Django Unchained

Django Unchained is Quentin Tarantino’s eight feature film and sees a return to the historical genre that he explored so well during Inglorious Basterds, albeit with the same kind of wit, humour and dialogue driven scenes that he is known for. Considering the coincidence of having this and Spielberg’s Lincoln (a film I haven’t seen yet) come out at the same time, as they both deal with slavery in a similar time period, Django takes place two years prior to the American Civil War, they both seemingly address it very differently, one dealing with the politics of removing slavery while the other, in very Tarantino way, deals with the experiences of the slaves and world they lived in.

The basic story of Django Unchained is relatively straight forward, it follows Django (Foxx), a slave freed by Dr King Schultz, a bounty hunter (Waltz), as they knows what three wanted criminals look like, the Brittle brothers. After they are dispached (it’s very early on, so shouldn’t be classed as a spoiler), Django tells Schultz of his wife and how they were separated and sold to different owners at a market. Schultz agrees to help Django go and rescue his wife, if he works with him through winter to collect more bounties.

Jamie Foxx plays the titular character of Django, a character that has to play to different personalities, one the vengeful husband out to find his wife and the other, an act put on when he is with Schultz and around white people of a black slaver, one of the lowest things you can be in this world. It is Foxx who holds the films performances together, he plans the straight man, which allows everyone else the freedom to go off and take it that bit further, something that the other three male stars do very well with.

Violence has always been apart of Tarantino’s films,  none more so here. The effect of the weapons of the time on the bodies is more than likely exaggerated, but leaves no doubt of the destruction that these early firearms would have done. One gun fight in the second half of the film, literally covers the walls in blood as the bodies are hit with all manner of different guns. This is the only gun fight where the level of blood my risk pushing going over the top, but it just manages to keep a hold on it.

The fighting violence and slaver on slave violence is however more restrained and brutal, one parlour fight between two slaves where two white owners watch on, is one of the nastiest fights I have seen on screen and is no doubt how fights like that would have looked, sounded and ended like. There is one dog scene, which I will say nothing about, but is hard to watch and actually shows some restrained camerawork and editing by Tarantino.

Christoph Waltz is an actor perfectly suited to Tarantino’s worlds, he is able to get across the dialogue and mannerisms of his characters and make them look and feel complete. Like his near perfect turn in Inglorious Basterds, Waltz gives us another great German character, the dentist turned bounty hunter who is cleverer than probably every other character in the film. He is charming, cold blooded, caring and intelligent and one of the highlights of Django Unchained.

Django Unchained is Trantino’s longest film, coming it and around 2hours and 45 minutes, so it is a commitment, but unlike other people who have seen the film, I didn’t find that it dragged at all, there are maybe parts that could have been shortened or omitted to get the running time down. But never did any of the scenes or sections feel drawn out or needlessly placed there. If the film does feel long, it’s no doubt due to the average length of scenes in Django, as with Inglorious there are a number of long scenes, that are very dialogue driven that last for over ten minutes, the standout being the Candieland dinner scene which comes close to the German pub scene from inglorious.

Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L Jackson play what would easily be described as the villains of the film, although both are not merely one dimension slavers. They are both cruel and treat their slaves as nothing but meat to bought and sold and then treated as they see fit. But both have motivations for their turns, which I won’t give away as it would ruin the second half of the film. DiCaprio’s Calvin Candie comes across as a spoilt teenager given too much power and money, then let loose to do as he sees fit with everything that his father had left for him.  Jackson, is the cruel house slave, who is in charge of all the other slaves, a role that is lower than even the black slaver in Django’s eyes. His performance, without giving anything away, is probably as scary and unsettling as Hans Lander in Inglorious.

Django Unchained sees Tarantino back to his best form and marks the second in a historical trilogy, which gives us more of his great dialogue and his flair for characters while paying homage to number of different genres, all within one that we are seeing less and less of. 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Firstly, the version I saw of The Hobbit was in 2D and ran at 24 fps (frames per second), I think, not the 3D version which runs at 48 fps to which a lot of people have been complaining out, mainly how it shows up some of the prosthetics and cheapens the grand images that are part of the film and the Middle Earth series as a whole.

But back to the film that I saw, it is one that is caught between the visual ideas of both of it’s directors, Guillermo Del Toro and Peter Jackson, Del Toro initially signed on to work on The Hobbit films, then departed during pre-production because of delays and financing problems. Jackson then took over as director, as a result it is clear to see the influences of both, the creatures it would seem have come straight from one of Del Toro’s notebooks, the most obvious being the Goblin King and his close subjects. Whereas the world is for the most part Jacksons Middle Earth, with a few exceptions as well, such as the troll camp and Rhadaghast, his home and his sleigh, but I will say no more, look like they have come out of some child friendly Pan’s Labyrinth.

The story itself is one of relative simplicity, as Gandalf brings Bilbo Baggins into the company of 13 dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield, to help them regain their former home of Erebor. The book the novel is based on is nowhere near as large in scale as The Lord of the Rings trilogy, so how they are planning on stretching out The Hobbit into three films is a mystery. The first part is severely padded with invented moments, not a negative aspect as they are generally done well here, but also moments that seem to serve Lord of the Rings, the few of these that there are, tend to relate to Sauron in a guarded way or Saruman.

The true strength of the film, as with others from the eventual six film series, is in the performances, this time led by Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, who plays it perfectly. The highest praise I can give him is that there is no other actor I can imagine playing Bilbo now. In one film he portrays are more interesting leading Hobbit than Frodo and Sam were as a collective in the other films. Sir Ian McKellen, as always is superb as Gandalf, as are the rest of the returning actors.

The biggest surprise was Richard Armitage as Thorin, who plays the king without as throne in a really interesting way, he almost completely ignores trying to be at all sympathetic, instead choosing the route of the vengeful child, who wants revenge for the death of his family as well as to return his people to their home.

The dwarves in this film have an interesting but also jarring look about them, which makes it hard to imagine that they are in anyway the same race that Gimli belonged to. In The Hobbit, they range from handsome and beardless to cartoon-esque or with strange facial features that doesn’t fit with the rest of the film. The actors though do shine through this impediment and bring each one to life with the varying amount of screen time and dialogue, mimicking what they did with the fellowship in The Fellowship of the Ring.

As with the other Middle Earth films, The Hobbit has a hefty run time, roughly 2hrs and 45 mins, which in and of itself isn’t a problem, the films in the series were just as long, if not longer but did not drag, The Dark Knight Rises another film released this year has an almost identical run time, but didn’t feel it’s length. The Hobbit, unfortunately does. At times it is flat out painful, especially early on, the sequence in bag end, which feels like half an hour, goes on and on and on. Quite easily, this film could have lost 15 to 20 minutes, which would have helped the film later on, as by the time the ‘riddles in the dark’ sequence starts with Gollum, I was no longer as interested or engaged as I should have been, as this section of the film is easily it’s strongest and was something that really helps to pick the film up for it’s climax.

Despite what I have said, The Hobbit isn’t a bad film, it is saved by its performances and some of its set pieces, mostly the ones close to the end of the film, but it sags under it’s only length. Compared to The Fellowship of the Ring (The film easiest to compare it to) it falls short, it lacks the pacing and energy of that first film.

Hopefully the second film in this trilogy will learn from the mistakes of this one and move with more direction and purpose, a change of subtitle for the next one wouldn’t be the worst thing either.

The Master

Paul Thomas Anderson has quite frankly never made a bad film, he may have only made five, three of which could easily be described as modern masterpieces, I am referring to Boogie Nights, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood. This back catalogue of work had me desperate to go and see his most recent film, religious/cult based drama The Master. I left the cinema in a state of utter confusion, even now I don’t know if I like it, or hate it. It will divide people, there will be no middle ground on this film. It is gruelling at points and offers little to no obvious answers or conclusions to it’s nearly two and a half hour run time.

Let’s start with the positive, all of the performances are superb and will surely garner numerous nominations for Joaquin Phoenix (Leading Actor), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Supporting Actor) and Amy Adams (Supporting Female). Phoenix’s Freddie Quell is the World War Two veteran who struggles to find any kind of direction is life, more than happy to just drink have sex and fight. His physical ordeals are visible on his face and in the contorted way that he walks and moves, this is a man literally twisted and disfigured by what he has seen and done.

Hoffman plays Lancaster Dodd, the head of religion/cult/belief system (I won’t give away their methods or beliefs) called ‘The Cause’ , who comes across Quell when he stows aboard a boat and gets very drunk. Dodd is a man who fully believes in what he preaches, has all the answers and who controls the actions of many people, but cannot stand to be challenged, this roars to the surface at several points throughout the film, usually bringing a shock of both the recipient and anyone close by. Adams plays his wife, who it could be argued is the real driving force behind Dodd and the one who wants to protect everything that they have worked for and towards all these years. She wants to keep Dodd and ‘The Cause’ free from harm, which arguably it could be say is added to by Quell and his arrival.

Visually, the film is stunning, as with all of his previous films there is a beauty and artistic way that each shot if framed, much in the same way that Kubrick did, especially in something like Barry Lyndon. I was unable to see it on the 70mm print due to location, but even without that visuals still stand up. In a time when shaky camera work and found footage is becoming more and more popular, it is refreshing to see a director and cinematographer (Mihai Malaimare Jr.) take their time and show us just how good film can be with a static camera.

The biggest fault that will be found with The Master is with it’s lack of traditional narrative that drives the film. In fact, there is barely any story really within the film, instead focusing entirely on the characters. This is sometimes a strength, but for the length of this film, it really does need more of narrative, not necessarily making it plot heavy, just a narrative, perhaps relating to the outside world and it’s view of “The Cause”, which is something we rarely see, or a goal for them to work towards in justifying themselves to the wider world.

At times the film is hard to watch, it’s pacing is very slow and asks you to try and move through this very opaque and blurry film, filled with complex and damaged characters. At times you will feel frustrated and it’s at this point where you will have to decide whether or not to stick out, or turn off the DVD (when it comes out) or leave the cinema. I stayed, but there were a few that left during my screening.

Argo

Movies and spies has always been a popular combination with cinema goers, so it was only a matter of time before a film that so perfectly allowed their intertwining came around. Based on true events, we follow attempt by the CIA to exfiltrate six of their countrymen from Iran, after their embassy was stormed. Argo is Ben Afflecks third film behind the camera and his second as the leading man in his film, the other being 2010’s The Town, one of the few criticisms he has ever really come under since making the leap to director.

Affleck plays the central role of Tony Mendes, a CIA operative who puts forward the idea for using a film as a cover for getting the diplomats out of Iran, the performance is very stripped down, always played as vague and ambiguous, offering no details about his real life outside of the mission. At times this is interesting, but also, it would have been better to get a little more of this man onto the screen. The one plus of this though, is that it allows the other performances to shine, all of the diplomats are interesting and given just enough time and depth to make you invest in them and ultimately see them escape to freedom.

The real stars of the film, at least performance wise, is the trio of John Goodman, Alan Arkin and Brian Cranston, who play a Hollywood make-up artist, a producer and a colleague of Mendes in the CIA. Whenever one of these men are on the screen, the film really comes to life, adding energy, dramatic tension and humour. Some of the scenes with Goodman and Arkin are the best of the year.

The plot is relatively straight forward and easy to follow, we begin with the siege of the embassy and escape of the six diplomats to the Canadian ambassadors house. After that, the CIA learns that they escaped and begin putting together a series of plans to get them out, some ludicrous, others completely impractical, as pointed out by Mendes in the meeting. Then once Mendes stumbles across the idea of using a film as a cover, the film really finds it’s pacing and direction, which drives us through to the dramatic and obviously exaggerated ending.

One of the films criticisms is that it portrays the majority of the Iranians as nothing but wild, incoherent savages, lusting after American blood. One of the biggest strengths to this argument is that there are little to no subtitles for any of the Iranian conversations. However, it could be argued that it is clear from actions of the Iranians of what they are saying, a confrontation in a bazaar is a prime example of this, when one of the diplomats gets into an argument, neither one is capable of talking to the other and so for the Iranian at least, we have nothing but his actions and tone to decide what he is saying.

Visually, the film is shot cleanly and without much complication, choosing instead to focus it’s attention on the characters instead of spectacle, a decision that Affleck deserves praise for. Many others would have filled this with unnecessary filler, while here it is kept stripped down and fast moving. The performances are the real strength and luckily they are allowed to shine.

Argo is a well made, character led thriller that also works as brilliant satire on Hollywood and the movie business at the same time. It is well worth your time and a film that will have you glued to the screen for the last half an hour.

Skyfall

Arguably one of the most anticipated and talent filled Bond films has finally arrived, bringing with it great critical and fan acclaim, something that makes a difference after 2008’s misstep with Quantum of Solace, which closed out the story that had begun two years earlier in the magnificent Casino Royale. Now we are back with a more experienced and worn out Bond, who has to face up to truths about his past, his future and his relationship with M.

Daniel Craig returns in his third outing as Bond, and now given a much better script and story to work with, he returns to the level we saw him reach in Casino Royale, giving us a more balanced character, demonstrating the charming gentleman, but also the cold blood killer as well, they also introduce an idea of substance abuse into the character. Less drugs I imagine, more alcohol and womanizing, maybe. Craig has always strived to give us the most fully formed version of the character, similar to what Timothy Dalton did with his run in The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill. The moments where we get the most interesting parts of the character come during an assessment of Bond early on, as well as the long, not in a bad way, climax of the film, details of which I will keep quiet on.

By now, all the criticism of having Craig as Bond must be nothing more than an old joke, he may not have dark hair or be as obviously attractive as Pierce Brosnan, few are if we are being honest, but like I said, he gives us an interesting Bond, one that we can largely relate to, is fallible but one we desperately want to see succeed.

A few weeks before the release of Skyfall, Sam Mendes referenced the effect that The Dark Knight had had on the development of the film, due to it’s success in being a big action film, but one that offered up ideas to think about and also pushed serious character development to the forefront of the film. Here that influence is easy to see, whilst the main development is naturally with Bond, we get a fair bit of information and time with M, fleshing out a role that normally only garners five to ten minutes to screen time at best.  Structurally, there is also a number of similarities between the two films, especially when certain moments or plot points happen and very similar points in the film, as before I won’t go into details as it could give away spoilers.

As with most action films, the strength of the film can rest significantly on the shoulders of the villain and how good he or she is. In this case, the always brilliant Bardem is the one charged with making Bond, M and the whole of MI6’s life very difficult as electronic terrorist Silva. He doesn’t at first have the traditional quirks of Bond villains, such as deformities, although the blonde hair is as unsettling as Donald Pleasances’ Blofeld from You Only Live Twice.

Easily one of the best villains of the whole Bond series, Silva is a calculating and merciless man who does terrible things, some of which we see, some we only hear of. But at the same time, he is emotionally damaged, not overtly but it’s always there, as well as vulnerable and deeply affected by his own past. The biggest compliment you can pay Bardems performance is that the film picks up significantly once his screen time increases.

The action in Skyfall returns to the less Bourne-like style of Quantum of Solace, to more of the Martin Campbell style of Casino Royale, where the action is brutal, but is well shot. Well shot is probably unfair on Sam Mendes and Cinematographer Roger Deakins, who if there is any justice in the world will surely get at least a nomination from the Oscars for his work. A fist fight in Shanghai is so brilliantly shot and choreographed that it could almost be taken on it’s own as a piece of art.

The story at times does struggle to keep it’s momentum going for the first half of the second act. The pre titles sequences and twenty minutes that follow after it are great, especially the character moments between Bond, M, Q, Eve and Mallory. But from then up until Silva really appears in the film, it is a bit sluggish, as they try and pin together the opening and a character from then to the main plot.  But as previously mentioned, once Silva appears and we return to England, or Bond does, then the film picks up and runs with everything it’s got to the end. The characters get more complex, their pasts exposed as the action and stakes are raised considerably.

With talk of the next film already being in production, it will be interesting to see who they will get to come on board. As there are some significant boots to fill for all those who may be involved.

Time to bring in Blofeld maybe?

The Greatest Team on Earth: The Justice League

What a great accelerator $1.4bn can be to a film studio, this one being Warner Bros and the $1.4bn being roughly what The Avengers grossed this summer at the box office. That film released, obviously, by Marvel Studios and Disney. Now despite the success of the The Dark Knight Trilogy which championed and “realistic” take on the Batman character (easily one of DC and Warner Bros. biggest characters), as well as making them a fair bit of cash, nearly £2.4bn I believe. Their reboot, which so far looks intriguing, of Superman next year promises to bring them in another healthy income ever two or three years, they have decided to finally (well, again) kick start a Justice League film to be released in 2015, directly competing with the already established The Avengers sequel.

The basic idea of the Justice League, and I will keep it to a minimum as I am no expert on the team, is that is a way for DC to bring together their greatest heroes and have them confront great threats to the planet as well as, and this is part that is the most interesting to me, work with each other despite the very different rules, beliefs and morals that they all had. The biggest draw being the relationship between Superman and Batman.

The biggest arguments against the idea is that fans want to see the heroes be introduced in their own films, in much the same way as Marvel did with their Phase One plan, which worked, despite the varying degrees of quality the films had. So that we get to know them, who they are what they can do, then have them meet up. This introduction, will be even more important for people who don’t know some of the less familiar, although I’m sure still recognizable other members such as The Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and Aquaman.

As for the big two of Batman and Superman, it could be argued that they don’t need the Justice League film. Batman certainly not after the conclusion of Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, which although ended it’s run and continuity , leaves the character unquestionably a top the comic book mountain. Superman, despite some average recent films, will always draw interest from both the hardcore and the mainstream, as one of the first ever superheroes and arguable the greatest. So what will WB achieve by forcing two of what could be their biggest money makers into a risky film that could knock back their production of DC properties, not that it could get any slower really, back several years.

As it’s going to happen, lets look at how it could be done, these are only my theories and I don’t put them forward as the only way it could be done. Will Beall, of the soon to be released Gangster Squad is currently on script duties which is understandable being kept under wraps until it is finished, or is at least ready to be shown to prospective directors and actors.

With the basic story, they will have to be careful so that they don’t imitate too much of The Avengers, especially with the team coming together over the course of the film just in time for the final showdown with whichever villain they choose. They have to do something with the characters that is different, one thing that differentiates DC from Marvel, is that DC’s characters tend to be darker and more complex (in my opinion anyway). So play up to it, give the characters important decisions to make, make them difficult, ones that could very well tear the team or at least potentially force out other members out or cause themselves to be exiled as a result. This is something that The Avengers didn’t have, and while there have been hints that their third film will take from the Civil War story arc, DC and Warner has the chance to get in first and deliver and potentially very interesting comic book film with depth and intelligence, in the same vain that The Dark Knight trilogy did.  The only obstacle with this idea is that it requires the characters to be fully fleshed out, ideally in their own films, something they won’t get if they are thrown head first into this team up film.

One of the most important parts of any action film is its villain, if they’re memorable and genuinely pose a threat then the film thrives as you get behind the heroes. If they’re weak then it’s hard to feel any sense of danger or fear of the villain and his or her threat. So with that in mind it’s unlikely that we will see any of Batman’s Rogue Gallery, it’s more likely to be one of the bigger, most likely extra terrestrial threats, such as Darkseid or Brainiac, my personal favourite, as it would turn parts of the Earth into warzones, a kin to the opening of the DC Online video game.

As for casting the Justice League themselves, I’ll quickly rattle off a few suggestions for who could play the mandatory characters and even make a case for one or two secondary members. As there is no way of guessing which supporting characters, such as Alfred or Lois Lane could appear, I will avoid these roles and just focus on the “heroes”.

Superman will be in a tricky situation come 2015, either Man of Steel will have flopped and swept under the carpet by WB, or it will have been a resounding success, therefore cementing Henry Cavills position as Superman. Which will force WB into a decision about whether they want to carry over this Superman into the Justice League, thereby immediately linking him with all the other characters. Or they could cast someone else and keep this continuity separate from Man of Steel and the eventual (at least for Batman) solo films of their heroes. So to keep it simple for the wider audiences and because I like him as an actor, let’s stick with Henry Cavill.

The tough one, Batman, after Christian Bales performance, it’s going to take a very brave and talented man to step up and take on the cap and cowl. I previously touted Ryan Gosling as one of the few both capable of portraying the various sides of Bruce Wayne as well as a big enough name to attract attention. I would still at this point be very happy with Gosling taking the role.

But as an alternative how about Jake Gyllenhall, he was considered back for Batman Begins, so this isn’t completely original, but of late he has begun to take a number of interesting roles that have challenged him and undoubtedly brought out the best in him. Although his best I still feel is Brokeback Mountain. It wouldn’t be a surprise if he were to get the role, he has the right looks, the acting capability and is certainly a name actor.

Wonder Woman is arguably one of the hardest characters to get right on screen, bar the seventies television show there has been a number of false starts and stalled projects. But as she is one of DC’s top characters and an important member of the team, she will have to turn up here, cast well, written well and given the time to develop. Firstly she has to be an equal, essentially to Superman and Batman physically (I don’t mean size, as that would look odd) so that she can hold her place as part of that trinity.

My personal suggestion would be Eva Green, she has the height and the looks to pull off the characters look and can also portray very different versions and parts of the character, she can be strong and commanding whilst also vulnerable (not that the character is permanently weak or vulnerable) during the character scenes throughout the film. Which will be crucial, none more so to Wonder Woman, during the film.

The Flash, like Wonder Woman has been touted to get a film of his own for the last six or seven years, but has unfortunately never come to fruition. One of the problems being that there have been a few people to hold the title of The Flash during the characters run. The most popular version seems to be Barry Allen and is the one that is probably most likely to appear in the film.

The Flash is the character that in all likelihood would handle most of the comic moments, a character trait that I believe is apart, in certain ways of all characters. Also when compared with who else is on the team, is largely to be expected. As for the casting well, prior to The Dark Knight Rises, I would have said Joseph Gordon Levitt, but now I’d be more inclined to go for I’ll throw out three of four names, all of which would be interesting choices more than qualified to bring a different portrayal of the character, starting with Logan Marshall-Green (Prometheus), John Krasinski (The US Office), Ben Barnes (Prince Caspian) or, ah what the hell Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

The Green Lantern had a pretty rough start when it comes to feature films, it didn’t hit the heights that anybody wanted, but neither was it as bad as some people make out it to be, it was about half an hour too short and left one big plotline unresolved, too busy hoping for a sequel, before they had finished the first one. But still, I would hold strong with Ryan Reynolds, he gave us a likeable and layered character to follow, undoubtedly doing the best with a muddied and sequel bait heavy script.

Another advantage of this, is that it saves WB from having to introduce this character again, his origin is out there for the people who want to find it and may even help to shift some of those DVD’S and Blu Rays they have stashed away as well as reintroduce one of their greatest characters to the mainstream.

The Justice League does feature more than this, but for me, these five would probably be a good place for the first film to start, have these as your core characters, in much the same way that The Avengers did (with Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Captain America, then Hawkeye and Black Widow as two equally placed second tier characters).  But there is always the chance of more, the first person would to come off the bench would have to be Aquaman, a character whose story takes place largely under the sea, arguably a character who very much needs a film of his own to get this unique world and setting across, much like Thor did. I only know the very basics of his mythology, so I can only talk in broad strokes. He would be a hard character to make work, specifically as his powers are somewhat limited to the ocean, with varying degrees of telepathy and mind control, but this varies on interpretation.

As for casting, you wouldn’t far wrong with Armie Hammer (although I’m sure he would rather hold for the Batman role that is always talked about). Failing like a prominent TV actor such as Nicolas Coster-Waldau (Game of Thrones) would give the character screen time, but without the pressure of having to make him a top tier player in the film.

The final founding member, is the Martian Manhunter, a character who has currently fallen out of the core seven since the reboot last year. As his form is not that of a human, although his basic form is humanoid, the role would largely be prosthetic based in appearance, although with the ability to shape shift quite a few different, yet consistently maintained performances would be required. When it comes to this kind of performance, Doug Jones (Hellboy, Pan’s Labyrinth) is the one that most people cite as his career has the most example of it.

The last character, who is a personal favourite, is Green Arrow, aka Oliver Queen, the character is getting his own television show, which will have just started. So if all goes well, WB could have a character with roughly three seasons of history, development and a pretty healthy following to bring to this, as with Green Lantern, it would allow the character to into the film with his history already established, ready to go. It would be a risk to the show more than the film if it develops the following I am sure they hope it will.

Some of these characters may, in the grander scheme of things not warrant roles in the film, some of which is understandable, but there are others, who are crucial to it’s marketability and it’s loyalty to the material. The success of not just this film, but the spin off films will depend on their portrayal and casting. The pressure is certainly on.

Picking a director for WB is going to be hard, as it will almost instantly signal their intent for the film, tonally and thematically as we study their back catalogue. It will also be a big step in either winning over the fans, or losing them. Some of the names rumoured so far have been interesting, Ben Affleck (although I think he would be better suited to the next Batman), The Wachowski’s or even Zack Snyder, continuing on from Man of Steel. All of them are a step in the right direction for the film, but still apart from Snyder, none of them really seem to fit the role.

If Warner Bros really mean to have this done for summer 2015, these and many other roles will be cast and questions answered within the next year. But till then we will still have time to get angry and speculate.

Looper

Time travel films are a divisive sub genre of science fiction, for people who refuse to accept that it is impossible (I am not arguing that fact here), they come in sceptical and quick to point out it’s flaws and gaps in the logic. The other group will wait till see what the filmmakers are doing with the time travel device before they make a judgment and their interest and enthusiasm goes one of two ways. Time travel and the basic idea of it, in my opinion is best used when the characters are forced to make difficult moral decisions when faced with a freedom to change something, which luckily Looper has, as an integral part of it’s plot.

The basic plot of the film is that Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper a killer who works for a mob that exists 30 years in a future, so that when they want someone killed, they send him back in time for Joe to kill. But when Old Joe (Bruce Willis) is sent back from the future, Joe hesitates, allowing his older self to escape and cause havoc with his future.

Two of the biggest strengths of the film are the two lead performances, especially from the two main characters, Joe and Old Joe, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis. Gordon-Levitt throughout the film wears, what I assume is some kind of facial prosthetic, so that he looks more like Willis, his jaw and nose are altered the most and it does create a buyable if somewhat jarring, at least initially, visual effect.

As they both play the same character, but at different points in their lives and with different personalities, it is important that they appear as the same character and it’s a tribute to the way that both actors imitate the others facial ticks and mannerisms. In young Joe we get an arrogance that the life he leads now won’t end and that all he wants to do is look after himself. But in old Joe, we get a man who has been changed, by what I won’t say, and is now more in tune with the world, has learned some humility and is willing to sacrifice himself for something he cares deeply enough about.

We see more of young Joe throughout the film, as old Joe only cuts through the film at certain points as he does what he came to do. This was a good decision by writer/director Rian Johnson, as it is young Joe who has the films main arc to carry, which begins with him being one of the best Loopers, to him ending up (a vast amount of the second half takes place here) on a farm with single mum Sara (Emily Blunt) and her son Cid. I won’t go into details about the second half, as it really is best to go and watch it and experience it for yourself.

As with all time travel stories there may be a paradox in their somewhere, which could ruin the story for you if you actively look it out and want to, but in Looper the rules which the world sets itself, for my at least, actively discourage you from looking for a hole, or even thinking that there is hole in the logic. There may be one or two in there, but they won’t affect your viewing of the film.

The look of Looper is one of it’s biggest strengths, the future (young Joe’s world) is not the clean and crisp version of the world that is sometimes portrayed, nor is it the all out dystopia that seems to be the other option. In this future, we haven’t that far on from where we are now, the only difference in the city is that people are still driving cars we drive now and living in the same kind of run down homes that populate most cities. Basically, if you don’t have money you are being left behind. Outside of the city, on Sara’s farm, you would be unable to tell the difference from then to today, bar the odd piece of machinery that is surely only a few years away from us today. This is certainly a world that is believable especially given that it is only 30 years away at this point, it’s not as depressing as Blade Runners Los Angeles, but it is on it’s way.

Looper is beautifully shot, the city’s look crowded and overbearing, whereas the outskirts and farm look warm and comforting, and obvious escape from what the characters know goes on there. The camera is kept secure and the shot expertly composed, we see everything we should and never in jumpy disorientating shakiness that some recent films have used. Cinematographer Steve Yedlin, who has worked with Johnson on all three films, deserves much of the praise for making the films camera work engaging yet never drawing attention to the flashier moments, instead bringing them together with a style that feels fluid once editor Bob Duscay has gotten his hands on it.

Rian Johnson guides us through a story that could have been very confusing with a calm and understandable style, much like Christopher Nolan did with Inception or Duncan Jones (and writer Ben Ripley) with Source Code, giving us a complex idea, but trusting enough that audience will be able to follow the plot and be interested enough to engage and invest in the characters. Johnson certainly has a big future ahead of him if he keeps producing the quality of films that he has so far.

Looper is the kind of sci-fi we don’t get a lot of now, intelligent and full of ideas, so go and see it regardless of how you feel about time travel. Films like this need to be supported, as they don’t come around to often. It is definitely worthy of your time.