Every Good Story Deserves to Be Embellished

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Directed by Peter Jackson. Starring Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, and Richard Armitage.

The Hobbit is not The Lord of the Rings.

You would do well to remember that. Perhaps even to repeat it to yourself a couple times. It will help you when you read this review, or any review, or–and perhaps most importantly–when you’re watching the movie.

I normally take great pains to avoid reading reviews of movies until I write my own. But given that I work a full time job and thus often take a while to get around to writing a review, some opinions become very difficult to avoid, particularly if one refuses to go on a social media hiatus (which I do). And the outpouring of opinions ranging from vitriol to ovation demands an explanation. And we’ll get to that. We’ll talk about The Lord of the Rings, we’ll talk about Peter Jackson, we’ll talk about 48 frames-per-second, we’ll talk about that brown wizard guy, we’ll talk about all of that, but first, let’s talk a bit about what exactly we are dealing with here.

The Hobbit, or There and Back Again by J.R.R. Tolkien was first published in the UK in 1937 as a children’s fantasy novel. In it’s original edition, it ran 310 pages. It introduced the characters Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf the Grey, the world of Middlearth, and everything that came with that. But it wasn’t until 1954, 17 years later, with the publishing of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, that the term “epic fantasy” entered into our vocabulary.

On the back of some editions of Neil Gaiman’s Stardust, there is a press clipping that refers to the novel as a work of “pre-Tolkien british fantasy.” Given that Stardust was published 44 years after, The Lord of the Rings, you should get an idea of just how much LOTR changed our perception of just what exactly “fantasy” means.

Cut to ten years ago (has it really been that long?). The film adaptations of each of The Lord of the Rings novels hit the big screen, breaking award show and box office records, and turning Peter Jackson into a household name.

When The Hobbit when into production a few years later, it was initially planned as two films, with Guillermo del Toro, praised director of the dark fantasy film Pan’s Labyrinth, poised to direct, with Jackson producing. For unknown reasons, del Toro left the project and Jackson climbed back into the director’s chair, to produce an epic, Lord of the Rings-style trilogy culled from various editions of The Hobbit and other Tolkien materials.

The point I’m taking a long time to get to is this (and I think it goes a long way to explaining the mixed reaction to this movie), I think Peter Jackson was attempting to direct The Hobbit as if it was written in a style that hadn’t been invented yet. It’s like dressing a toddler in it’s parents clothing and wondering why it has trouble walking. The Hobbit is not The Lord of the Rings.

The Lord of the Rings was an epic fantasy about a group of individuals banning together to fight a powerful evil. The Hobbit has those elements but that’s not what it’s about. It’s a character story, about a man (read: hobbit) deciding to leave the comfort and security of his home to experience an adventure he would remember for the rest of his life.  It’s a rousing story of life-affirming experience, which is not a way I would ever choose to describe The Lord of the Rings. The purpose of Thorin and his company can’t begin to compare with that of Aragorn and friends in terms of nobility, courage, urgency or importance. As characters, they don’t carry half the draw of the LOTR gang. Bilbo on the other hand is infinitely more engaging than his Lord’s counterpart Frodo. He has more agency, more personality, and more depth. In short, he has more character. To reiterate, The Lord of the Rings is about the conflict between good and evil, The Hobbit is about Bilbo.

With this in mind, let’s turn back to the movie. What we are watching is one third of a single story about a single primary character stretched into a 2 hour and 50 minute film. We leave the main character for long stretches of time, watching action sequences that lack much of the drama that was present in The Lord of the Rings, and tangentially related political scenes that feebly attempt to tie what we are seeing to the high drama of that series. And it just doesn’t work that way. It’s not any one’s fault that it doesn’t work, because it was never supposed to. But it is Jackson’s fault for thinking it would.

However, it’s clear he knew he wasn’t making The Lord of the Rings 2. He recognized differences in the tone and humor of the two works, and recognized that it was Bilbo that mattered, choosing to divide the story based on the dwarves various levels of acceptance towards the half-ling. But if he knew it was all about Bilbo, it raises many question about the choices made in the script. Why is Frodo Baggins in this movie? Why is Saurumon in this movie? Why is there a pot-smoking brown wizard in this movie? Why do we need to see the full fight with the Goblin King if Bilbo spends the majority of the time having the exchange with Gollum. How does any of this help us build a connection with Bilbo? Doesn’t a lot of this break our connection with Bilbo since we have so much more knowledge of what’s happening than he does? By shoving all that crap into this movie and showing in it in 48 frame projected, 3D, IMAX whatever he effectively turned The Hobbit into the film version of the 2012 New York Jets offense.

(For anyone wondering, we use 24 frames per second for several reasons. Primarily because it gives the correct amount of motion blur and depth we see in real life. Home video is shot at 30 frames per second. This is why video looks flatter and crisper and therefore more unrealistic than film. So imagine jacking it up to 48 frames per second, removing motion and making images seem even crisper than real life. It would look stupid. And it does. Also the New York Jets were mostly in the news this year because of their offseason acquisition of former collegiate great Timothy Tebow. But since Tebow is essentially worthless as a professional, they instead kept trying to use him in “creatvie” or “gimmicky” ways to make their stagnant offense more productive. While this was occasionally exciting, it was mostly just sloppy and embarrassing for everyone involved and the Jets wound up with their worst record in 5 years and missing the playoffs by several games).

Anyways, I think this gets at the heart of what’s going on here. Some people went to see a movie like The Lord of the Rings and were disappointed and confused. Some people went to see things that happened in the book, happen in a movie, and they did, so they couldn’t complain too much. Some wanted to see a gripping retelling of The Hobbit and were left ultimately unfulfilled for reasons previously mentioned. Others, like me, just went hoping to see a fun adventure movie and have a good time, and that’s mostly what we got. I actually didn’t mind the frame rate too much, although I was constantly aware of it. It kind of worked with this story but I don’t see it becoming the wave of the future. And I’m still looking forward to parts 2 and 3 because how often do you get to see something like this on this scale? There’s plenty of stuff there to latch onto, but there won’t be records or awards this time around. But that has to be ok. To expect otherwise is to set an impossible standard.

Are You Afraid of What’s Ahead?

Lincoln (2012)

Directed by Steven Spielberg. Starring Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field.

Given the amount of social media buzz that was generated when the words “Untitled Steven Spielberg/Abraham Lincoln Project” showed up on IMDB a couple years ago, I was surprised by how much this movie’s release snuck up on me. And given the amount of buzz-worthy firepower the names “Steven Spielberg” and “Abraham Lincoln” carry, it’s also surprising just how much this whole thing felt like a giant non-event.

Anything but an epic, Lincoln feels more like a particularly drab episode of The West Wing, randomly intercut with outtakes from O Brother, Where Art Thou (2001). The pain and drama of slavery and the Civil War are completely absent. Tonally, it feels like a stage play–which is fine… if you’re on a stage–and the photography does little to counter that. It’s shot stale and bleak. It looks artificial, like a stage, where talented actors are trotted out one by one to deliver a faithful imitation of their respective historical figures. But for a movie that hinges completely on its performances, none of them are particularly deep. They’re all solid, but I’d be annoyed if Day-Lewis ended up with an automatic oscar for appearing in what appears to be a piece of presidential apologetics set inside of a white-washed (literally) history lesson.

But it’s well-paced, funny, clever, and interesting enough subject matter. But as a film, as a work of art, as a cinematic experience, I have to give it a Lincoln-sized “Meh.”

“It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another.”

– Captain Malcolm Reynolds

We Are In A Dive

Flight (2012)

Directed by Robert Zemeckis. Starring Denzel Washington.

The best that can be said about Flight is that it is much more interesting than it’s high-concept marketing would lead you to think. “That plane crash movie with Denzel Washington” is actually a harrowing tale of addiction, about commercial airline pilot William “Whip” Whitaker who miraculously lands a plane while drunk and high on cocaine. While the crash would seem to be due to a mechanical failure, we have trouble over-looking this fact, as 6 people died, even-though 99 times out of 100, all of them would have died. The film uses this muddied scenario to explore the culture of drug use and the psychology of the addicted. As Whip awaits the hearing over the crash, he connects with Nicole (Kelly Reilly), a recovering heroin addict, and hides from the media in his father’s farm house, where he attempts to quit drinking. He’s surrounded by a colorful cast of characters, including John Goodman as his friend and dealer, and Don Chealde as his talented but begrudging attorney.

Like I said, “interesting” is the word. I would cautiously add “entertaining.” It’s also surprisingly and weirdly funny, vaguely reminiscent of Trainspotting (1996). But at about the half-way point, I started wondering, where is this movie going? And I couldn’t shake that question, as it became more and more apparent that it wasn’t really going anywhere. It repeats itself, taking two steps forward, one step back. Now, one could argue–probably correctly–that that was the point. But you could imagine how disappointed I was when the movie finally ended (it’s long… reeeaaaalllly long) and I realized that what I had just seen was essentially a two-and-a-half-hour-long commercial for Alcoholics Anonymous. An organization that, anyone who lives in the real world can tell you, is very successful for some, but is still unproven and untested (they don’t publish statistics), and built on a theistic system of disempowerment and shame.

However, as someone who has never personally experienced addiction, I can’t really comment. But I can say that I have a deeper empathetic connection with those who have after watching this movie. But during harvest season for quality motion pictures, I’m sorry to say that’s there no much outside of Denzel’s performance to make this essential viewing. Maybe on DVD… when you can get up, move around, exercise, surf the internet, send some text messages, or enjoy a beer…  maybe a little cocaine.. to help past the time.

**NEITHER CINEMAORGANS.COM NOR ANY OF IT’S AFFILIATES ENDORSES ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. IF YOU ARE OF LEGAL DRINKING AGE, PLEASE ENJOY RESPONSIBLY**

To Hell With Dignity

Skyfall (2012)

Directed by Sam Mendes. Starring Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, and Javier Bardem.

After a patronizing, unrealistic, nonsensical, and most significantly, typical opening chase sequence, followed by an underwhelming title sequence set to the agonizingly stale “Skyfall” song by Adele, I began my latest James Bond film experience in the worst possible way: Bored.

But then things took an unexpected turn. Once again in these newer, darker, Daniel Craig James Bond films, we see a side of the iconic character we have never seen before. In Casino Royale (2006), it was affection, in Quantum of Solace (2008), regret. But in Skyfall, it was more than that. We saw him broken. It’s a weird twist because the success of the James Bond films was always predicated on the fact that we all wanted to be James Bond. But not this time.

What made this twist even more interesting was that it was coupled with the very non-subtle 50th anniversary celebration of the character (as we’ve come to know him on film). The drink, the girls, the gadgets, the car, everything was imbued with this back-to-basics approach. As the action sequences gradually shrunk in scale but elevated in suspense, I slowly realized that I wasn’t just watching a celebration, I was watching a deconstruction.

And that’s really the genius of Skyfall. James Bond the character is turned into a metaphor for the whole series. After becoming over-the-top and ridiculous, the franchise died, only to be reborn with more depth and substance. The drink is already made perfectly, the girl is tragic and heartbreaking, the gadgets are simple and boring, the car is, well, the car. Even the meaning of the buzz-worthy title, “Skyfall,” is something much more simple–and much more profound–than you were probably expecting.

Javier Bardem shows up as the anti-James Bond, and it’s the kind of duel that has an air of finality to it. But Skyfall isn’t a closer. Without dipping into spoilers too much, I can just say that it successfully completes the reboot of the franchise that began four years ago with Casino Royale. Doubtless, the James Bond story will continue, probably beyond Daniel Craig, who is currently contracted for two more films. Whether or not it will retain this heightened sense of self-awareness is less certain, but in any case, I doubt we’ll ever get to this point again, so relish it while you can.

Let’s Go Be Psychos Together

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)

Written and directed by Stephen Chobsky. Starring Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, and Ezra Miller.

Based on the popular 1999 book of the same name, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a coming-of-age story about Charlie, a freshman in high school who struggles to fit in. Of course there’s a lot more going on than that, but we’ll get to that.

First, full disclosure, the novel is one that I’m very familiar with, despite not really discovering it until a decade after its publishing. I have purchased two copies, one was a gift for my younger brother and the other sits comfortably on my bookshelf. And while this review will hopefully not devolve into a comparison of the two works, I feel like I should establish my relationship to the material up front, because I suspect many of my readers (who are predominantly around my same age) will share this kind of relationship.

On that note, I would actually like to quickly talk about the film in relation to the novel. Surprisingly, very little is lost in translation. It’s a short novel anyways, but film is a very efficient medium when used correctly. Picture, sound, the juxtaposition of different elements can convey so much information and emotion in a very short time, and the movie executes that perfectly. Witness a brief montage towards the beginning of the film set to The Smiths’ “Asleep,” an important element in the book, that perfectly captures all the angst and alienation of the main character that would otherwise take chapters. In fact, the material is so much more effective in this format that I wouldn’t be surprised if Perks was originally conceived of as a film, and the fact that the director is also the author would seem to suggest that was the case. In exchange for what in retrospect seems like a epistolatory gimmick with Charlie’s letters, in the film we get to actually see Charlie from an outside perspective which gives the character a lot more personality, not to mention a more tangible existence. 

Moving on to the actual movie, it follows in the tradition of films like Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist (2008) and Adventureland (2009), in that it features a lovable cast playing characters that fall a little outside of the mainstream. While the scene stealer here (as he is in the book) is the flamboyant and enigmatic Peter (played by Ezra Miller), the most props are due to Emma Watson and Logan Lerman, who transcend their lowly origins as children’s fantasy characters. Watson in particular successfully shreds the mammoth personality that is Hermione Granger to turn in a breathtaking performance as the slightly damaged teenage alternative girl Sam, a role that would be difficult for anyone. (Plus, I’ve seen the whole British epic fantasy actor turns American romantic lead go horribly wrong before.)

Now, I’m sure that by now many of you who are not bookworms are groaning because you think you’ve seen this movie before. And you have. Many times. But generally what you were seeing was some kind of version or another of Stephen Chobsky’s novel whether you knew it not. But what sets this film apart isn’t that, it’s this idea of authenticity. It’s the first movie I’ve seen that accurately captures what high school was actually like for me. It’s not based on a specific omnipresent element like New York in Nick and Norah, or “The 70s” in Dazed and Confused or “Adventureland” in Adventureland, and it doesn’t present a slightly surreal or exaggerated reality like in a 90s sitcom or a John Hughes movie. It feels more real than that. It helps that it’s masterfully shot on a visibly (but not distractingly) grainy film stock that gives it a sense of permanence that is missing in the digital age. And maybe I’m just overlooking a specificity that happens to apply directly to me, but nevertheless I responded much more viscerally to this movie than I did to those other films I’ve mentioned, and that’s about the greatest compliment I can give to a film of this kind.

But what shouldn’t be overlooked is that what we’re watching isn’t simply a “high school movie,” it’s a character drama. And unlike the kind of shallow vague adolescent anger of Holden Caufield, Charlie has the opposite problem of putting others first, to a fault. Not to mention a legitimately dark past. Watching it all unfold with an audience that was not familiar with the book (at least I don’t think so based on their reactions) was a riveting experience. Ultimately, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a triumph of organic, intimante, and personal storytelling, that, like the book, will be worth experiencing over and over again.

What’s Goin’ On In This Candy-Coated Heart of Darkness?

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

Directed by Rich Moore. Starring John C. Reilly and Sarah Silverman.

Say what you will about Disney, or any of their affiliates (which now includes *gasp* Lucasfilm), but it’s undeniable that the movies I get the most excited for when I’m on my way to the theatre are these big animation releases, even when it’s not Pixar.

Wreck-It Ralph hit my radar early with its pitch-perfect trailer that effectively established the fantastically retro aesthetic that permeates every aspect of the film, from the colorful design right down to its slightly kitschy sense of humor, and that’s not a diss. If you’re the kind of person who giggles at puns–like me–you will very probably be laughing non-stop. Likewise, the simplicity of Ralph’s 8-bit inspiration is reflected in the simplistic nature of the story, about a man unsatisfied with his station in life and unwilling to accept that that’s the way it will always be. It’s nothing new, but I’m consistently impressed with how crisp and clean the story lines and character arcs are in these animated films, especially when compared to their live-action contemporaries that always seem to be grasping at straws.

But with it’s comedic cast and complete lack of musical numbers (or the aforementioned Pixar production team) you would be forgiven for forgetting that Wreck-It Ralph is in fact the 52nd entry into the Walt Disney Animated Classics series, following the brief second renaissance of The Princess and the Frog (2009), Tangled (2010), and Winnie the Pooh (2011). But fairy tale or no this is still Disney under the creative direction of Pixar founder John Lasseter, and Wreck-It Ralph reflects the quality we’ve come to associate with that. (Plus,  it’s thematically nestled comfortably somewhere in between Toy Story and Tron.) But nowhere is that quality more apparent than in the voice work. Normally for animated films, I list the animation production company (Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks, etc) instead of the lead actors in the sub-line, because, let’s be real here, usually that’s a better indicator of what kind of product you’re getting. But with this movie, It would have felt like I was cheating John C. Reilly and Sarah Silverman out of something. They own this movie. Reilly is frequently moving between great (Cyrus, Cedar Rapids) and pathetic (Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story) comedic performances and turns in a great one here as the titular character, but Silverman is not much of a film actor and her ummm… unique… style of comedy has been mostly constrained to her stand-up performances and her bizarre Comedy Central show. But it’s almost impossible to imagine anyone else playing the character of Vanellope von Schweetz, a glitch character trapped inside a racing game featuring 10 year old girl racers. I don’t think I’ve ever liked her this much. Additionally, Jack McBrayer (Kenneth the Page on 30 Rock) and Jane Lynch (Sue Sylvester on Glee) successfully transfer their familiar television personalities to the big screen as Ralph’s in-game nemesis Fix-it Felix and modern military-game seargant Tamora Jean Calhoun respectively.

But all this is not to say Wreck-It Ralph is entirely without flaw. It’s almost like it had a bit too much plot and, at 108 minutes, probably could have used some trimming. The climatic ending sequence felt like it took forever and that’s an unusual problem for an animated film, where resources are, or at least were, being used to maxim efficiency. Ralph and Pixar’s release this year, Brave, could be indicators that that type of efficiency is a thing of the past, as rising box-office returns on these movies is snowballing on top the shrinking cost of the technology. It remains to be seen if that will have a lasting effect on the quality of these films but it will be something to watch over the next few years as the novelty of animation successes tapers off. But, for now, Wreck-It Ralph can sit comfortably as one of the best comedies of 2012.

I Will Guide You to the Devil’s Gate

Cloud Atlas (2012)

Directed by Lana and Andy Wachowski and Tom Twyker. Starring Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Ben Winshaw, James D’Arcy, Zhou Xun, Keith David, David Gyasi, Susan Sarandon, and Hugh Grant.

Well, here it is. It actually happened.

I begin that way because, ever since I saw the Extended First Look of Cloud Atlas on the interent a few months back, I somehow didn’t believe that this was actually a movie. And not in that snarky surely-nobody-would-actually-make-a-movie-like-The-Zookeeper way, but in that that-looks-so-ambitious-and-epic-that-no-running-time-short-of-8-hours-could-possibly-contain-it way. But there it was, on the screen, and a full 23 minutes shorter than Peter Jackson’s King Kong (2005).

And unlike the most ambitious film of 2011, The Tree of Life, Cloud Atlas won’t have you squirming uncomfortably in the theatre, bogged down by so much pretentiousness you don’t dare move lest you make known the percieved limits of your intelligence. In fact, Atlas almost lets you stay one step ahead of it. It’s not anything you haven’t seen before, just some things you haven’t seen before all at once. It moves quickly and frequently between familiar stories, historical epics, science fiction adventures, a 70s spy thriller, a quirky British comedy, and is constantly pulling together common threads. What ties these stories together is the same thing that ties all stories together. They’re tales of life, love, loss, trust, and betrayal, otherwise know as stories of the human race. In that way, Cloud Atlas, is kind of giving us a peak behind the curtain, laying bare the emotional connection we have to movies and to storytelling in general.

As lofty of a concept such as this might seem, it’s still recognizable as a movie made by the Wachowski siblings and Tom Twyker. It’s somewhat identifiably pulp. It’s dirty, bloody, silly, sexy, gritty, cheesy, vulgar, sloppy, and strange. It’s also touching, awe-inspiring, and beautiful. It could be called, “The People’s Tree of Life.” An ambitious epic for the outcasts and the ordinary. It’s main message is simple and obvious. It’s about the bravery and necessity of upsetting the status quo and how we’re all connected, the ripple effect of action and reaction. It blurs the lines among gender, race, sexuality, intelligence, sophistication, and spirituality. Cinematically, it is big and loud, but like the symphony in the story, it’s the quiet moments in between the notes that shape our emotional connection to it.

To be honest, I’m not quite certain of what to make of all this. But these days I instantly prefer what I can’t quite wrap my brain around, to what I am used to. If you are interested in seeing something ambitious and entertaining, this is for you. If you’d rather see something tangible and intellectual, move on. But for now, I’m thoroughly entertained.

It’s the Best Bad Idea We Have

Argo (2012)

Directed by Ben Affleck. Starring Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, and Alan Arkin.

Ben Affleck’s third directorial feature finds him stepping out of Boston and onto the international stage with a real life story set during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Affleck portrays Tony Mendez, a CIA agent who attempts to rescue six Americans who escaped the besieged US embassy by posing as a Canadian film producer. This very intelligent film features a number of jabs at US foreign policy, as well as Hollywood, an industry that all but left Affleck for dead after a string of appearances in some god awful films (Armageddon (1998), Pearl Harbor (2001), Daredevil (2003), Gigli (2003)). His performance in Kevin Smith’s Chasing Amy (1997) was chalked up to a fluke and his criminally underrated performance in Smith’s Jersey Girl (2003) was lumped in with the “Bennifer” madness of Gigli and counted among his failures. But after staging a mini-comeback in Hollywoodland as the tormented Superman actor George Reeves in 2005, the Academy Award winning co-writer of Good Will Hunting (1997) took matters into his own hands and wrote, directed, and produced the stellar crime-dramas Gone Baby Gone (2007) starring his younger brother Casey, and The Town (2010), starring himself and Jeremy Renner, who recieved an Oscar nom for his performance. Affleck and Argo should get some Oscar lovin’ for themselves here, as Argo taps into the same successful strain of historical drama as recent Best Picture Nominees Milk (2008) and Frost/Nixon (2008).

Like Frost/Nixon, however, Argo spends a little too much time building up suspense for events that we already know the outcome of, and not quite enough building connections between the audience and the characters. But overall it’s a great movie with a wonderful supporting cast, including Bryan Cranston as Mendez’s immediate CIA superior, and John Goodman and Alan Arkin as real life make-up artist John Chambers and a embellished Hollywood producer, respectively. As for Affleck? Well, he can now turn confidently to his critics and repeat the rallying cry of the fake production team in the movie: “Argo fuck yourself.”

Well Aren’t You a Smart Monkey

Looper (2012)

Directed by Rian Johnson. Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, and Emily Blunt.

Looper is a sci-fi/action flick starring an awkwardly tan Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis as the younger and older versions of Joe, a specialized assassin in a not-so-distant future called a “looper.” A looper’s job is to execute victims sent back in time by the mafia in a slightly more distant future, where time travel exists, but is illegal, and it is impossible to get away with murder (except, of course, for when it isn’t, but never you mind). After a period of service, the loopers are sent themselves to assassinate thus erasing their connection to the mob. This is called “closing the loop.” and the young loopers get a fat paycheck to live out the next 30 years of their lives.  But when old Joe is sent back, he’s not ready to die, and, after escaping young Joe, sets out to find the child that would eventually become the powerful gangster who is closing all the loops in the future. Young Joe must find and kill his older self to save his immediate future.

If you’re wondering if any of this makes any sense, it doesn’t. Time travel never makes sense, and it doesn’t help that we’re all fucking sick of it. But that’s besides the point. The movie basically asks the audience point blank to ignore the logic of the premise and just focus on the action, and I’m willing to play along. The film is a hodge-podge of familiar science fiction clichés, but it’s presented in a way that feels fresh, which seperates it from other recent comparable sci-fi flicks like Total Recall and The Hunger Games. The urban dysotopia and rural settings look great and work really well and the performances are great all around, including, surprisingly, Jeff Daniels as a low-level mob boss from the future and Emily Blunt as a crop-growing, gun-toting, single mother.

With all that said, Looper is lacking any real substance or heart. Joe is entirely unlikable, which is not a quality JoGo wears well. The emotional distance with which the film was handled was uncomfortable and kept me out of it for the majority of the film. But it’s a solid and interesting action movie and you can enjoy it on that level, but it still misses the ranks of great science fiction films.

The Mission Has to do with Regrets

Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)

Directed by Colin Trevorrow. Starring Aubrey Plaza and Mark Duplass.

WANTED: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. P.O. Box 322, Oakview, CA 93022. You’ll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before.

Inspired by a long-running joke want ad (originally published by John Silveira), Safety Not Guaranteed is a smart, funny, and idiosyncratic movie about a group of journalists who try to track down the author of the seemingly unbelievable ad in question. Much of the talk surrounding the movie involves some confusion over the genre. Mostly, whether or not it is science fiction. Tonally (i.e.: in the only way that matters), it’s an indie flick; A low-budget comedy possessing some surreal qualities that vaguely recall old “Nick at Nite” shows like The Adventures of Pete and Pete. The production design reflects that, right down to Mark Duplass’s denim jacket and beat up old yellow Datsun. Director Colin Trevorrow has referenced the films of Hal Ashby as inspiration for the look of the film, but films like Harold and Maude (1971) and Being There (1979) are also helpful touchstones when trying to grasp the “feel” of the movie.

Aubrey Plaza plays Darius Britt, an un-ironically detached and depressed hipster interning at a Seattle magazine. When one of the writers, Jeff (Jake Johnson), proposes a story based on the mysterious ad, Aubrey and another intern, Arnau (Karan Soni), volunteer to go along.

Early on, the film appears to rely too much on Plaza’s trademark deadpan style of comedy, but when it comes to interacting with Kenneth (Duplass), the eccentric placer of the ad, it gives her the unique ability to talk about the ridiculous with a straight face and win over his trust, in one of the best meet-cutes in recent memory.

As advertised, adventure ensues, as Darius and Kenneth prepare for the “mission.” Meanwhile, an alternative motive for Jeff proposing the story surfaces in the form of an old girlfriend. Thus unfolds two stories that draw an interesting parallel. In classical H.G. Wellsian fashion, “The mission has to do with regrets,” as Kenneth says. “What’s you’re reason for going back?” About the time you start wondering if this guy might actually be for real, is also around the time it stops being important. The movie stops being about the characters and becomes about something much bigger. Perhaps even than the whole of the time-space continuum.

Also, did I mention it’s awesome?