I Don't Want to Talk about Time Travel

It's odd to comprehend that the scrawny kid from 3'rd Rock from the Sun is seriously a movie star. I can still picture young Tommy Solomon, with his shoulder-length hair and carefree attitude, stealing many a scene from his older, more experienced costars. Since then, Joseph Gordon-Levitt has practically exploded onto the movie scene. He has been exploring a wide variety of film roles, starring in indie flicks like (500) Days of Summer, 50/50 and Hesher, and also major blockbusters G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises and the surprisingly good Premium Rush. But the film widely considered to have catapulted him to where he stands now is 2005's Brick, the neo-noir thriller and debut of director Rian Johnson for which Gordon-Levitt's performance was vastly praised. Seven years later, the actor reunites with his Brick director for the time-traveling thriller Looper, which sees Gordon-Levitt wearing some crazy prosthetics as a unique style of hit-man who is literally confronted by his future.

He's looking a little different...

In the not-too-distant future, crime and poverty have risen to stratospheric heights, and the corrupt government ensures that things won't change anytime soon. In thirty years time travel will be invented, immediately outlawed, and therefore operated by only the largest criminal organizations. Because trackers make disposing of murder victims practically impossible, anybody the mob wants removed is instead zipped into the past, to be disposed of by specially-chosen assassins, named Loopers, who can secretly murder these people and wipe clean of any evidence. It's no easy life of luxury, however, as letting a target escape is grounds for extreme termination. Eventually, Loopers are sent their future selves to "close the loop", paid a boatload of cash and get the next thirty years to live their lives. Joe (Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper who rose from the filth of the streets to make a name for himself as one of the most reliable men in the business. All that changes when he is confronted by his future self (Bruce Willis), who catches Joe off guard and manages to escape, and seems to be on an unknowable mission. Now Joe, on the run from his organization, will do anything to take down his older self, but what is Old Joe's goal? And how does a telekinetic single mother (Emily Blunt) fit into the picture?

"Eyyyyyyy!"

Looper's story is brightened by multiple intricately-managed mysteries, which refuse to be rushed in this two-hour film. The balancing act appears to be Johnson's strength as a writer and director; never revealing even the tiniest details before the timing is absolutely right. Johnson also knows that not everything in the universe needs to be told in vast detail; there are several instances of seemingly important facts glossed over - for instance, that about ten percent of the population can for some reason move small items with their mind -  and the reason for that is there is a major difference between needing to know something and needing to know everything about it. We don't need to know exactly WHY or HOW people have this talent, but we DO need to know that they have it, and Johnson wisely gives us just that. The character growth of Joe is also something of a big deal, as he goes from self-absorbed sociopath to... something else. I won't go into further detail as to avoid spoilers, but Joe's path is one of the better character stories I've seen in film this year, right up there with Judge Anderson in Dredd and the leads in For a Good Time, Call... It helps to be portrayed by a wunderkind like Gordon-Levitt and an underrated performer in Willis, but it is Johnson's direction that ensures that we demand to follow Joe's journey from beginning to end.

Just saw the box office draw for The Cold Light of Day.

Unfortunately, that aforementioned lack of detail also leads to one of the few problems I had with Looper: the science. I like time travel stories, from  H.G. Wells to Doctor Who to The Terminator to any comic book reference (and there are many). But do you know what they all have in common? They have rules. Very elaborate rules. Going back in time and altering the past is usually portrayed as a big no-no in stories, most notably because it can cause a paradox that does serious damage to the future. In Marvel Comics and the recent Star Trek reboot, such things merely causes parallel time-lines that exist outside the accepted universe. Even in the Terminator and (admittedly not time time travel) Final Destination pictures, fighting to stop a tragic future is never really successful, as the universe tends to right itself and force those events to occur eventually. Nowhere in modern time travel lore does it say that you can alter the past on a whim and with no major repercussions, and the logic in the science appears tailored to the story Johnson wanted to tell rather than something the tale is built around. Looper does get around this by making sure none of its characters really understand how time travel works, and in the end it doesn't matter all that much. While a little more science wouldn't have hurt the overall story, neither does it's absence detract from the rest of the movie.

She can hold my gun anytime.

The movie's story is one of great characters, and Johnson puts together a stellar cast to patch the whole thing together. Great pains were taken to make Gordon-Levitt and Willis appear like versions of the other, and while Willis puts on one of his better Bruce Willis impersonations, Gordon-Levitt is masterful at representing Willis' younger self. Sure, the unnoticeable prosthetics he dons certainly play a part, but his ability to nuance himself into a role is all but unparalleled in the industry, making for one of the year's better genre performances. A supporting cast of the excellent Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels, Paul Dano, Piper Perabo, Garret Dillahunt, and Noah Segran flesh out what is already a generous amount of narration, and Johnson shows a keen eye for talent in his selections of his actors. Blunt especially stretches far from her comfort zone, a welcome sight for an actress of such talent, but everyone here is wonderful as well. Each has an important role to play, and more than fill their requisite storytelling needs.

"Just a tip from the future: stay away from the brisket."

Looper has deep and human characters, a generous dose of humor, and one of the best-written morality plays I've seen in this or any other year. This is probably the best science fiction film I've seen in recent years, perhaps only a tick behind District 9 or Moon, even though its a movie that will likely appeal more to mainstream audiences than the hardcore sci-fi fans that will frequent it. The lack of scientific logic might seem like a serious step back from traditional sci-fi, but I'll take the bad science when I'm offered both great characters and a worthy story that keeps me hooked. The only question is where to place it in my Top 10 for the year, a place it surely deserves to be listed. For genre films, it's better than just about everything Marvel has put out (besides The Avengers, of course), and perhaps just a bit higher than Dredd. #5 for 2012 seems just about right. Gordon-Levitt keeps proving that he deserves to be a star, and with fare like this constantly appearing on his resume, I'll gladly allow it.

Too Long a Wait

Last weekend, the much-awaited (by yours truly, at least) comedy The Five-Year Engagement was released to theaters. With only one week before the rise of eventual juggernaut The Avengers, the film's producers obviously thought they could make a quick cash grab with a strong romantic comedy and make out like thieves before the Marvel Comics' movie could simply take everybody's money. On paper, everything looked more than solid. Judd Apatow was producing, and Apatow's career seemed to be going upwards after he bankrolled a little film last summer called Bridesmaids. The film also reunited director Nicholas Stoller and star Jason Segel, whose former collaborations were the popular and successful Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Muppets. Add rising star Emily Blunt to the mix, and what you should have is a hilarious romantic comedy that excels on all levels.

Well, let that be a lesson as to just how unpredictable this industry really is.

Audiences largely ignored The Five-Year Engagement, and in hindsight it's easy to see why. Its attempts to cling to the Bridesmaids's coattails were obvious ploys, as nothing in the trailer indicated that there was anything connecting Engagement to the 2011 box office giant whose popularity alone caused it to flirt with Best Picture nomination at the Academy Awards. Secondly, there was already plenty of romance in theaters when the film released, especially two titles released the previous weekend (the Nicholas Sparks adaptation The Lucky One and surprise hit Think Like a Man both dominated Engagement at the box office in their second weekend), and nobody really cared that a new romance film was available to see. What at first glance seemed like a slam dunk became anything but, and to add insult to injury, critics seemed to agree with our collective apathy. Were they right? Is The Five-Year Engagement deserving of its failures? I was still too intrigued by the title's premise to completely ignore it.

Look at the happy couple. What can we do to change that?

The film starts with lovebirds Tom Solomon (Segel) and Violet Barnes (Blunt) in San Francisco on New Years Eve, the night Tom proposes, and Violet of course says yes. While the pair are planning their upcoming nuptials, Violet, a psychology PHD graduate, gets a job offer for a post-doctorate program. The problem is that she did not get into a California program, but one at the University of Michigan, which puts the couple's plans on hold since they want to marry in California with their families present. Because the program lasts two years, Tom moves up with Violet, leaving his sous chef position at a popular restaurant and confident that he can "cook anywhere". Things get complicated in Michigan however, and as Violet's career surges forward, Tom is left behind, and the prospective wedding date gets further and further away. Soon it becomes a question of if, not when, the pair will ever tie the knot.

Tom just realized he's not wearing any pants. Violet just realized the same.

If there's one thing The Five-Year Engagement does well, it's that it establishes right from the beginning that these two people are absolutely perfect for one another. From the start, this is a couple that remember the moment they met one another, make each other laugh, and genuinely love one another in a way that communicates to every character in the film and every member of the audience that these two are meant to be together. It was a good call then to bring together Segel and Blunt, as the two share a chemistry that by itself nearly carries the whole movie. Segel is of course in his usual teddy-bear adorable mode, the one that makes women love him and men wish they were him. Segel defies the romantic lead stereotype in such a refreshing everyman way that it almost seems as though he can do no wrong. Blunt is also a hit, and her demeanor is more relaxed (and less "British") than I've seen in any of her other work. The pair obviously work hard to make this film a hit, but sadly it's due to forces outside their control as actors that hamper the title's effectiveness.

What they never say about weddings: all that free cake!

As you can probably guess, it's the story that is the main culprit in Engagement, and the blame for that falls squarely on the heads of Segel and Stoller. Yes, I did say that Segel was blameless, but only in an acting capacity. Unlike The Muppets, which the duo previously penned, this script has none of the wry wit and bursting humor that made Kermit and crew's return such a fun time. It would be easy to blame this on simply not having a female perspective, but it's plainly obvious that these men cannot describe exactly what it is that makes relationships work. As a movie, Engagement lacks subtlety, and the film's funniest moments are when the scenes are almost trying too hard to stand out. Too often does the movie rely on the comedic talents of its actors to make something much funnier than it actually is, and the result is a mishmash of drama and occasional spurts of laughter that doesn't quite pay off.

The couple we wish the movie had been about.

The film is not without its charms, but most belonging to Tom and Violet burns out quickly. Eventually a shitty situation turns the happy couple against one another, and as the audience we just wish that we could stop focusing on this pair until they can get their act together. Best friends to the rescue! Community's Alison Brie and Parks and Recreations' Chris Pratt are easily the best parts of the film as Violet's sister and Tom's best buddy, respectively. Besides being the funniest actors in this comedy (no, I agree that's not saying much), Brie and Pratt act as a calendar of the world outside our main pairing, and their development as characters is the one thing that works amid a sea of poor film pacing. Also standing out is Animal Kingdom's Jacki Weaver as Violet's wickedly fun mother, who says what's on her mind and to hell with the consequences. I really wish Weaver had been used more, but her effectiveness is sadly restricted to the film's opening half-hour. The cast is rounded out by Rhys Ifans, Mindy Kaling, and Kevin Hart, and if the talent here doesn't prove to you just how poorly the script fails the movie, nothing will.

Don't worry, big guy... you know you're getting the happy ending.

What we are left with at the end is a barely funny, overly-long (at two hours, I shouldn't believe that) movie that wraps itself up way too quickly to be believable. While the film does have a few funny bits, I'm hard-pressed to remember any single one. It DOES however contain one of the more memorable wedding scenes in cinema in recent memory. The Bridesmaids comparisons may ultimately have been what killed this film, as it was probably impossible for most people to imagine this title one-upping that modern classic. It's a shame, as with a few changes behind the scenes The Five-Year Engagement could easily have been a funny, competent and engaging romantic comedy. Instead it's barely humorous, and there can be no doubt that it deserved all those empty seats opening weekend. This might seem like small fries after I watched The Avengers twice in the past three days, but Engagement was one of more looked-towards titles this past spring, and I can't help but feel a moderate level of disappointment in its failure.

Something Fishy This Way Comes

Today is Friday, March 23'rd, and I feel as though I'm officially reviewing the first Academy Award contender of 2012. There are a couple of reasons Salmon Fishing in the Yemen was my most anticipated film for March, over the likes of the exciting John Carter, indie Jeff Who Lives at Home, and the juggernaut atop everybody else's lists, The Hunger Games. The first was the casting; between Ewan McGregor, Emily Blunt and Kristin Scott Thomas, there wasn't a single weakness anywhere in the actors presented. I'm a huge fan of Blunt, and McGregor and Thomas have been known for their outstanding work in the past. The second was the story, a unique tale that quickly distanced itself from the usual band of retreads that Hollywood pumps out with regularity. There wasn't any time in the past few months in which I didn't expect this film to be a great addition to the ranks of my Top 10 for the year, not just at the time of its release but far down the line as well.

Based on the book of the same name by Paul Torday, Salmon Fishing in the Yemen tells the story of fisheries scientist Alfred Jones (McGregor), who finds himself involved in an insane pipe dream, as he is hired by Yemeni Sheikh Muhammad (Amr Waked) in an effort to introduce the sport of salmon fishing to the dry Middle Eastern country. He is practically forced into the project by the British government, as Public Relations chief Bridget Maxwell (Thomas) desperately needs a feel-good news story from the Middle East as the ongoing war has hardly helped matters. While Alfred at first believes that the entire notion of introducing cold-climate fish to the arid desert is unfeasible, he gradually is persuaded by the charisma and brilliance of the Sheikh and his financial strategist Harriet Chatwode-Talbot (the lovely and talented Blunt), especially as it forces him away from his mundane everyday life and into something new and unknown. Eventually, he finds himself completely behind the project, but the daunting task of succeeding at what is barely theoretically possible is yet another matter.

Two actors I'll always watch

The acting, as expected, is as wonderful as I imagined. McGregor is, to the surprise of nobody, a natural at playing the insecure, know-it-all with a heart of gold. As the story's hero however, McGregor needed to be more than a stereotype in order to properly capture the distinct personality of Alfred Jones, and he gives us a show as close to perfection as any actor possibly can. It's actually amazing that in almost eighteen years of performing, McGregor has never been nominated for an Academy Award, as even his star turn in the popular-if-polarizing Moulin Rouge was close, but no cigar. His chances have to improve eventually, and hopefully he won't have to wait as long as Beginners co-star Christopher Plummer did to get one of those golden men. In the meantime, I'll simply enjoy every single one of McGregor's performances going forward. Blunt is still trying to make a name for herself in Hollywood, and I certainly hope Salmon Fishing in the Yemen helps her to that goal. It's hard to believe that it's been six years since The Devil Wears Prada, but stardom seems strangely elusive for the exceptionally talented Blum, who always seems to be in good movies that most people just don't bother to see. Here she commands the screen with her mere appearance, adding greatly just by opening her mouth and speaking. If that seems like limited praise, it's because I honestly don't know how to describe her importance to the film, other than that her mere appearance raises the standards of everything around her a million percent.

Waked's work is the stuff Academy Award nominations are made of.

The real star of this film however might be Waked, whose role seems tailor-made for generating awards buzz. As the charismatic, intelligent Sheikh Muhammad, Waked manages to imbue the role with everything needed and more, succeeding in becoming the heart and soul of the film in the process. I knew going in that he would likely be the best thing about the film, and his performance did not disappoint. The only disappointment is Thomas, whose part would fit in well with a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Whether she is running around shouting on the phone, mugging for photo opportunities or staring down the Prime Minister, her character is strong but without grounding in reality. This is no fault of Thomas, of course, but of a role so comically written that it throws off the film's entire dynamic without even trying.

Yes, he gets "It's So Big" a lot...

And unfortunately, this is a film that gets off the rails more than once on its quest to get from start to finish. While the central idea of transplanting Salmon into Yemen is a unique idea itself, just about everything around it is tepid, predictable and forced to the point where you can see the whole plot coming a mile away. Director Lasse Hallstrom has been revered in the past for his adaptations of The Cider House Rules, Chocolat, and The Shipping News, but his work on Salmon Fishing in the Yemen feels surprisingly amateur, most notably with sudden musical score changes when something dastardly is about to happen. The conflicts in the film feel contrived to the point of exhaustion, as though Hallstrom attempted to express his views on culturalism in the Middle East without actually knowing anything about the subject. Additionally, some scenes that should have definite significance (such as McGregor walking against a tide of people to compare him to the upstream-swimming salmon) are wasted, as they are presented without any specific context. The inevitable romance between McGregor and Blunt is also predictable, though at least the story complicates things by starting these two off with preexisting romantic relationships.While the scenes featuring Kristin Scott Thomas are in fact humorous, they detract from the film by being TOO funny, contrasting sharply with the seriousness of the rest of the tale.

John Krasinski, you lucky bastard...

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen overcomes these problems thanks mainly to an acting corps that consistently raises the bar on talent, and a believable romance that works much in the same way as fellow 2012 release Friends With Kids, albeit with a bit more class. There are definitely issues with the story and how it's told, but those two major factors push this title above most of the recently released mediocre movies, turning it into the #2 Film of 2012. While I think you could push this film aside and focus on the other good titles that were released this March, it also makes the perfect counter for if and when you're not interesting in seeing the big, showy special effects-laden films that have dominated the box office these past couple of months. Waked's performance especially makes this film a must-see, and even if you don't see it in the theater, it would definitely be worth a rental this summer. I for one am glad I saw it on the big screen, but Salmon Fishing in the Yemen wasn't the game-changer I was certain it would be.

Prepare for Adjustment

With four new releases this past week, it's taken a lot of timing to make sure I don't miss anything I want to see in the theaters. For this occasion, I made sure to get a ticket to The Adjustment Bureau, the directorial debut of George Nolfi starring Matt Damon and Emily Blunt. If you're like me, you were of two minds after seeing the trailer to this film in the preceding months. Mind One: "Wow, this looks AMAZING! Damon and Blunt are outstanding performers, the plot (adapted from Philip K. Dick's short story The Adjustment Team) is interesting enough to be entertaining, and it looks like there's excitement around every turn!" Mind two: "Wow, this looks CONFUSING! Damon and Blunt are outstanding performers, but the trailer seems to be full of contradictory scenes, cliched boogeymen, and a bit too much exposition." Mind two was one of the reasons I chose the same-day release Rango for first watch this week, but Mind One was still prevalent enough to ensure it wouldn't be long before I took in this enigmatic thriller myself.

Now raise your hands if you're $%@&ing Matt Damon!

After a college reunion prank turns into a scandal that derails his campaign to become the next Senator from New York, Congressman David Norris (Matt Damon) prepares his post-election speech when he meets Elise (Emily Blunt) seemingly by accident. The pair immediately hit it off, but part suddenly before David is able to obtain her last name or phone number. One month later, the now-retired Congressman is on his way to work when he manages to run into Elise again, this time on the morning bus. He manages to get her phone number, but afterwards he runs into an impossibility: strange men have infiltrated his workplace, freezing his co-workers in time and their minds in the process of being adjusted. Soon captured by these men, David is held and told that the men who have him are agents of the Adjustment Bureau, an organization that monitors the world and ensures that things happen according to a plan, one conceived by the unseen "Chairman". The agents warn David not to reveal their existence to the world, or else his mind will be reset (lobotomised). Oh, and you know that girl Elise? He can't see her again, either, since their being together doesn't allow the plan to work..

Damon accidentally wanders in to a Don Draper convention

The Adjustment Bureau raises some interesting ideas, most notably the role of the organization in world affairs. According to the history of the Adjustment Bureau, they try to guide the civilizations of the world down the proper path, leading them to the peak of the Roman Empire, the Renaissance, and other great moments in history. Then they take the leash off to see if humanity can keep it up. The results have been the same: dark ages, World Wars, global conflicts. Finally, the Bureau has decided to clamp down and run the world in secret, and while David points out to one that the world is not such a great place, the response is that the world is still THERE, which it might not be if it hadn't been for their intervention. The agents of the Bureau have apparently been known by "other names." That the agents and their Chairman could be pseudonyms for Angels and God is an intriguing proposition, albeit not without the film's apparent contradictions, such as an agent who falls asleep at his post.

Fancy meeting you... in the men's bathroom...

One of the biggest reasons I wanted to see this film was the quality of the actors involved. After a 2010 that disappointed with two poor films (The over-the-top Green Zone and the underwhelming Hereafter), Damon rebounded with the great supporting role in True Grit before coming back into his own here. As David Norris's aspiring politician, Damon is charming, funny, smart, and everything else he needs to perfectly fit the part. Always one to pick his roles intelligently, Damon made a slam dunk here and continues to impress. Blunt is less of a known quantity; the Golden Globe winner's career rose sharply after her starring turn in 2006's The Devil Wears Prada, and this might be her biggest role since then. She makes the most of it, being intriguing, mysterious and charismatic, and as impossible for the audience to ignore as she is to David. The best parts of the film are their scenes together, the chemistry between them as close to perfection as can be. I'm not scared to proclaim that if their character interactions hadn't worked, the film would have gone with it; The Adjustment Bureau owes much to these two talents. Other stars make their mark, though none as emphatically as the two leads. The Hurt Locker's Anthony Mackie is among those actors to watch out for (as supposed by his appearance on the cover of the Hollywood Issue of Vanity Fair) and does a great job as Harry Mitchell, an Agent assigned to David who harbors questions as to whether the plan is right or just. John Slattery doesn't stray far from type as another agent named Richardson. Slattery to me will always be Mad Men's Roger Sterling, and he doesn't do much here to distinguish between the roles. If anything, I'd bet the role was written with him in mind. Michael Kelly is good if uninteresting as David's campaign manager and friend, and Terrence Stamp chews scenery with the best as an upper-level agent unafraid to do whatever it takes to keep the star-crossed lovers apart.

Memorizing line can be a challenge when the Plan is always changing

While certainly an interesting concept, the film is marred in a few places. While the film certainly aims to ask questions by placing the Beureau and its Chairman in vague religious contexts, that still doesn't quite amend for the fact that you had a supernatural Agent FALL ASLEEP ON THE JOB. I guess the lesson is that even the agents are only human? Another oversight, even if it might at first seem minor: no female Agents? Really? I know it's not a major topic in the film, but that seems like a strange thing to miss.Perhaps Nolfi didn't want to extend the metaphor TOO far from religious thematic sources, in which Angels are usually portrayed as male in gender. And that might be the film's biggest problem; for all the concepts the director introduces, including the ideas of free will and predestination, the film doesn't explore these themes enough. This results in a film that could have expanded its religious themes being rendered into a simple - albeit extremely well-done - chase and romance thriller. This can be probably be attributed to Nolfi's inexperience as a director, but on the other hand you can never be sure where the studio stepped in and said "enough," either. Finally, while the script is sweet and smart, there are a few unintentionally funny moments that suddenly jar the viewer out of the film, though these are quickly rectified.

The Bureau has accepted Affirmative Action, but not equal employment for women?

All these problems still didn't ruin the experience for me, however. Perhaps due to the trailer not doing the film justice, The Adjustment Bureau outstripped even my highest expectations. Led by the amazing duo of Damon and Blunt, a good supporting cast, a strong story and a great message on the fighting for what you love, The Adjustment Bureau is my new #1 Film of 2011. I suppose that should really come as no surprise, but it was the best time I've had in a theater so far this year, and while I'd like to simply attribute that to the two stars, the film is the most solid overall piece I've seen to this point.