The Three Stooges

We ain't gonna take it any Moe.

Running Time: 92 minutes.

Media: Blu-Ray.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk! The love I had for these guys back in the 1980's was unfathomable, and now that this film was available on Blu-Ray actually made me want to see it more. I had little chance to see this film when it came out, especially considering it was also in limited release here in Australia. A real shame, as I would have loved it.

I saw one very adamant Youtube member post that he was boycotting the film, that it was disgraceful and that it besmirched the good name of the Three Stooges. Had he seen the film in its entirety? No. Had he considered that three minutes or less was sufficient enough to guarantee a suitable review? No. I had similar aspects with regards to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, and look where that has led. I decided to give this film the benefit of the doubt and tried it myself.

Boy, was I far from disappointed! The movie has been "divided" into three separate acts, just like the old Stooges TV movies, and it graces many concepts that were essential to the Stooges genre. The hair ripping, the ear pulling, the nostril grab, face slaps, eye pokes, the list goes on. And I never laughed so much in my life.

The story revolves around the Stooges' attempts to raise $830,000 to save the orphanage where they grew up. Everyone else pales in comparison when the Stooges appear. Secondary characters appear here and there, as well as the tertiary characters, who appear maybe twice to three times throughout the entire film; but your focus is forever placed in the Stooges when they appear. Possibly my bias comes from having grown up on them, as well as the cartoons based on these three.

The casting for these characters was a tough process, Benicio del Toro and Hank Azaria were originally destined to play the role of Moe... Hank, I could see as a possibility, but Benicio? That's a bit of a stretch! Chris Diamantopoulos was eventually cast, and having seen some of his previously work (for example his amazing portrayal of Robin Williams in Mork and Mindy - The Unauthorized Story). His ability to mimic voices is uncanny. And the hair and make-up have virtually transformed this Hellenic-Canadian actor into what would be the spitting image of a 40-something version of Moe Howard. I was gob-smacked, the gob could very well have been smacked by Moe himself. I have to say, Diamantopoulos does an undenyingly brilliant job, from his vocal portrayal, to his scowl when facing his fellow stooges, to his commanding ability to out-poke and out-wit and out-hit Larry and Curly. Chris, if you are reading this, I salute you.

Sean Hayes, where do I start, he seems to work well as Larry Fine, though I have to admit, like the comedy shorts of the mid-20th century, he does seem to come a close second to Curly. He only took the brunt of Moe's wrath when he said something out of line or he interfered with something; this is no different in the film, which is not a bad thing. He actually pulls off the role play of Larry inasmuch as Moe is able to rip out giant tufts of Larry's hair. The "looking into the sun" look that Larry does is ever present in the film, and although this did come across as an issue I could raise, I kinda swept it under the rug. That said, I couldn't see a better pick for Larry than this. Now, bearing in mind that there was a possibility that Sean Penn was due to play the part, I'm actually glad that Hayes got the role. Hayes has a unique ability to generate laughter, he is a genuinely funny guy, and has made a lot of his success from his portrayal of Jack McFarland in one of my favorite TV sitcoms Will and Grace. I guess he's managed to bottle this and release it in sizable amounts within this film and many others he has starred since Will and Grace. The hair and make-up for Larry was well done, and I can still picture him now. The resemblance was uncanny.

Will Sasso, who starred in MAD TV for a number of years plays Curly. Now he stands a little taller than the other two, which kinda conflicts with the original heights of the three, as the original Stooges were all roughly the same height.  Despite this little oversight (and it is indeed little), Curly is well played, Sasso has no doubt studied the character long and hard and has perfected it to an art-form. The voice, actions, the dancing, and even the "Woo woo woo, nyuk nyuk nyuk!" is better than I can do... Sasso also has the right bulk and has the perfect ability to play the innocent numbskull demeanor (No offense, Will, I think you're incredible!) to play Curly and it shows. I find it amazing to read that Jim Carrey was once attempting to land this role, but gave up the role due to health reasons, as it seems he attempted to gain between 60-70 pounds to get into the role of Curly; but gave up after a 40 pound gain. Now, I know that 40 pounds is a lot of weight, and I can totally understand... but I personally feel that Sasso gave Curly Joe the justice he deserved, and paid homage to him perfectly, and without the weight gain. Will kinda reminds me of a humorous version of Michael Chiklis!

Other characters such as the nuns played by Jane Lynch, Kate Upton, Jennifer Hudson and Larry David no less, all seem to be upstaged and don't get their chance to shine; which is a shame, but our focus is forever drawn to our loveable loonies of Larry, Curly and Moe. Jane Lynch plays a moderately benevolent Mother Superior, whereas Hudson who plays Sister Rosemary shows up with a smattering of appearances throughout the film, and even has the opportunity to sing in the film, well... sort of... She's kinda interrupted in one scene, and another scene she's somewhat upstaged when singing with the Stooges. To me, she seems like she's there simply for her voice than anything else. Similarly, there's Kate Upton, playing the role of Sister Bernice, a very vivacious looking nun, who can be spotted in something that can only be referred to as a "nun-kini"... As much as I love Kate, and I do, she seems to have been exploited simply for the fact that she has an amazing body, and far be it for me to say this, but it's worked well, but I still wonder if it was for all the right reasons. She added comedic elements here and there, but only to the extent of her presence.

Larry David, however, playing Sister Mary Mengele is the real scene stealer. He... er, she (Mary Mengele) is sharp, crude and a laugh a minute, a perfect role for David, and it's as funny as Tracy's mom on Hairspray, but without the actual drag... A lot of controversy has been placed on the fact that "Mengele" is also the surname of Josef Mengele, one of the SS officers who decided the fates of Auschwitz prisoners. There was also controversy of this film being highly anti-Catholic... Seriously? Give me a break... this movie is a spoof, and should be treated as such. The elements of slapstick aren't capable of being done in real life without causing some genuine farm. Slapstick itself is a form of spoofing... And I'm willing to bet that if I searched for Mengele in the White Pages, I'd find maybe a half dozen people with that surname, who don't take offense of having the surname. I count at least fifty entries in the American White Pages web site. A name is simply that, a name. If people are going to poke critique on every little thing that offends them in a comedy, then they have the right to not watch the film; but to chastise others for watching it, or bemoaning the fact that it offends others... As a wise comedian once said, there's no such thing as "an inappropriate joke", it's inappropriate, that's why it's a joke. Comedy can't please everyone, it will always offend someone, and there's no way to correct either. The Catholic Church has gotten the poops as well because of the nun-kini that Upton wears towards the end of the film. This is a harmless poke at the versatility of the nun's habit (i.e. none at all), and so the nun-kini is also yet another joke. Let it be.

Complete the cast with Craig Bierko, Sofia Vergara and Stephen Collins, as a trio of con artists out to use the Stooges to get their hands on an inheritance and you have a very well endowed cast of actors who can pull off this comic juggernaught. Sofia is gorgeous as her usual self and emphasizes her ability to play the role of the gorgeous wife, as she does in Modern Family. I wish I had seen her with more lines in this film... Craig Bierko, of whom I last saw in The Thirteen Floor, and more recently in an episode of Elementary on CBS, plays the role of Sofia's lover, who seems to stumble along and suffer blow after blow with all the accidents he winds up in... Poor guy, I really do feel for his character... I would have loved to have seen more of him in the film too, a shame that it kinda wraps up a little toward the end, but it's fun to watch these two interact with one another and with the Stooges.

Overall, the film is wonderful, and plays homage to the eponymous Stooges with the way this film has been written out. The Farrelly Brothers excelled themselves in the direction and production and they definitely did their homework to ensure that Diamantopoulos, Hayes and Sasso embodied their roles. I will however, be stripping half a star for the slight gap with characters that seemed a bit out of place, the Stooges themselves are faultless and with the possibility of a sequel coming up, I am salivating at the prospect of grabbing my popcorn and sitting back in a cinema chair to watch. Four and a half stars.

The Sum of All Fears

Running Time: 124 minutes

Media: TV Broadcast

I thought, "Why not?" The idea of seeing Ben Affleck play the role of Dr. Jack Ryan was appealing enough, and I had attempted to watch this once before, and had given up... So last night, by the advice of my future father-in-law, I settled back and watched this film.

Tom Clancy, the author of the originating book, also plays the role of executive producer here... and it seems he was quite pleased with the results... Despite the fact that originally Jack Ryan was portrayed by Harrison Ford in Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger, and then by Alec Baldwin in The Hunt for Red October; it seems that Ryan is getting younger and younger...

But it seems that Ben Affleck is a good fit for this reboot of the series, though up to a point, and I will explain this further in my review. Surprisingly, there has been little encouragement since the film came out ten years ago to push for a sequel. A bit sad really, as I did enjoy this film, but once again, to a certain degree, and this too will be explained later on in the review.

That being said, there were significant changes from the book to film conversion. Tom Clancy joking admitted on the commentary track on the film's DVD that he was "the author of the book that he...", Phil Alden Robinson, the director, who is present with Clancy, "...ignored." And the fact that the author is happy to joke about the changes made is a good sign that it should be enjoyed. The strongest change was the deviation of the villains in the book from Islamic extremists to Neo-Nazis. This change was not due to the 9/11 attacks, as filming ended in June 2001, some three or so months before the 9/11 attacks.

Here Jack Ryan played by Affleck is brought in by the CIA director, William Cabot (played by the all powerful Morgan Freeman), to advise on the ever mounting tension between the United States and Russia, with the death of the former Russian president.

Alexander Neremov is sworn in as the new president, and he's supposedly a real hard-ass... Ciarán Hinds, who plays the role of Neremov is frightening, almost too scary too approach, but his portrayal is quite seasoned actor on both TV, stage and screen, he's done very well. He has this stone cold look, one that says "I can't feel a thing, I cannot show emotion." True, but sadly, he also looked like he also had suffered a mild stroke with his look. But given the nature of his role I am willing to let this slide.

Throw in a potential nuclear threat in the form of a dirty nuclear bomb to be detonated somewhere in the United States and it becomes a race to find the culprits before it's too late. With Ryan taking orders from none other than William Cabot, the director of the FBI, played by Morgan Freeman, one of the most charismatic actors of all time, the scene changes dramatically with every new revelation... The problem is, is that this change seems to occur a little too quickly. I mean, come on, granted, they have two hours within this film to bring us up to speed, but a lot of it seems to happen all at once, making you lose the flow of the plot. I had a little trouble trying to wrap my head around what was happening, and wondering why certain... "unnecessary" scenes were thrown in to make things connect together.

Freeman is great as Cabot, he plays the role well, and had me convinced of his leadership and ability to command, but then again, he seems to have that effect, doesn't he? I'm not sure what it is about him, but he seems to embody every role with such confidence. His demeanor in the film is such that he comes across as dry, but humorous when he needs to be. It makes the audience side with him and treat him as someone other than a cold and heartless man who is only concerned about his job. Thus, kudos to Freeman, as per usual.

Affleck... Ben Affleck, does he pull it off as a former military man turned CIA analyst? Yes and no. He works well as Jack Ryan, but having first seen  Patriot Games many years ago, I half-expected some of the grittiness of Harrison Ford to seep into his younger counterpart. Not so, as he seems somewhat unsure and  unready to tackle things head on; which kinda conflicts with his military history. It's not convincing enough, very amateurish, kinda like watching a newly-born giraffe get on his feet for the first time and walking. He kinda stumbles through the plot and discovers various things by pure accident, albeit a lot of it through secondary characters that seem to favor the odds to complete serendipity than focused research.

My final focus is on James Cromwell... This man has played presidents here and there, from West Wing as D. Wire Newman, to RFK, as Lyndon B. Johnson, and now as President J. Robert Fowler. My God, Fowler is a hard-ass, he's stubborn, he's emotional, he's a tortured soul... He's brilliant. I think having had played presidents after this one has confirmed his fit for such a role. Normally when I think of Cromwell, I think of peaceful characters, but he amazingly pushes through regardless of the madness around him. Cromwell is convincing enough to follow through.

Secondary characters abound, the convenience of Grushkov coming through towards the end, as well as the set up of the initial encoutner between Neremov and Ryan kinda spoils it toward the end. I also found the logic of the "engagement" between Ryan and his girlfriend a little strange, especially considering that they had only been together a few weeks according to the film (maybe I heard it wrong, but it seemed a little quick to me!)

Given the pace and the cast of the film, I was tempted to score high, but I'm compelled to score it three and a half stars as I'm not thoroughly convinced that they pulled it off completely, sure, it was wrapped up towards the end, but a little too neatly... It gave me one of those involuntary cringes when I discovered this tying up, and as a result I'm sticking to my guns. The Sum of All Fears as a result, get 3½ stars.

Les Miserables (2012)

Running Time: 158 minutes.
Media: Cinematic release (Hoyts Broadway)


True story, when I was seven, my mother had a number of books in French that I was interested in reading... There was Around the World in 80 Days, The Three Musketeers, From the Earth to the Moon, and Les Miserables. I couldn't help asking my mother "Who's Les? He's got a pretty awful surname...?"

Alright, you can stop laughing... I did think it was a pretty unfortunate surname. And I never thought to see the musical until recently, and now that I have seen this adaptation, I would love the opportunity to see this once it makes its way back to Australia... that and Avenue Q, but I digress...

I was really happy about seeing this widescreen, and I knew that being a 2½-plus hour movie, the category of "EPIC!" would consistently flash in my head as I watched it, I made myself comfortable. Being a late session there weren't many people around... in fact I would have been surprised if there were no more than ten people in this particular cinema. This made for a wonderful viewing session.

Moving on, Les Mis has managed to garner nine (count them, nine) BAFTA Awards, including Best Film, Best British Film, Best Actor in a Leading Role and Best Actress in a Supporting Role and eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress. Now given that Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway have already won Golden Globe Awards for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress respectively, the odds of them bagging an Oscar each this year are quite high... I wouldn't be surprised if this movie gets a clean sweep.

For those living under a rock, Les Mis, is the story of the struggle of one Jean Valjean (played by Hugh Jackman), who has made a promise to a former and now dead worker of his to look after her illegitimate daughter. Valjean is also on the run from parole after serving a nineteen year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread... Times were harsh back in pre-revolutionary France. Valjean's nemesis is a prison guard, Javert (played by Russell Crowe), who has made it his life's work to hunt Valjean down and bring him back to jail for breaking parole.

Cosette, played by the ever adorable Amanda Seyfried is the adopted daughter of Valjean, with her mother, Fantine, played by Anne Hathaway. The musical is such that very little of the script is spoken, it's sung through pretty much from beginning to end... which kinda reminded me of how it was with Evita. The music is wonderful and it captures your heart, because it is bubbling with raw emotion... especially from Jackman and Hathaway... all other characters kinda pale in comparison... Russell Crowe less so, seeing that a number of critics have said that his only real musical experience stems from his involvement in his band 30 Odd Foot Of Grunts, and an assortment of random appearances... But you know what? He pulls it off just fine, I like his performance as Javert. Javert is a very troubled character, and as a result, the singing must follow in a similar manner to reveal the character through their music. Valjean is hurried and passionate and loving and determined for survival, and his singing conveys that. Javert's character is focused and troubled at the same time, with an obsessive streak with finding Valjean and bringing him to justice, and Crowe's singing conveys this too.

Hathaway's... just... extraordinary, I had to shake my head in disbelief in how beautiful and heart wrenching it was... It put Susan Boyle's rendition to shame. Fantine (Hathaway's character) is only focused on one thing, not herself, but the life of her daughter, Cosette. She's literally sacrificed herself so that he daughter could live. I believe her portrayal of Fantine. I wanted to cry, I really did.

Jackman, though said by a number of critics as "not as good" as his 1985-1987 London production counterpart, Colm Wilkinson, is actually remarkable, he embodies that role... and he's quite believable. What I was surprised about though was how he managed to shape up for the role. He actually lost 15 pounds (6½ kilos), to become the gaunt and emaciated ex-convict Jean Valjean, and gained 30 pounds (13 kilos), to become the mayor, Monsieur Madeleine, the new identity adopted by Valjean. Jackman is known for the vigorous regimes he undertakes for certain roles. He had a similar regime when he underwent a high intensity weight training regimen to improve his physique for the role of Wolverine in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. He altered the training program to shock his body into change and also performed cardiovascular workouts. So that shot of him as Wolverine rising from the tank after having his bones infused with adamantium - no digital touches whatsoever.


Rusty's portrayal of Javert is complex, but you kinda feel sorry for him after realizing he (Javert) is only just trying to do his job... He's taken a lot of flack for his performance, and I can see why some people may think that way, but I feel he gave it his all in this role; and while though that may not be enough for some, without Javert there can be no Jean Valjean. For those who don't care, look towards the end of the film at Javert's final scene where his soliloquy kinda makes you understand why he spent all that time chasing Valjean, and the inevitable demise thereafter, but prepare to cringe at the very moment.

There are a few surprises scattered here and there throughout the film. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play Monsieur and Madame Thénardier; and they previously starred together in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, so their ability to work together musically is surprisingly upbeat. Bonham Carter looks like she tends to, a bit necrotic... She does star as a number of unusual roles, doesn't she? But she works well as Cohen's husband on-screen. Cohen works wonders as Monsieur Thénardier, and I think kinda steals the scenes he's in. He's a hidden jewel in the movie... a built in "easter egg" of sorts.

Who else, oh yes... For those playing at home, the Bishop is indeed Colm Wilkinson, the original Jean Valjean from the London production back in the 80's. I hear there's also a cameo of Frances Ruffelle as a prostitute who harasses Fantine, but I have yet to find her. I almost squealed in my seat when I did, not that the other ten or so audience members noticed... Being a late session I enjoyed this movie without much interruption, and I enjoyed it so much, I almost came close to singing along... But I didn't, but any musical that makes you feel like doing so must deserve some sort of credit for moving you.

That is why I am giving Les Miserables a 4½ star rating. It comes very close, but there's a feeling that it doesn't quite give you the opportunity to sit back and take in the performances, it's almost as if it wanted to finish a lot sooner than expected. I may also be docking the ½ a star due to the slight tranquilizing effect that Crowe gives as Javert in certain scenes. Although he does well for what I believe is his first musical, he doesn't bring it home. Sorry Rusty, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed your performance, but I feel that somehow you seemed a little subdued in the final edit; that could very well have been to direct our attention to Hugh, who knows? Four and a half stars.

Hop

Running Time: 95 minutes.
Media: DVD.

Be warned, I did give this movie 2 stars. Why? I mean sure, it's got cute little bunnies, cute little chicks, well... a whole heap of cute little chicks and one larger Spanish speaking chick; and Kaley Cuoco... but it kinda screws up within the first minute of it playing.

James Marsden does a little narration, only to throw in the biggest spoiler of the movie some thirty seconds into the movie. To me, it sounds like a bit of a dig. Why give it away? I don't know why Universal Pictures thought this was a good idea... After all, the focus, according to the previews of this movie that  had seen was all about our furry friend here, E.B., played by Russell Brand. It eventually gets turned around to be a stronger focus on Marsden's character of Fred O'Hare, a slacker in Hollywood who lives with his parents, Gary Cole and Elizabeth Perkins.

Now, I was under the impression that this movie was meant to detail E.B.'s strain with his father, a real square, and the Easter Bunny, played by a very not-so-square Hugh Laurie, who wants to pass the torch down to E.B. and make him the Easter Bunny Elect so to speak. E.B. is not so happy with the idea, wanting to be a famous drummer. And dammit, there's only one way he can do it, by leaving Easter Island (what a brilliant location for the Easter Bunny and his son!) and going to Hollywood to make his dreams come true.

E.B. meets up with Fred and causes a little chaos for him, only for Fred to still help him with getting onto Hoff Knows Talent, a talent show in which it seems David Hasselhoff has stripped away possible co-hosts and plans on doing the job himself. And speaking of which, Carlos, the second in command to the Easter Bunny, wants the head job himself... only to really do away with sending kids chocolate eggs and candy, only to replace it with bird seed, dried crickets and worms... Now, while I appreciate Carlos' thoughts on nutrition, and I admit, crickets are nicer when they're deep fried (they taste like chicken), I'd rather have the chocolate. E.B. and Fred do what they can to stop Carlos' reign of error (that's no typo, it actually says "error", play on words), only for both E.B. and Fred both being given the title of co-Easter Bunnies... Trust me, I'm not spoiling it for anyone here, Marsden gave it away at the beginning of the film. I'm actually surprised to see it come to bear fruit at the end of the film.

Where to begin, where to begin... Okay, good points... Number one, Russell Brand's portrayal of E.B., brilliant choice in casting, I wouldn't have picked anyone else... but the funny thing is, I didn't really think it as Russell's voice, it was just a beautiful meld of fur and funny... Russell Brand is pretty much the rock star of the comedy world; and E.B. is the rock star of the bunny world. It's a nice smush of characteristics and it goes so well... like... fried eggs and Tabasco sauce...

Number two, Kaley Cuoco, she's cute, and she's got a lot of promise, and in this film she's Fred's sister... But sadly, she's not in the film as much as I would have thought... the film does focus on Fred and E.B. a lot but not much on the supplementary characters... a bit of a disappointment, but it's nice to see Cuoco in something other than The Big Bang Theory...

Number three, Hugh Laurie as the Easter Bunny... He's regal, majestic and carries the fate of Easter on his ears... I mean, shoulders... And yet he can put a brilliant spin on a role as equivocal as that of the Easter Bunny... Just as good as Mr. Bunny as he was as Dr. Cockroach, PhD in Monsters vs. Aliens.

Bad points... Gary Cole and Elizabeth Perkins, it's great they've been portrayed as parents, but it all seems so damn bubblegum... it honestly made me want to go back in time to the 1980's and barf... A movie like this... no, but I could honestly see these two being recast as Ward and June Cleaver in a new Leave it to Beaver movie.

Next bad point, Tiffany Espenson as Alex O'Hare, Fred's adopted younger sister... nice idea, but no... She's meant to be cute, adorable and more cute and more adorable... Please cue the puke noises again... I understand that she was there to add further character development to Fred because she was only there because of some play where she plays "Peter Cottontail" with tone deafness, but that's all she is, padding...

Next bad point, Fred wants to be the Easter Bunny? He wants that job?? The logic of this is kinda sick... inclusive of him hanging onto a twenty year-old chocolate bunny that was given to him upon seeing E.B.'s dad when he was like, six or something... Twenty year old chocolate... honestly? Who does that?

Final bad point, and this kinda poops on the whole concept of Easter,  and Christmas in the one go... more so than E.B.'s ability to poop candy jellybeans... The Easter Bunny drives a sleigh, at night, pulled by a bunch of magical flying yellow chicks... I can only shake my head at this in disappointment in response.

Hop runs for 95 minutes, which tends to put it in the children's maximum enjoyment level before they want to go play outside or before they ask mommy for a McHappy meal. I actually liked parts of it, but not all of it... the only real stars in this were Brand and Laurie; everyone else kinda brought it down several levels. Granted the animation is fantastic, as is the interaction between Marsden and a cartoon bunny, but that's as far as the enjoyment goes... As a result, and as much as I want to poop on a movie starring both Hugh Laurie and Russell Brand, Hop gets a two star rating.

Looper

Running Time: 118 minutes.

Media: Cinematic release.

Now I have to confess, I was a little slack in reviewing this film when I had the opportunity, but I did have a trip to Hawaii some few days after and no opportunity to boot up the blog and make it happen. This film has recently been released on DVD and Blu-Ray, so I recommend that you consider purchasing it.

"Recommend?" you hear me say... Does that mean that the Movie Madman is endorsing this movie? He is indeed, endorsing this movie. I actually found it quite an interesting one, albeit with some reservations, which I'll explain later. But then again, I am a science fiction fan (as opposed to being a science fiction freak), and this movie does play on the concept of time travel fairly well. The trick is with this movie is to bear in mind that there are certain sequences that must be considered in a certain order when watching the film. It also kinda helps if a diagram such as the one below, is drawn to help you understand what's going on. This kind of timeline in comparison to that of, say, the timeline of Primer, is tame in comparison. Take a deep breath before clicking that previous link, you have been duly warned.

We don't need no stinkin' Deloreans!

So how did this story line come about? Well, here's the Cliff Notes version. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays the role of a hired assassin, Joe, who eventually has the opportunity to retire from the business when he shoots his future self sent back in time. Only drawback is, of course, that he would naturally know that some thirty years down the track he'll be sent through time to be shot by his younger self.

Now, here's the clincher. Bruce Willis, action hero extraordinaire, plays the older version of Joe. He's purposely sent himself back in time, not to get shot, but to kill the guy that eventually got his wife killed, who is at this point in Young Joe's life is just a little kid. So we have a young assassin trying to kill his older self who in turn is trying to kill some kid. Sounds a bit far-fetched, but that's only the time travel talking. You kinda get used to the ride once you start recognizing what's happening and when.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, what can I say about this guy that I haven't previously? In the last three years, he's appeared in Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, Looper and Lincoln. He's made his performance in this recent film an incredible one and he just keeps on ticking, adding more and more to his repertoire. He's a fairly high commodity right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is just his way of warming up! JGL's performance as the younger version of "Joe" is remarkable, even down to the prostheses he wore to resemble a young Bruce Willis. He actually has a kind of James Dean look about him, and the nuances and voice intonation are remarkable. Throughout the majority of the movie, his demeanor is very calm and collected and that just added another level to it all. The chemistry between JGL and Willis is perfect, showing to sides of the same coin, though showing it some thirty years apart, and it works.

As to Bruce Willis, the man does not give up, A Good Day to Die Hard will be appearing in cinemas in 2013, and as far as I can tell John McClane's ex-wife is still yet to thank him for saving her life... Twice... As per usual his ability to play action hero pays off in playing the role of an action anti-hero, per se; or better yet, playing the role of villain without being the actual villain. I wish I could elaborate on that, but it's a little difficult to do so. Let's just say that he's a victim of circumstance. The role of Old Joe is corrupted enough to suit Willis, who seldom plays bad guys, to help portray him in the light best suited to view him as someone who didn't want to be bad, but had to be in order to get back what he lost so undeservingly. You almost feel sorry for the guy, who has risked everything to turn back the clock, quite literally. But OMG, there's a scene later on in the film where you see some serious need for anger management classes. He really lets his rage fly and that only brings us a little closer to understanding how much he's lost and what he'd do to get it back.

And speaking of anger management, Whoooooo! It seems the rage thing is a common trend in this film, the kid I mentioned earlier that Joe Senior has to kill off... I wouldn't want to piss this kid off, because his rage is some serious s[CENSORED]t right there, let me tell you. He makes the stuff that you see with Jean Grey at the start of X-Men 3 seem timid in comparison. Though he didn't really capture my heart either... Part of me kinda wishes Older Joe had succeeded because this kid is a bit of brat behaviorally, or in need of some serious mood-controlling medication.

Oh, and how did Emily Blunt get an American accent all of a sudden? I was kinda shocked to hear that kind of enunciation from her... Not that I was disappointed with it, far from it, I was just very surprised. She plays the role of the kid's mother who plays some pivotal role in this time travel affair. She's very nice in the film, although, she was waving a shotgun in the direction of JGL... It doesn't cancel one another out but she's seriously got issues with getting close to people, if the first date involves waving a shotgun in your face. She's very different to how I remember her from The Devil Wears Prada. Throw in a few second rate characters like those played by Jeff Daniels and Piper Perabo and... who haven't appeared in much lately and you have a semi-plausible cast who do make the plot move forward, but not with the enthusiasm I had originally anticipated with this movie.

As much as I liked Looper I have to confess I didn't really love it. The movie starts off well and gives a full rundown of how the time travel schtick works, but it seems to hurry up and try to sort everything out as quickly and neatly as possible. Angry kid, Joe Senior and a number of baddies resolve to do this with bullets and explosions and a couple of grunts here and there and the final ending as performed by Gordon-Levitt actually kinda serves as a sigh of relief for the film but also for the audience. I actually was glad that it ended when it did. I'm sure it did well in the box office, last check I made it had reached over $166 million in the States, but I don't think this was from repeat viewers; and if it was it was from geeks who were desperately trying to understand the timeline. I am awarding Looper 3½ stars for a valiant effort, but with a very haphazard rush to the finish with a cast of characters that seriously need a Valium or two to settle down...