets the stage with some backstory, including his relationship with his parents, his encounters with various faiths and the origins of his peculiar name. Then, he recounts for the writer a life-changing event: his getting stranded at sea for 227 days on a lifeboat alongside a Bengal Tiger named Richard Parker. 16-year-old Pi (Sharma) must learn to survive not only the harshness of the open ocean, but a hungry big cat too, as he embarks on an adventure that is as much spiritual and emotional as it is physical.



Life of Pi has been described as a “spiritual odyssey”, a coming-of-age film of “magical realism” dealing with faith and philosophical themes. Now, all this makes it sound lofty and inaccessible and may turn off many a viewer. It’s a good thing then that Lee has succeeded in making a deep, complex film very accessible and appealing. The first part of the film, in which an adult Pi speaks about his past, draws the viewer into a somewhat heightened, fantastical world, preparing them for the adventure ahead.

While Life of Pi isn’t one of those head-scratchingly confusing arthouse films, it’s also as far from your typical blockbuster as you can get – it’s not a movie for the particularly impatient, and is one of those “experiential”-type films that you need to just soak in. One could also describe Life of Pi as sort of a surrealistic buddy road trip movie – like in every such film; there are two characters on a journey, whose relationship is essential to the plot. It’s just that instead of, say, two stoners in a beat-up old car; it’s a boy and a Bengal tiger in a lifeboat. Now, before you begin groaning, let it be known that Lee’s famous visual flair is in full force here: this is probably the most-gorgeous looking film of the year and a breathtaking technical achievement in every regard. From a harrowing shipwreck to a whale leaping out of plankton-illuminated waters, it’s practically a parade of one awe-inspiring image after the other.



The framing device of an adult Pi telling his story to the writer is similar to that used in Titanic, and Spall and Khan put in commendable supporting performances, their relatively mundane meeting providing contrast to the larger-than-life odyssey that forms most of the movie. For the bulk of the film however, Pi is played by first-time actor Sharma, who beat out 3,000 other hopefuls for the part. He very nearly missed out too, as he wasn’t initially interested in auditioning, having tagged along for his younger brother’s audition. He gamely takes on the Herculean task of carrying a huge film (almost) all by his lonesome, something which would be daunting to any actor, let alone one with no prior film experience. Furthermore, Sharma spends most of the film acting opposite nothing, which isn’t an easy thing to do.

You probably won’t realise he is acting against nothing though, because of how incredibly lifelike Richard Parker the tiger and the other animals in the film look. Visual effects supervisor Bill Westenhofer of Rhythm and Hues Studios and his team have created a digital tiger that captures all the nuances of the real thing, every snarl, crouch and lunge feeling suitably animalistic and not plasticky or artificial as it well could have been. Extensive visual effects work was also used to make it look convincingly like Pi and Richard Parker were out on the open ocean, when in reality the film was shot in several water tanks in an abandoned airport in Taichung, Taiwan. Many films have come under fire for an overuse of computer-generated imagery, but along comes this film that serves as a perfect example for how the technology can be used as an effective storytelling tool.



3D has also been the target of similar accusations, and not without reason. However, Lee’s use of stereoscopic filmmaking is markedly artful and in many places adds to the otherworldly feel of Pi and Richard Parker’s sea voyage. There’s even a moment where the tiger lunges out of the screen – it could be seen as gimmicky, but is actually quite fun. Shooting the film in 3D was one of many elements that made Life of Pi a really difficult film to put together – animals, water, “unfilmable” source material and 3D on top of all of that?

Lee has admitted that this was the toughest film he’s had to work on, but he and the cast and crew of Life of Pi can rest assured that they’ve been amply rewarded with something of a masterpiece. If there’s any major thing this reviewer didn’t quite enjoy of the film, it would be the film’s attempt to incorporate the “twist ending” of the book, which seems to slightly undermine everything which came before. In the end, however, this is that rare movie which strikes a balance between the epic and the intimate, pure and refined in its storytelling – what movies are meant to be.

SUMMARY: It is, indeed, a wonderful Life – and certainly deserving of more than 3.142 stars.

RATING: 4 out of 5 STARS

Jedd Jong

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns

As published in F*** Magazine Issue #34

Movie review                                                                                                               10/10/12

BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS (PART 1)

2012

Starring the voices of: Peter Weller, Ariel Winter, Gary Anthony Williams, David Selby

Directed by: Jay Oliva

Some Batman fans weren’t all too pleased that Christopher Nolan had chosen the title “The Dark Knight Rises” for the final instalment in his Batman film trilogy – because to them, the acronym “TDKR” referred to The Dark Knight Returns, and ‘The Dark Knight Returns’ alone. ‘The Dark Knight Returns’, written and drawn by Frank Miller with inks by Klaus Janson and colours by Lynn Varley, was published in 1986 in four issues and is arguably one of the most important graphic novels ever created. Along with Miller’s other defining Batman work ‘Batman: Year One’ (which has also been adapted into an animated film), ‘The Dark Knight Returns’ was credited for making Batman truly grim and gritty again. No more pink aliens, colourful Batsuits or ridiculous one-liners folks: if you like your Batman dark and no-nonsense (as he should be), this graphic novel is to thank for that.

Fans got little tastes of what an animated version of this now-classic yarn would look like in an episode of ‘The New Batman Adventures’ entitled ‘Legends of the Dark Knight’, and in the ‘Artifacts’ episode from ‘The Batman’. Now, at long last, we have an actual, full-length animated version of the story with this two-part film, the latest in DC’s mostly stellar stable of direct-to-video animated movies.

The film is set some time after Batman’s (Weller) retirement; Gotham having become a dystopia terrorised by a gang of mutants. Commissioner James Gordon (Selby) is near retirement himself, and is now privy to Batman’s secret identity as Bruce Wayne. Harvey Dent (Wade Williams), formerly Two-Face, has apparently been cured of his affliction, his face repaired by a plastic surgeon and his psyche supposedly mended by head psychiatrist Bartholomew Wolper (Michael McKean) of the ‘Arkham Home for the Emotionally Troubled’. The increasingly violent activity of the mutant gang, with the brutish mutant leader (Gary Anthony Williams) at the helm, brings Batman back out of retirement. He’s got a new Robin too: teenager Carrie Kelley, much to the disapproval of Bruce’s aging butler Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Jackson (no, not that one)). However, much as they need Batman, the people of Gotham are divided as to whether they’re willing to welcome him back, some viewing him as a fascist vigilante who is as much responsible for creating Gotham’s supervillains as he is fighting them.

Those still on a high from the release of ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, and its impending arrival on home video formats, should definitely check this animated film out. Christopher Nolan has included more than a few nods to ‘The Dark Knight Returns’ in his films, including the tank-like appearance of the Batmobile and the small scene between the two cops (“boy, are you in for a show tonight, son”) in ‘The Dark Knight Rises’. This film has, in turn, also been influenced by that trilogy, featuring a musical score from Christopher Drake that, with its low electronic drum beats and repetitive bass line, is quite Hans Zimmer-y, and the theme sounds suspiciously like it was plucked straight out of ‘Inception’.

Thing is, as iconic as the story is, it isn’t exactly accessible to the average reader, being pretty rough around the edges in its brutality, featuring a ‘Dirty Harry’-style take on Batman and drawn in Frank Miller’s decidedly grungy style. This film, while staying as faithful an adaptation as a PG-13 animated flick can, refines it a little, the character models cleaner while still recognisable as following Miller’s designs. The animation is of a better quality than that of the ‘Batman: Year One’ adaptation, and has something of an anime feel – if not in character design, then in backgrounds, lighting and ‘camera’ movement. This is quite a dramatic and dynamic looking film, the animators having done a very good job translating Miller’s story from the page to the screen, and including a decent amount of cool-looking action that’s still adequately brutal. The clash between Batman and the Mutant Leader in a mud pit is undoubtedly the centrepiece of the movie, and doesn’t disappoint.

Besides the visuals, it’s the voice work that’s crucial to completing the transition of ‘The Dark Knight Returns’ from page to screen, and the film shines in this regard too. Peter Weller makes for a great elderly Batman, his voice naturally deep and gravelly as opposed to sounding forced or silly as some think Christian Bale’s Batman voice did. Also, it’s RoboCop as Batman! Now that’s something to geek out over. The DC animated films have had a tradition of featuring television stars as voice actors and this one is no different, with Ariel Winter (Alex from ‘Modern Family’) as Carrie Kelley. It may be a little odd for the uninitiated to see a red-headed tomboy dressed in the Robin outfit, but Winter sells it, sounding every bit the plucky teen-turned-new-protégé. For this reviewer, David Selby as Commissioner Gordon is the standout. His performance is very reminiscent of that of Bob Hastings from ‘Batman the Animated Series’, albeit tuned to sound a little older.

The main difference between the book and the film is that most of Batman’s inner monologues have been excised, probably because these would be rather clumsy as voiceover bits. This could be seen as either a good or a bad thing: for many, Batman’s ‘narration’ of the comic was a big part of what made it so memorable, offering a good look into the emotional and physical toll being Batman has taken on him. However, it also showed that Frank Miller was developing signs of “early onset Miller-itis”, with lines that may sound silly if spoken out loud. The newscaster exposition sequences, on the other hand, are intact. While a useful narrative tool in the graphic novel, these ‘talking heads’ scenes are very static onscreen, and the weakest spots of this animated movie. Thankfully, there’s a great story to follow here, and there are bits and pieces which satisfyingly tie this back to the Batman we’re all familiar with, such as the inclusion of stalwart Batman allies Alfred and Commissioner Gordon, a flashback to the murder of Bruce Wayne’s parents, and Jason Todd’s Robin costume standing in the Batcave as a memorial to the slain Robin.

Though it may annoy some that they have to wait for the conclusion, it was a relatively good decision to split this film into two parts, because with a ‘Part 2’ coming early next year, this one doesn’t have to cram the story into its 77-minute runtime. ‘Part 1’ ends on quite the cliffhanger that well and truly whets the appetite for the follow-up. It’s good to see the Dark Knight return, and if you’re still on a Batman kick from ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, this is sure to keep you on that high.

RATING: 4/5 STARS

Jedd Jong 

Argo

As published in Issue #34 of F*** Magazine, Singapore

ARGO

Director: Ben Affleck
Cast:  Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman
Genre: Drama, Thriller
Run Time: 120 mins
Opens: 13 November 2012
Rating: PG13 – Coarse Language

Arnold Schwarzenegger recently released his autobiography, entitled ‘Total Recall: My Unbelievably True Life Story’. Well Arnie, it seems you have some serious competition in that department; because Argo is as unbelievable as true stories come. Ben Affleck’s historical political thriller recounts the U.S.-Canadian joint covert rescue operation nicknamed ‘The Canadian Caper’, drawing on declassified documents and personal accounts, laying it all out in incredible fashion.

It is 1979, and Iranian militants have stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, taking 52 Americans hostage. Six others manage to escape and seek refuge at the residence of the kindly Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor (Victor Garber). The CIA calls upon exfiltration and disguise expert Tony Mendez (Affleck), working with his boss Jack O’Donnell (Cranston) to devise a plan to rescue the six consulate workers. When his son watches Battle for the Planet of the Apes on TV, Mendez is inspired and hatches a crazy plan: he will enter Iran under the pretence of doing location scouting for a science-fiction fantasy film. With the help of Oscar-winning make-up artist John Chambers (Goodman) and Hollywood film producer Lester Siegel (Arkin), Mendez concocts the sham-movie Argo, and thus begins the harrowing mission to smuggle the six Americans out of Iran, having them pose as a Canadian film crew.



Producers George Clooney, David Klawans and Grant Heslov read an article in Wired magazine about the ‘Canadian Caper’ and thought it would make for a great movie. Guess what: they were absolutely right. Ben Affleck delivers a crackling thriller which hits all the right notes: it feels thoroughly authentic with meticulous details ensuring the audience is convinced of the '70s period setting; it’s taut and exciting with the very high stakes feeling very real and it’s leavened with a good helping of humour revolving around the fickle Hollywood machine.

When the trailer was released, some concerns arose that the tone of the film would be uneven, lurching from serious political drama to light-hearted movie business satire. Well, you can rest assured that director Affleck and screenwriter Chris Terrio have managed to weave both elements of the story together and very cleverly presented an interesting juxtaposition. In the film and, presumably, in real life too, nobody seemed convinced for a second that the idea would work, and just as Mendez had to sell the CIA on it, so Affleck has to sell the idea to the film-going public – and that, he does. Goodman and Arkin are welcome presences, their affability providing much-needed respite from the intense goings-on in Iran. Hollywood is presented as a place where nothing is meant to be taken seriously, vis-à-vis Washington D.C. and Langley Virginia, where everything is meant to be taken seriously, and we get to see just how much trouble Tony Mendez had to go to in order to assemble ‘The Hollywood Option’, and in how short an amount of time he had as well.



Ben Affleck seems to have regained all the credibility he lost following the likes of Gigli and Daredevil with his directing stints in recent years, and this film most definitely continues that winning streak. He presides over the picture with a sure hand, expertly ratcheting up the tension (though he sometimes appears overly dependent on 360 degree camera moves) and giving the film something of a retro feel (notice the old-school Warner Bros. logo at the beginning) without going overboard. The climactic airport tarmac pursuit is a bona fide edge-of-your-seat moment. He’s not too shabby in front of the camera either, putting in a low-key performance while conveying the quiet valour and determination of the Mendez character very well.

During the film’s premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, there were some murmurs from the Canadian crowd that the film unfairly overlooked the involvement of the Canadian government in the rescue operation – it’s called the ‘Canadian Caper’ after all. Ben Affleck agreed to augment the postscript text, noting that the CIA’s actions were performed in conjunction with Canadian intelligence. This reviewer can’t vouch for the veracity of the film’s portrayal of historical events, but he can say this: it really doesn’t feel like your average overly-embellished ‘loosely based on a true story’ Hollywood deal, and that’s something to be admired. Argo is an expertly-crafted tribute to the power of ingenuity, bravery and co-operation (cheesy though that may sound) and makes for engrossing, compelling and powerful entertainment.

SUMMARY: Ben Affleck has a monumental success on his hands with this intriguing, exciting and smart historical political thriller. Go see Argo now!

RATING: 4.5 out of 5 STARS

Jedd Jong

Paul

For F*** Magazine, Singapore

PAUL

2011 Release

Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Kristen Wiig, Seth Rogen (voice)

Director: Greg Mottola

            Ever since 1982’s E.T.: The Extraterrestrial, everyone has wanted to have an alien as a best friend – sometimes a friendly alien is more fun than a vicious invasion. 19 years later, British comedy duo Simon Pegg and Nick Frost give us “E.T.” for grown-ups. They star as two British nerds on a pilgrimage to the San Diego Comic Con, and who go on a road trip to fabled UFO hotspots. On the way, they pick up escapee alien Paul (voiced by Rogen), meet trailer park-owner Ruth (Wiig) and evade Man-in-black agent Zoil (Jason Bateman).

            This movie is first and foremost a celebration for nerds everyone, a joyous ode to geekdom. Nerds need not be ashamed of themselves, and this film shows that they have the capacity to be awesome. Loving references to science-fiction favourites are scattered throughout the movie, Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Star Trek, The X-Files and more get nice nods. The best part is that there’s a real story, and good characters that go on a journey and finish the film changed people (and aliens).

            Pegg and Frost share an easy bromance that is carried over from their cult hits Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Their comic timing seems almost synchronised, but they wisely do not hog the limelight, allowing the supporting characters to shine as much as they do. They also prove themselves capable of serious acting during some dramatic moments. However, there are moments when there’s a rift between their style of humour and the more accessible, crasser material that Superbad director Mottola brings to the table.

Kristen Wiig makes for an interesting love interest as the one-eyed Ruth, but the film attempts to deal with the theme of science vs. religion and gets a little wobbly there. Jason Bateman is an interesting casting choice as the steely and no-nonsense Agent Zoil and Sigourney Weaver is actually quite scary as his boss, “The Big Man”. Watch out for the obligatory Aliens reference.

Seth Rogen’s laid back voice is a good fit for the foul-mouthed, pot-smoking Paul. The thing that’s interesting is that not only has Paul been influenced by our pop culture, he’s made his mark on it too, hence a scene where he advises Steven Spielberg via telephone about the special abilities he should give to E.T. The visual effects work is commendable, Paul seeming like a real character and possessing very expressive, liquid eyes.  

Even for those who aren’t sci-fi aficionados, Paul is a genuinely funny joyride packed with a good amount of belly-laughs. Of course, it helps a little if you know your pop culture references, but the enjoyment isn’t contingent on that.

SUMMARY: An ode to the joys of being a nerd, Paul is carried by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost’s chemistry. It’s a whooping good time and is one of the better comedies this year so far.

RATING: 3.5/5 STARS

Skyfall

For F*** Magazine, Singapore

SKYFALL

2012
Starring: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris

Directed by: Sam Mendes

Following MGM’s filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2010, it seemed that the sky really was falling for Bond fans everywhere. The future of the film franchise was put in jeopardy, and, for a while, it was a very strong possibility that Quantum of Solace would be the last James Bond film ever — which, for many, would have been disappointing to say the least. Thank goodness that Bond’s future seems brighter than ever with this triumphant 50^thanniversary celebration.

The film opens in Istanbul, where Bond (Craig) is thrust right into the frenzied pursuit of Patrice (Ola Rapace), a French mercenary who has stolen a hard drive containing a list of NATO undercover agents embedded in terrorist cells. Bond is assisted by field agent Eve (Harris), and the mission goes awry. The repercussions make themselves felt: the names are leaked in a YouTube video, M (Dench) comes under pressure from Gareth Mallory (Fiennes), chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, to call it quits, and MI6 falls victim to a vicious cyberterror attack. Bond follows a lead and tracks Patrice down to Shanghai, where he tangles with the mercenary in a high-rise skirmish. He also glimpses the enigmatic and beautiful Sévérine (Bérénice Marlohe), whom he meets again at a lavish floating casino in Macau. Bond asks to be taken to the woman’s employer, thus encountering the villain of the piece, Raoul Silva (Bardem). Silva is a flamboyant, psychopathic figure who bears quite the grudge against M, and perpetrated the attack on MI6 headquarters. Bond realizes that this mission is far more personal than it first appears — and perhaps just as much for M as it is for him.

In Skyfall, Bond is asked what his hobby is. “Resurrection” is his reply — and this is resurrection of the most glorious kind. Skyfall sets right many perceived problems viewers had with the previous installment. This being the 23^rd official Bond film, some might say he’s a little long in the tooth, but Skyfall examines and proves the character’s relevance. With Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes at the helm, this is a very stylish, good-looking film; nine-time Oscar nominated cinematographer Roger Deakins serves up startlingly gorgeous imagery. Adele’s theme song is many times better than the Jack White/Alicia Keys trainwreck “Another Way to Die,” and it plays over Daniel Kleinman-designed opening credits that make strong reference to plot points throughout the film, instead of serving as a mere light show. Many wrote off the first two Daniel Craig-starring Bond films, Quantum in particular, as vainly aping the Bourne movies. Well, that’s definitely no longer the case (even though Bourne alumnus Albert Finney is in this too), as Skyfall’s tone strikes a near-perfect balance between the tough and gritty and glamorous and smooth, with a strong emotional current running through it all.

Daniel Craig is back in the saddle, the days of fans crying foul over his casting as the iconic character well and truly behind him. There’s a moment in the opening action sequence that’s in the trailers: Bond uses an excavator to tear the roof of a train carriage open, climbs on the excavator’s arm, leaps into the train and adjusts his cufflinks after he lands. That pretty much sums up Bond’s characterization: he’s willing to get his hands dirty and is rather brash, but at the same time is growing into the slick, suave agent he should be. This film also does something traditionally considered rather taboo in Bond films — delving into the character’s past, and it does so pretty well.  Many Bond films struggle with fitting M into their stories. Well, one could go so far as to say Skyfall is really M’s story, with Bond happening to become embroiled in it. Judi Dench is better than ever as the character; a woman hardened by years in a particularly challenging line of work, and someone who has to reconcile personal sentiments with duty. Also at MI6 is Ben Whishaw as the new incarnation of Q, Bond’s quartermaster, and, traditionally, the curmudgeon who begrudgingly hands out his gadgets to him. While former Qs John Cleese and, before him, the late Desmond Llewelyn were slightly older gentlemen, Skyfall runs in the opposite direction with a rather young, “adorkable” Q, whom Bond almost immediately writes off because of his youth. Whishaw and Craig share remarkable chemistry, and it would be a sin not to have this Q continue to appear in future Bond movies. The ever-dependable Ralph Fiennes ties it all together as the meddling bureaucrat who might not be that big of a jerk after all. This film also does something traditionally considered rather taboo in Bond films, delving into the Bond character’s past — and it does so pretty well.

So, how about the Bond villain and the Bond girls? Oscar-winner Javier Bardem puts in a spine-chilling performance as Silva, the villain. He’s proven he can play unhinged in No Country for Old Men, but Silva is a psycho of a different stripe. Bardem’s over-the-top portrayal is sometimes comic and harks back to villains of old. Silva is something of an impetuous child, but behind the loudness and the posturing lays a bitter, broken soul. Not every actor can convincingly inhabit a character of this sort. Naomie Harris has a nicely playful chemistry with Daniel Craig; Eve and Bond’s mutual flirtation providing much respite from the rather intense proceedings. Bérénice Marlohe makes for a stunning, exotic Bond girl and gets to share a scintillating shower scene with 007 himself. However, this isn’t a Bond film that will be primarily remembered for its women.

What it will be remembered for is its ending, a showdown which I’ve been kindly told not to spoil. If there’s one “issue” with the film, one which is reinforced by the ending, it’s that this is clearly a movie best enjoyed by Bond aficionados. It’s less action-driven than one might expect a modern-day Bond film might to be, and is a love letter to Bond in commemoration of his 50 years onscreen. As such, more casual viewers might feel just a teeny bit left out. It doesn’t attempt to chuck out everything the older Bond movies are remembered for; instead teasing some of those elements and building upon them. The Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger appears, complete with the same license plate and all the frills from that film — a symbol of the healthy nostalgia Skyfall possesses. By the movie’s end, it seems as if the Daniel Craig-starring Bond movies have found their footing at last, having incorporated more classic motifs into their framework – and fans can toast their martinis to Bond’s sterling return.

SUMMARY: Skyfall is a Bond film that’s worth the wait, one that’s worthy of marking Bond’s golden anniversary, and one that Bond devotees will welcome with open arms. Here’s to 50 more years at the movies, 007!

RATING: 4.5 out of 5 STARS

Jedd Jong

Looper

 For F*** Magazine, Singapore

LOOPER

Director:	Rian Johnson
Cast:	Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt
Genre:	Action, Thriller
Run Time:	118 mins
Opens:	11 October 2012

There’s no doubt about it: time travel has been something that’s fascinated the public consciousness for quite a while now. From H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine to Back to the Future to The Time-Traveller’s Wife, it seems authors and filmmakers have tapped into mankind’s almost primal desire to transcend the boundaries of time. It could be compared to mankind’s almost primal desire to fly. But while we’ve kinda achieved flight by way of heavier-than-air flying machines, time travel is still something that is quite elusive, to say the least.

Writer-director Rian Johnson’s film Looper offers an interesting twist on things: the ‘Loopers’ of the title are specialised assassins who take care of the trash of the future, by executing those sent back in time by criminal syndicates for a clean, untraceable disposal. Joe (Gordon-Levitt) is one such Looper, living the high life working his fairly uncomplicated job. However, every Looper must eventually ‘close the loop’ – i.e. kill the future version of themselves sent back in time, effectively tying up any loose ends for the crime syndicates. However, Joe’s future self (Willis) won’t go out without a fight, and evades execution. The younger Joe seeks refuge at a farm owned by redneck single mother Sara (Blunt), and just as he figures out how to deal with future-Joe, future-Joe sees the opportunity to right a few wrongs now that he’s in the past, and both must confront each other - even if it means tearing apart the fabric of time itself.



Looper is not your grandfather’s time-travel movie. Johnson has crafted a very intelligent, highly-engaging picture. He quickly establishes the high-concept premise and the story never gets swallowed up in its complexities. There’s a scene where future-Joe meets Joe in a diner, and says that if he attempted to explain the mechanics of time-travel, they’d end up sitting there for hours “making diagrams with straws”. Johnson makes sure he doesn’t end up doing that himself, instead spinning a very human and surprisingly poignant yarn with the science-fiction element as a backdrop. The picture is stylish but never flashy, and Johnson keeps a firm hold on his narrative even as it branches out into “possible eventualities” and alternate futures. Our attention is captured by the intricate plot, so much so that we never stop to question the metaphysical technicalities of it all, and that is very much to Johnson’s credit.

This film re-teams Johnson with the star of his earlier film Brick, Joseph Gordon-Levitt. So, does he make for a decent Junior Bruce Willis? Yes. Although the prosthetic makeup designed by Kazuhiro Tsuji can start off looking a mite goofy, it’s easy to get past that and the actor does a marvellous job emulating Willis’ strained vocal affectations. There was a time when Bruce Willis could have been considered sexy, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s portrayal seems to hearken back to those days. He puts across the moral and emotional toll being a Looper takes on Joe very well without doing too much, and he shares crackling chemistry with Willis himself.


As the older Joe, Willis is really good and actively lends his action hero credibility to the part, without his ‘icon’ status overshadowing the rest of the film. This movie doesn’t succumb to the cliché of having the older version of the character act as a mentor to his younger self and show him the ropes; rather both versions of Joe are almost constantly at each other’s throats and Willis is bitter and aggressive as the older one. What’s quite amusing is how quickly both Joes get over the absurdity of it all, staying focused on their respective missions as the other Loopers are sent to hunt them down (led by a rather intimidating Jeff Daniels).

When one thinks ‘redneck single mother’, English Rose Emily Blunt isn’t the name that immediately springs to mind, but she does a fantastic job as Sara, Southern accent and all. The character is a tough chick that isn’t your stereotypical tough chick; she’s just looking out for her son and making a living on the farm. The subplot which focuses on her character is intriguing to say the least. About halfway through, Looper becomes a completely different film, and while this makes sense in retrospect, it can come off as jarring and abrupt to some. This is one aspect of the film we are desperate not to spoil; the twists and revelations are just incredible. We’ll give you one hint – it’s a little “X-Men”. There are themes of predestination (a little akin to The Adjustment Bureau, also starring Emily Blunt) and sacrifice, and by the film’s end it’s turned from a head-spinning sci-fi action thriller to a poignant, moving drama – and yet doesn’t feel too disjointed.

We moviegoers often complain that Hollywood seems to have well and truly lost its creativity and is content in churning out production line cash-ins, banking on the names of franchises by way of sequels and remakes. Looper is a blunderbusser blast in the face to all of that. Here is a heady, intelligently-made science fiction film that true aficionados of the genre will want to take in, layering emotion, thrills and philosophy one on top of the other. It may not be immediately accessible and it will take a bit of effort to make sense of, but audiences will be amply rewarded.

SUMMARY: A refreshingly original, captivating sci-fi action thriller, this is one loop you want to keep yourself in even if it means working a little for it.

RATING: 4 out of 5 STARS

Jedd Jong

Taken 2

For F*** Magazine, Singapore

TAKEN 2

Director:	Olivier Megaton
Cast:	Liam Neeson, Maggie Grace, Famke Janssen, Rade Šerbedžija
Genre:	Action, Thriller
Run Time:	94 mins
Opens:	4 October 2012
Rating:	PG13 - Some Violence

2008’s Taken was a film that, well, took many by surprise. It was something of a sleeper hit, giving its star Liam Neeson a second wind as a viable action hero, and it also made $226,830,568 on a $26.5 million budget. You know what that means: sequel time!

Taken 2 fashions itself as a revenge story - Murad Hoxha (Šerbedžija), the head of the Albanian mafia, is none too happy about the body count from the first film, his son among them. So, he vows to take revenge on Bryan Mills (Neeson) on behalf of the rest of the Albanian village too. Mills takes his ex-wife Lenore (Janssen), going through a rough patch with her current husband, and his daughter Kim (Grace) along with him to Istanbul for a family vacation of sorts. It is there that the tables are turned on him, as Bryan and Lenore are taken, leaving Kim to figure out how to get to them as the bad guys chase after her as well.

Most moviegoers, upon hearing news of a Taken sequel being made, probably had the same thought – “the first one was cool, but do we need a second?” Taken seemed like the kind of film that would receive a shoddy direct-to-video sequel featuring a completely different cast with the exact same premise, so perhaps it can be considered good news that Neeson and co. are back for a proper part deux, with Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen also returning to script the movie.

However, Pierre Morel is not back in the director’s chair – in his stead is Olivier Megaton, who directed the Luc Besson-produced films Transporter 3 and Colombiana - and yes, that is his real name. Megaton keeps the film at a frenetic pace once the actual ‘taking’ takes place, but perhaps it’s a little too frenetic for its own good. There are quick cuts and editing flourishes, and where the first film felt as fluid as it was dynamic, here it’s a bit more choppy.

One could be mean and say that the story is not much more than a rehash of the first and truth is, it kind of is – the main difference being that it’s Bryan and Lenore who are kidnapped, with Kim in a position to aid her parents’ escape. Surprisingly, the movie takes its time with its opening scenes, which reintroduce the characters and establish how their relationships have changed since the events of the first movie – Bryan, ever the over-protective dad, not taking kindly to news that Kim now has a boyfriend (Luke Grimes).

This, however, may leave some audience members twiddling their thumbs. It’s a good thing then that when the film kicks into high gear, it doesn’t stop. The filmmakers take advantage of Istanbul’s potential as an action movie location (Bond will next be headed there in Skyfall) and there is a series of foot and vehicular chases through the back alleys and across the rooftops of the Turkish capital. Thing is, we really have seen it all before – and done a smidge better – in the original Taken.

Neeson is as good as he normally is, turning up the intensity and furrowing his brow as only he can. Most of his dialogue is very cut-and-dried and matter of fact, which can be a little hard to take seriously given how his terse speech from the first movie has been reduced to not much more than an internet meme. Famke Janssen has more screen time but not all that much more to do, panicking and crying through most of the movie. Maggie Grace’s part gets more of an upgrade, and you get the sense that Kim has learned a fair bit from her experiences in Paris, and with her father’s guidance possesses a degree of competence (and gets to toss a few grenades to boot). Rade Šerbedžija is stoic as the villain, but not as imposing or frightening as he could have been, and it ends up such that the lower-level grunts seem to pose more of a threat than the head of the Albanian mafia himself.

Is Taken 2 a decent film on its own merits? Yes. But is it an absolutely necessary sequel? No. Was it made primarily as a cash-grab? Probably, and unfortunately, yes.

SUMMARY: Taken 2 passes muster as an action film in the vein of its predecessor, even if it never quite matches it in quality - it’s a little “run of the Mills”, as it were.

RATING: 3 out of 5 STARS

Jedd Jong