Looper

This mindbending time travel sci-fi singularity comes from breakout writer and director, Rian Johnson. He's best known for his remarkable indy film, Brick, and he has directed a couple of episodes of Breaking Bad, including the very memorable episode titled "fly". Now, I'm not going to tell you that time travel films are easy. Quite the contrary actually, they seem to be one of the most difficult genres to create seamlessly. I found myself questioning the logistics and the space/time continuum, but after a few minutes, I caught myself and asked the pivotal question, "who cares." Rian Johnson clearly didn't, as shown in a great diner scene between Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the young Joe, and Bruce Willis, the old Joe. It is made pretty clear that there are no tricky "rules" to the game of time travel.

Young Joe is a Looper, a hitman in present day 2044 who kills mob hits who are sent back 30 years from 2077. It's a bit complicated, but becomes very clear after about 10 minutes. The thing about being a Looper however, is that it is an expectation that you will do what they call "close the loop" sometime in your career which means killing your older self. In doing so, you are resigning yourself to living another 30 years, and are compensated with a generous retirement package.

Johnson creates a nice future that isn't too clever. Gas is at a premium, so cars are old and dilapidated. Poverty is rampant and people carry guns to protect themselves. Other than that, it's pretty tastefully done as a futuristic thriller. You are immersed into the world, which changes scenery beautifully between the urban decay and rural Kansas farmland.

The film essentially has two very distinct parts that are tied together through necessity. There is the gritty, dark city where excess of drugs, guns, and sex is a common part of life, and the Loopers trade in their silver bars for a liquid drug that keeps them high. Then there is the quiet, sunny, peaceful farmland. Johnson does a fantastic job of diverging the two to make the film seem almost epic.

Young Joe messes up his hit on his older self, and as he chases him down, the plot thickens with a very clever sub-plot that reveals old Joe's hidden agenda. It's really nicely sequenced with a satisfying ending, and legitimately isn't too confusing, especially for a time travel film.

As you may have noticed from the previews, one of the interesting decisions that Johnson made was to apply makeup to Gordon-Levitt for 3 hours each day to make him look more like a younger Bruce Willis. You get used to it very quickly, but for my money, I don't think they looked especially alike, except for the eye color match. That said, both actors were great choices for their respective roles, and the rumor is that Rian Johnson wrote the film with Gordon-Levitt in mind for the lead role. The allure of having Bruce Willis, a sci-fi veteran, on board was probably too enticing to pass up.

Bruce Willis is typical Bruce Willis with some great lines, and kick-ass action that we haven't seen since... The Expendables 2. OK, so it hasn't been that long, but he's in prime form as old Joe. A shooting rampage at the end is reminiscent of the Fifth Element, and seeing him go back in time is 12 Monkeys deja vu. He makes it fun, like early 2000's Bruce.

Jeff Daniels and Emily Blunt are the supporting characters, along with a short appearance by Paul Dano, who is turning into a great actor, albeit a bit strange looking. He will find a niche very soon and will be in Hollywood for a long time. The scene-stealer of the film however, is Pierce Gagnon, who can't be more than 8 years old. He's precocious and given an integral role, but his poise and screen presence is captivating.

My only complaint is that after the climax, the film just ends. I truly think that one more scene to kind of put an exclamation point on it and give the viewer some reassurance of the outcome would have bumped up the value of this already great film. The story is fantastic, the acting and casting is great, and it's just a fun action film all around. I hereby forgive Joseph Gordon-Levitt for Premium Rush. Go see this film. It's the best sci-fi action one of the year. 9/10.

End of Watch

End of Watch is the latest LAPD drama by David Ayer, taking a unique look at two young patrolmen mostly through the eyes of a camcorder. A veteran of the genre, this is the 5th film in a row Ayer has written about the boys in blue, and the third he's directed. Trying to capitalize on the success of his first foray, Training Day, this time he follows the formula down a slightly different path.

Each of his previous four films pitted good cops against the pressures of the job, ultimately leading to their corruption or death. End of Watch is a cliche take on the genre, but it's refreshing as these two cops face the daily struggles of the job, but they keep their moral compasses straight up until the bitter end.

Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena are the two hotshot patrolmen who form a bond stronger than family, forged through the chases, shootings, close calls, and glimpses of humanity at its most deplorable. There is realism to their characters, and that adds to the intensity and emotional investment. These two guys are good cops, and they are good people. It's a juxtaposition to see them functioning with sincerity and pride with the ordeals of the people living in the seediest part of Los Angeles. They love their jobs, and are good at them. They border on arrogant, but never cross the line into unlikeable. That's where Ayer did a nice job.

From the opening credits where we follow a speeding vehicle down back alleys and side streets from the perspective of the dashboard camera, the action doesn't let up. There are just enough sequences to keep the viewer on the edge of his seat, and although the plot gets a bit lofty and unreasonable, it remains grounded in its execution.

What separates End of Watch from other cop films is the use of POV cameras, conveniently thrown into the plot as Gyllenhaal's Officer Brian Taylor claims to be filming for his class. We never see him actually use the footage or go to class, and the film spans over a year, but that's a minor and forgivable hole in the plot. The camera adds to the authenticity as we see and hear them running after perps, raising their guns, busting down doors and making routine (or not so routine) traffic stops.

What I like about the film is that their actions follow a realistic approach. The profession is not glamorized like it is in so many other films, but it's also not patronized. They follow procedure and make decisions based on their knowledge, constantly trying to do what they think is the right thing to do. Sometimes to their own detriment.

There are some shocking scenes, and the pacing is nicely created with just enough building tension that then erupts into an action-packed moment. Ayer likes to use gang life as a crutch, and that's one of my concerns; his gang members are a bit too contrived. In this case, the cops earn the respect of the local Blood member by treating him "gangster" instead of sending him to prison for life. They also piss off the 13's by interrupting their drug and human trafficking enterprise. The Mexican gang members are made to be simpletons with no conscience or thoughts of their own. This is a recurring theme in Ayer films, and I'm not sure if it's intentional or subconscious, but they bring down the quality and authenticity of the film.

Aside from that, Pena and Gyllenhaal have great buddy cop chemistry. They make the viewer believe that they are best friends, and they both bring something to the partnership that makes them a strong team. There is a bit too much banter for my liking, but I suppose it makes them appear more human, and it does improve the likeability.

The supporting cast has a few glimmers. There is the female partnership of Cody Horn and America Ferrera who are the tough as nails women on duty. There's Anna Kendrick who plays Gyllenhaal's better half, and she really plays her part well. Innocent, funny, and fearless. But the best member of the cast is the gruff expressionless Officer, Van Hauser, played by David Harbour. He is given a great personality as a jaded veteran who seems almost annoyed by the success of his younger fellow Officers. He shows a deep respect for his profession, but is cynical and even gives them some helpful advice during a break.

This film succeeds where others in the genre fail in that this one doesn't go down the rabbit hole of corruption or conspiracy. It keeps its head above water and stays true to its original intent. That of realism.

You can tell that Ayer has a healthy respect for the profession and I'd be curious to learn more about his background and why he is fixated on the LAPD. I read somewhere that he grew up in a bad part of LA, but I'd also like to see what he can do beyond cop dramas (he also wrote U-571 and The Fast and the Furious). This is a better film than I was expecting, and great job acting all around. The ending is a bit cliche and predictable, but other than that, it's a fun action flick. 8/10.

The Master

The Master has left me conflicted. This highly (and I stress highly) anticipated film from independent film royalty Paul Thomas Anderson follows a young troubled drifter shortly after World War II as he falls in with "The Cause". It's not like Scientology, but has an enigmatic leader and spiritual philosophies that deal with space and time travel, past lives, and other esoteric ideas. So it's basically Scientology.

PT Anderson blew expectations out of the water with 2008's There Will Be Blood which introduced us to what Daniel Day-Lewis could do if given the right role, surrounded by music by Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood, and an absolutely masterful film making team. Anderson proved on the spot that his cinema verite was so pure and beautiful, it was almost unbelievable. Had it not been for No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood would have swept the Oscars.

Anderson has taken an interesting path to get to this point, and has essentially created two kinds of films; masterpieces, and oddities. Stepping back in time to 1997, he created an underrated film called Boogie Nights. It rivaled 1994's Pulp Fiction in its impact on the independent film circuit, introducing us to a plethora of incredible actors who have since dominated Hollywood. It was a dark gem with such smart and original emotional appeal that it resonated long after watching it.

Fast forward a couple of years, and PT offered up Magnolia, a disjointed and misunderstood ensemble drama that showed us a side of Tom Cruise that we hadn't seen before. It was not a great film on first viewing, but it grew on me over the years, and after seeing it again a couple of years ago, I gained a new appreciation like one that you would develop for an incontinent pet. Good, but not great. Unusual, and the style grows on you so you begin to know what to expect.

2002 introduced us to Punch Drunk Love, which was definitely an oddity. It failed on so many levels, and just never really made sense. Adam Sandler tried his darnedest to break free from his goofy reputation, but it didn't work. Punch Drunk Love brought PT back down a few rungs on his ladder to the pantheon of filmmaking gods.

Then came There Will be Blood in 2007. Beautiful. Spot on. Daniel Day-Lewis at his absolute best. If it were possible, he should have received the Best Actor of the Decade Oscar.

PT Anderson's Modus Operandi is clear. He is a visionary that plays by nobody's rules in the film world, and he creates original works exactly the way that he wants to. That said, The Master is a complicated and confusing piece of work that has too much ethereal pondering, I felt a little bit like I was watching a Terrence Malick film. Throw in the gratuitous nudity, and I could imagine Stanley Kubrick rolling over in his grave.

There was a row of elderly folks in the theatre with me, and one by one, they walked out due to the discomfort that the film evoked. Be it the language, the confusion, or the nudity, there were a total of eight women who couldn't stick with the film. That sums it up nicely. It's just strange.

That said, this film will give us two Best Actor Oscar nominees in Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Joaquin Phoenix. This will be the first time since 1984's Amadeus that it will have happened. If either of them isn't nominated, it will be a crime and I may boycott the Oscars. OK, I won't, but I'll rant about it. Ironically, Hoffman won his Best Actor Oscar for Capote in 2005, beating out a deserving Phoenix for his portrayal of Johnny Cash in Walk the Line. The two of them are mesmerizing.

Phoenix is the true lead as Freddy Quell, a misguided young man who finds comfort in various forms of liquid intoxicants, and who is portrayed as a sexual deviant although PT Anderson doesn't quite explore this angle as deeply as he should. Hoffman plays Lancaster Dodd, the self-proclaimed "Writer, nuclear physicist, theoretical philosopher, and man." Their characters are rich in flaws and strengths, but they are never quite given the time to fully actualize their potential. I'm not sure any length of film could, they are that compelling on the screen. The acting alone makes this film worth seeing, and the premise of a religious cult is the perfect backdrop for hypnotic conversations and prolonged scenes of discomfort. They play off each other in a way that is so rare and authentic that you forget that you're watching a movie at times. It is magical.

The other side of the coin however, is the plot, which has just too many unanswered and irrelevant turns. The conclusion is anti-climactic and strange, trying to be a bit too mysterious and artful. I was expecting a bit more from the final few scenes, which is probably my own fault. This film needed a conclusion to quench my cinematic thirst.

That said, I am still conflicted on how to rate this film. Kudos to PT Anderson for assembling a wonderful cast and creating a slow boiling controversy (tastefully and respectfully done) around Scientology, but he could have put more into the story and thrown a little bone to the mainstream audience. The direction and cinematography is remarkable. The best I've seen all year so far, and this film will garner numerous Oscar nominations, but I'm not convinced at this point that it will have enough overall support to earn any victories. Two actors pinned against each other in the same film and the same category will polarize some voters, as a very strong case could be made for either one of them. It is for this reason that sadly, neither will win (Unless Seymour Hoffman somehow ends up in the Supporting Actor category, which would be interesting).

I can't recommend this film. It's not as bad as the elderly women made it seem, and I would never walk out of a PT Anderson film, no matter how bad it may be. The two lead performances can't be complimented enough, and this is a very worthy effort on the part of the writer/director. I look forward to every piece of work he does, but this one is more in line with Punch Drunk Love than There Will be Blood. 7/10.

Ten Worst Films of All Time

A lot of things make a film bad. There's the acting, the story, the special effects, even the direction or editing. Mostly though, there is a magic that fills the screen and you just know that you're in the presence of something special. I have had the displeasure of seeing two such movies recently, which has inspired me to reflect on my long and distinguished list of cinematic treasures in my chest, and pull out the stinkiest ones I can think of. a lot of lists have been made, and there are plenty of films that perhaps deserve to be on this list. Not at all inclusive, here are the ten that I came up with in no particular order.

The Room.

A personal favorite from the pantheon of awful. The Room is written, directed, and stars the indescribably odd Tommy Wiseau. A man who seems to be into bodybuilding and has what could either be a Eastern European accent, or some sort of Bells Palsy side effect, he created a gem. Bad story? Check. Horrendous acting? Check. Nonsensical scenes? Check. Memorable lines? Check. It has everything a movie needs to be on this list. It's so bad, I own it. That's right, and Tommy Wiseau himself sent me the movie with an autographed message on the DVD case. Jealous?

Superman III.

I found this one on Encore a couple of weeks ago and thought "I vaguely remember this one, but I need a refresher." Fast forward two hours, and to my surprise, this is my current worst film of all time. Gene Hackman is brilliant for passing, and Richard Pryor is clearly working for a paycheck and nothing more. The opening credits sequence will probably remain the champion of regret for everyone involved in the film until the day they die. It's just confusing and offensive. The film also makes a strong case for the most laughable misunderstanding of the capabilities of computer technology of all time. Excusable since it was 1983, but nonetheless, terrible. Also worth watching for the experience.

Premium Rush.

I recently saw this in the theatre and almost walked out. I wrote a review a few weeks back, but as it marinades in my memory, it gets worse and worse. Dialogue, characters, absurdity, and a bike messenger flash mob. It's just plain bad. Gordon-Levitt lost some points in my book.

Flash Gordon.

Recently brought back from obscurity by Seth MacFarlane, Flash Gordon is 80's sci-fi action at its worst. Max Von Sydow plays a Chinese wizard or something, and Queen provides the soundtrack. Could it get any worse?

Leonard Part 6.

When I was 9 years old, I was one of the hundred or so people who saw this film. I remember thinking, "I don't recall the first five movies." And since then, until I did a little research, I hadn't thought about this Bill Cosby project at all. He plays an aging secret agent, and beyond that, all I remember are bad jokes and a bad fitting high tech suit. To clarify, there are no parts 1-5.

Garbage Pail Kids: The Movie.

I am not too proud to admit I bought Garbage Pail Kids. It was between the ages of 7 and 10, and they had funny names, like Adam Bomb, or Potty Scotty, or Acne Amy. They were truly offensive, but for a kid, were hilarious. The film on the other hand was absolutely frightening. The creatures were played by people in suits, and their inflated heads and creepy movements would scar any child. Nevermind that it was a bad idea in the first place, this film was unintentionally and inexcusably horrendous.

Battlefield: Earth.

How can anything Scientology be taken seriously? With the exception of the upcoming Paul Thomas Anderson film which "isn't about L. Ron Hubbard!", the entire cult is a joke. This film was John Travolta's baby, and lost a load of money and remains one of the worst film in my book. I don't often share my religious beliefs or pass judgment on others, but Scientology is insanity.

Superbabies 2.

The only thing worse than a movie about talking babies is a sequel to a movie about talking babies. A poorly made sequel. Ridiculous. This is another film that's worth watching if you want pure entertainment of the bad variety. To clarify, no talking baby movie has ever been good.

Plan 9 From Outer Space.

This is a special film for a few reasons: Ed Wood, sci-fi from the 50's, and an appearance in MST3K, one of the best shows to lampoon bad movies. I would love to see MST3K make a resurrection and do some work on some more modern films, but I'm sure there would be copyright infringement and hurt feelings among studios. The idea is genius, and a man can dream, can't he?

Joe Versus the Volcano.

Even as a young movie critic, people would ask me about the worst film I'd ever seen, and for the longest time, this Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan film would be my answer. It's just plain bad. Meg Ryan takes on dual roles, and Tom Hanks is a depressed man who finds himself involved in an adventure to stop the appeasement of an angry volcano and save the woman he loves. This film holds a special place in my heart, and will always be on my worst films list.

There you have it, there are hundreds of other films out there, but these are ten of my worst films of all time.

The Hardest Working Man in Hollywood

For those of you who haven't seen Breaking Bad, Bryan Cranston has transformed the meek chemistry teacher, Walt White into a drug kingpin, murdering, lying, fearless monster over the course of the show's five seasons. His portrayal has earned him three Emmys, and three Golden Globe nominations. He's likely to earn another one of each for the final season of one of the best dramas that TV has seen in years.

As much of a chameleon as he is physically, he also demonstrates considerable range in his acting as well. He started out mainly in the comedy arena, and broke out as the goofy father of Malcolm in the Middle from 2000 to 2006. Before that, since the early 1980's, he has had a role in nearly every sitcom or drama that you can think of ranging from CHiPS to Seinfeld to Chicago Hope to 3rd Rock from the Sun. He had constant employment over the first 30 years of his career, and then it was 2011, 3 years into his stint as Walter White.

Cranston appeared in 6 films in 2011, and 4 television shows not counting his "regular" gig. Not bad for any actor, and although none of his roles were more than a supporting actor, Detachment, Drive, and Contagion showed his abilities as a serious film threat.

Here we are, 8 months into 2012, and he has appeared in 6 films and 3 additional television shows besides Breaking Bad. You can see where I'm going with this. We can expect a hosting gig on Saturday Night Live this year if Lorne Michaels knows what's good for him. His profile couldn't get any higher for someone trying to pad his resume. Cartoons, sitcoms, dramas, comedic cameos in film, serious roles in film. There's virtually nothing that Bryan Cranston doesn't have his hands in right now. I'd be curious to see what his W2 says for 2011 and 2012, but that's another story.

If you're new to the name, and you've had your head in a paper bag for the last few years, watch Breaking Bad. It's on the verge of becoming the best drama of all time, and AMC has become the go-to station for original programming. Walt has some big shoes to fill, and although there is still Don Draper to keep AMC afloat, the station needs to pull something epic off once Walt's legacy comes to an end.

His turn as Shannon in last year's surprise hit, Drive, is outstanding. As is his brief cameo as Mike Whitmore in this past summer's Rock of Ages. Perhaps his strongest potential for film stardom is in this October's Oscar contender, Argo where he plays opposite Ben Affleck, Alan Arkin, John Goodman, and Kyle Chandler, among others.

My point is that Bryan Cranston is doing something that most actors can only dream about, and although he is now 56 years old, he's just now coming into his prime. He has a place in the pantheon of television as one of the most loved and hated protagonists ever. I put him up there with Tony Soprano and Vic Mackey. Someone who might be considered a villain at times, but you just can't hate the guy because he is just so damn good at what he does. Shout out to Vince Gilligan who has created a gem. Let's just hope he ends it respectably.

I am expecting some critical acclaim for his performance in Argo, and some parting gifts for Breaking Bad, but don't be surprised if he takes a little bit of time off after such a busy past few years. One thing is for sure, we will see him again soon.

Nice work, Bryan Cranston for being the hardest working man in Hollywood today.