Looper

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Looper

Release Date:  28 September 2012                                                      Runtime:  119 Minutes              

Review Date:  25 November 2012                                                       Rating:  4 (of 6)

Looper is different and interesting.

Make-up on Joseph Gordon-Levitt to make him appear as a young version of Bruce Willis was well done.  In fact, if I wasn’t familiar with Gordon-Levitt, I would believe he really looked that way.  Sharing very little screen time, it was also amusing to see that Gordon-Levitt adapted many of Willis’s facial expressions, many of which weren’t even used by Willis himself in this film, which makes me imagine Gordon-Levitt sitting and studying old Willis flicks to get them down pat.

The identity of the ultimate villain, The Rainmaker, is predictable as is the method The Rainmaker used to employ his success.  Not that predictability is necessarily a bad thing--one does want such things to be realistic within the context of the story.

There is one fatal flaw that defies common sense, but corrected would demise the entire storyline:  Knowing your employees might even have the slightest aversion to eliminating their future selves, why not have someone else carry out the deed?  Hypothetically, send future Looper A to present Looper C to be killed.  Then send future Looper C to present Looper A for him to assassinate.  Little to no sentimentality there and no potential problems.

The logic to the film’s resolution is also off kilter.  Present Joe imagines the outcome of the world Future Joe came from as having been a result of things they are both currently experiencing.  That is nonfactual, as we’ve seen a flashback/flashforward of how Present Joe originally became Future Joe and nothing in that timeline was due to the course they are both on now.  As such, Present Joe’s sentiment and resulting solution are misguided and I imagine do not have the effect he intended, though that is left up for the individual viewer to contemplate.

Wreck-It Ralph

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Wreck-It Ralph

Release Date:  2 November 2012                                                           Runtime:  101 Minutes  

Review Date:  13 November 2012                                                          Rating:  3 (of 6)

 

A Toy Story it is not, Wreck-It Ralph strays and could use a Fix-It-Felix to get it back on track.

The trailer was misleading—seemingly, a villain wants to become heralded as the good guy, as lamented to a video game character cameo-laden support group, and he goes game hopping to do so.

However, in actuality, Ralph only hops into two—the fictitious Honor’s Duty and Sugar Rush.  The cameos seen in the trailer are pretty much the extent, the support group scene extended and the scenario returned to a second time.  There was one other clever prolonged cameo that lasted a scene that I won’t spoil but other than that, a second here, a glimpse there is the scope of the others.

Don’t get me wrong, I get it—Disney wants to merchandise their own original creations, not someone else’s.  They make more money that way.  I had just hoped I’d be seeing more of the likes of Q*Bert.  I mean, Sonic the Hedgehog is on their movie posters but not even really in the movie at all, only appearing briefly on a TV screen, not even in person if you will*.  And since you’ve got at least 5 games of yesteryear represented on the movie posters, you’d think they’d have a larger role.

While you’d expect a movie titled “Wreck-It Ralph” to be about Ralph’s journey, at one point you begin to feel it’s just as much Vanellope’s story, at times even more so, overshadowing Ralph’s.  I get the intention and sentiment that in order to redeem himself he needs to help someone just as much a misfit and put them first but the way it’s executed just feels like wandering.

Not a bad flick, but not quite the one I wanted to see.  And certainly not the one I wanted to hear—the soundtrack was very annoying.  I think maybe they’d term it “saccharine” but I believe in the past that label applied to some music I actually like.  Instead, it was more like nails on a chalkboard.

I did, however, enjoy the 3D aspect.  I also liked the animated short that preceded the movie.  I didn’t see Tangled in the theater to see if this is a reoccurring thing for the new Disney Animation Studios, but it’s a welcomed page from the Pixar playbook.

*I have read others noting he appeared two other times as well, but that just goes to show how easily missed/forgotten these spots were.

Frankenweenie

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Frankenweenie

Release Date:  5 October 2012                                                               Runtime:  87 Minutes              

Review Date:  11 November 2012                                                           Rating:  2

 

More bland than ParaNorman, Frankenweenie lacks momentum right out of the gate.  Slow and steady does not win this race.

ParaNorman

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

by Frederick William Springer III

 

ParaNorman

Release Date:  17 August 2012                                                            Runtime:  92 Minutes              

Review Date:  2 November 2012                                                          Rating:  2 (of 6)

 

More trick than treat, I walk away from ParaNorman with a sense of “blah.”  I cracked a smile at the vending machine scene and left all but completely emotionless throughout the rest. 

The rest of the audience laughing away here and there leaves me wondering if I have such a great disconnect with common man or if the rest of humanity is so easily amused.